thom@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu (Thom Gillespie) (02/23/91)
I apologize in advance for the length of this posting but it does concern two issues which can't be dealt with in discrete screenfuls: the relationship of war, technology, and society, and censorship in the discussion group comp.society. SOME BACKGROUND After the war began there was a posting which wondered how computer weapons designers felt about their contribution to the war effort. A variety of responses came back ranging from "I'm proud to have designed the Patriot" to "Are designers responsible for the blood which is shed?" I suggested that the entire war was controlled by computers, not just the 'smart' bombs, but the entire news media, data base management, decision support, war games simulations, etc -- this is a 'computer' war. By way of example I offered the Israeli, country arrest of the Palestinians. I wondered what database management systems were in place to track suspected Palestinians, etc. It seemed obvious to me that names were not being kept on scratch paper. The mistake I made was assuming that the Palestinian lockup was standard knowledge since I read it on the Activ-L listserv, heard it on the National Public Radio program "Fresh Air", and read it in the New York Times and San Francisco Chronicle -- this looked like public knowledge to me. This was when I was first asked to re-write my posting to comp.society. I was stunned by this request. Dave Taylor wrote me a civil reply questioning where this information came from and I told him. He suggested I rewrite my posting to 'make it stronger.' I declined and asked that it be posted as written, which he did -- 4 days after I submitted it. I then submitted a posting asking whether weapons designers have a responsibility to ask them selves if what they are doing every moment of their lives is worth doing in the end, particularly if what they are doing is designing devices to destroy life. After this posting comp.society fell mute but my mail box went nuts. All sort of messages were sent suggesting that I can't suggest this sort of consideration because "I eat meat", "If I'm against war weapons designers I'm also against researchers who are designing weapons to fight the Aides virus because Aides is a form of life", and "Being a vegetarian also destroys life." My next posting to comp.society was a summation of my strange mail - - with no names or identifiers -- and a wondering why the believers of these points of view didn't post their observations to the net so we could consider them. After all, this discussion evolved from discussion on comp.society about the relationship of war, society, and technology. Again a long delay, and then a note from Dave that he was sorry but he was getting too much mail and the discussion no longer had anything to do with comp.society, My messages were purely political and anti-war. I accused him of censoring information demanded to have a discussion of censorship in comp.society. I received the following reply: *** Dave's reply to Thom *** *Thom, * I'm sorry, but you have the wrong model of what comp.society/The *Computers and Society Digest is; I'm not a facilitator obliged to accept *and forward any postings that are submitted, but instead, it's an online *magazine, and I'm the editor. As a result, I am not interested in having *a discussion of censorship in this context as I don't believe it will *add to the topic of technology and society, which is, after all, the *point of the group and the reason people read it. Further, I don't believe *that it *is* censorship. If you submit an article to a journal and they *decline to publish it because it isn't their editorial topic, are they *therefore censoring you? * * Just like more traditional media, Usenet readers (and, by extension, *BITNET digest subscribers) are free to read and participate in as many *different forums as they can, and, just like more traditional media, if *you fundamentally don't agree with the editorial decisions of a particular *journal, you can unsubscribe. Frankly, though, I'd hate to lose you as *you bring a valuable insight and voice to the discussions we have. * * However, I have received a number of strongly worded complaints *about the tone of the current anti-military-employment discussion, and *the related war debate, and I concur with them that much of what is *being debated simply isn't in the purview of the group. * * Comp.society would be open for a discussion of the additional *problems that electronic media add to the already thorny issue of censorship. *We'd be most interested in discussion about the technological implications *of Desert Storm (and the Iraqi defense/offense). We'd also be very *interested in analysis of the media coverage of the war, especially as it *ties in with the reality and fantasy of high-speed "you are there" *communications and reporting. * * But debate on the appropriateness of the war is really best left *for another group and another venue. * * I mean, clearly, I *care* a lot about what's going on. I also *don't blindly swallow the jingoistic crap that is floating about this *country, with the popular revisionist historical perspective (Hussein *has *always* been bad, the press trumpets, for example). In fact, I *share my concerns and talk about my perspective as a journalist and *professional writer and analyst with others in an online forum. Except *it's not comp.society, but the Communications Research and Theory *Network (CRTNet), a group where analysis of communications and the *ramification on support of the war is appropriate. * * And if I wanted to talk about the war itself online, I would *no doubt participate in alt.desert-storm, or some politics group. I *do not. Instead, I share my concerns, discuss my feelings, and air *my political views with my friends and in small gatherings of like, *and sometimes unlike, minded folk. * * I don't, however, use comp.society as a forum for political *views, political debate, and issues not related to the impact of *computers and technology on society. * * Keeping the readership in mind is more than simply being *willing to post any article that shows up in my mailbox, Thom. I take *this responsibility quite seriously, and I would hope that I manage *to run one of the best newsgroups on the net. I know that we have *readers throughout the world, including people at the Congressional *Office of Technology Assessment, the National Science Foundation, and *many other government offices throughout the US and the world. One *reason for this, I strongly believe, is that we keep a level of *rational discourse, without delving into hyperbole and diatribe. * * I again encourage you to respond to this, to let me know how *you view what I'm saying and such; and I further strongly support *your continued participation in comp.society. Just stick with *topics that are relevant for the readership of the group, and remember *that there *are* other forums and media if it doesn't quite fit. * * Sincerely, * * -- Dave Taylor **** I wrote a reply which Dave summarized here in return mail to me which was also not posted , it includes his response. >Thoms reply... > Dave, you aren't my editor, I already have one of those, you are my > censor and this is at the heart of computers in society. ... > I'd like this discussed in public in complete context -- we are definitely > talking about computers and society at this point. *Okay, here's the deal, Thom; * * You submit an article that talks about what we've been going * back and forth on, in any vein you'd like, for distribution, and * I'll post it and follow up with my own views and perspective. * *Further than that, I still contend that a discussion of the politics *of the war, per se, is inappropriate for comp.society. I send back *about 30% to 40% of the articles that are submitted, and many of those *are because of inappropriate content or topics. Clearly, it's a *judgement call on my part, but I believe that some sort of editorial *direction is required for the group to function as it does, and so... * *As you note, clearly, there's a lot that's war-related that is right *on topic with computers and society, including the whole issue of *"right employment" (a topic that's come up before in this forum). But, *again, it's a fine line between talking about that and talking about the *larger question of whether war is an appropriate way to solve problems *that should be resolved diplomatically, which is *not* a topic for a *group talking about computers and society. *Anyway, I'll take this discussion public with you if you'd like. It *will be quite useful, and probably enlightening, for me to read the *feelings and views of those people who will respond to our discussion, *giving us both a further perspective on the situation. * * Happy Presidents Day. *wry grin* * * -- Dave * *ps: just to point out something that should be obvious, I certainly * harbor no animosity towards you, Thom, and whatever ends up * happening with this discussion, I would still be interested in * getting together with you some time to talk about the world at * large, and the bits we co-inhabit... **** I replied that I never thought that he, Dave, harbored any animosity toward me and I appreciated the chance to reply on the net. While Dave feels "...We'd be most interested in discussion about the technological implications.." (who is this 'We'?), the name of this group is comp.society -- it extends to society as well as technology. I feel that every thing discussed had to do with computers and society, the purview of this discussion group. He chose to label my postings as political which is not how I viewed them. I choose to write to this group because it is concerned with technology and society -- the technology by itself bores me but the applications of this technology to human ends interests me to no end since it seems to threatens life on the planet -- the war being a great example. I do not buy Dave's view that "... debate on the appropriateness of the war is really best left for another group and another venue." I am not schizophrenic enough to talk about the technology apart from the impact on life. It is an impact which few technologists are willing to acknowledge, -- passing pointers can can kill. What other discussion group is there to discuss computers and society if not comp.society? You can only subdivide discussion so far and then they becomes meaningless, mechanical, algorithmic, rhetorical, abstract -- and blood free. I think that there is a relationship between what people do at their desks and the bodies on the ground in Iraq. But, equally as disturbing to me was the fact that I had an "editor" on the net. I always thought there were moderators, people who lead and gently directed discussion. From my perspective I can see that Dave is using the editor/print metaphor to either direct his activities on the net or apologize for his actions. If he used the more closely related metaphor of the radio/tv moderator then Dave might have included his thoughts on the direction the discussion was taking or he would have allowed the net to 'self-correct' -- flames and other prompts, which I find normal. It also should be pointed out that there is 'very little' discussion on this conference, nothing that would suggest that the traffic was out of hand and needed an iron ruler. I think Dave's suggestion that he censors "about 30% to 40% of the articles that are submitted" is way out of line. Which brings me to my next point which is directed at news.admin folks. Does a Usenet moderator "own" a discussion group for life? What mechanisms are in place for changing moderators - I'm not suggesting ousting Dave, I find him reluctantly moderate and a gentle correspondent -- but I am wondering if franchising a person for life on Usenet makes sense considering the importance of Internet discussion in current events -- Tiennamen Sq. & the Gulf. Do any discussion groups have elections? It was suggested by Dave and by another fellow from New.groups that I unsubscribe if I don't agree with the moderator, but I like comp.society. This is where I want to read and what I want to discuss: computers in society. I don't want to be anywhere else. I'd appreciate it if this discussion happened on comp.society and not in my mailbox. Thanks Dave. Thom Gillespie
bradley@cs.utexas.edu (Bradley L. Richards) (02/25/91)
I think we have two intertwined questions here: 1. What is the role of a moderator in a newsgroup. 2. What is appropriate for discussion on comp.society. I'd like to discuss the first question. I have to agree with the analogy of a magazine editor for the moderator. The whole reason that all articles are sent through the moderator rather than posted directly to the group is to allow the moderator to select and post only those articles deemed most relevant and interesting to the group. This keeps the bandwidth down and the newsgroup on track. Allowing the discussion to follow whatever topic is "hot" at the moment is what periodically turns half of the newgroups I *used* to subscribe to into an abortion debate. Abortion, war, and many other topics are very important and deserve to be discussed. But preferably in the appropriate forums. I have to admit that I was peeved when an article I'd put a lot of thought into wasn't posted to comp.society. But thinking back on it, the article didn't once discuss technology--it was solely a response to political issues. Hence, while it made sense as part of the discussion we were having, it wasn't relevant to comp.society, and the moderator chose to draw the line. Is this censorship? I don't think so. We would have censorship if the Usenet refused to allow any discussion of a topic in *any* newsgroup. It is probably censorship when companies, universities, or government agencies refuse to carry certain entire segments of the newsgroups. It would certainly be censorship if a group moderator refused to post relevant articles representing a particular viewpoint. But that doesn't seem to be the case in comp.society. Bradley
thom@dewey.soe.Berkeley.EDU (Thom Gillespie) (02/26/91)
Bradley Richards writes: > I have to agree with the analogy of a magazine editor for the moderator. > The whole reason that all articles are sent through the moderator rather > than posted directly to the group is to allow the moderator to select > and post only those articles deemed most relevant and interesting to the > group. This keeps the bandwidth down and the newsgroup on track. Traditionally a new medium makes the older medium the content of the new medium,e.g. Photography took painting as it's content, film took theater, radio took print, TV took radio, etc The old content of computer assisted communication is tv -- the moderator. I've never heard of a newspaper editor being called a moderator -- it is a TV term. I felt that Dave was seriously mixing his metaphors by skipping back to editor as the metaphor for what happens on the net. Dave has mentioned on a number of occasions that he is a journalist, so it would be natural for him to think in terms of editor. I was suggesting that if you accept the term moderator then you accept the function of a moderator -- a guider of discussion. And again the net is 'self-correcting', when discussion become out of line either folks stop replying or they suggest that discussion go elsewhere -- follow up responses are often cross-posted. Thom
jane@aipna.ed.ac.uk (Jane Hesketh) (02/28/91)
Thom Gillespie writes, in response to a note from Dave Taylor: > As you note, clearly, there's a lot that's war-related that is right > on topic with computers and society, including the whole issue of > "right employment" (a topic that's come up before in this forum). But, > again, it's a fine line between talking about that and talking about the > larger question of whether war is an appropriate way to solve problems > that should be resolved diplomatically, which is *not* a topic for a > group talking about computers and society. There is a philosophical difference here between - those who prefer to reduce topics into their components for analysis and get a view on some uncluttered problems, which they can bolt back together again (some people even believe the components are absolutely separable) and - those who believe that the analysis of the combined whole cannot be achieved like this, since it is inseparable, and any attempt to address isolated bits will be flawed. I support the second view. In this case, it's not just a question of whether war is an appropriate way to tackle diplomatic problems - who said "war is just diplomacy by another means"? The whole apparatus enabling conducting a war got there by design. Weapons and command systems all selected to suit possible wars, threats and support for the military-economic infrastructure. It's not as if the politicians sit around minding their own business and get a surprise one day when someone mentions they just happen to have amassed the Armed Forces with a spare several billion they found in a bit of the budget no-one was using. And the whatever the military and associated scientists and companies are able to come up with affects the diplomatic options. I expect comp.society to be a forum for discussion for all the inter-relations of computers and society. As far as I am concerned problems influence technology, and technology influences problems in complex ways, they are different aspects of some entity and I want to consider it whole. I am happy to focus on some areas more than others for the sake of a coherent discussion, but I never want to deny essential connectedness. Jane Hesketh
jhess@orion.oac.uci.edu (James Hess) (03/01/91)
It seems to me that it is impossible to talk about the social implications of computing without recognizing that these implications have political aspects. I agree with Dave that general discussions of justification of war belong in other groups. Discussions of the impact of computers on war and other political processes belong here. (Such as the Computers, Freedom, and Privacy conference. This might include discussion of the structure and funding of the computer industry and research as it relates to various political processes. The question of whether or not employees of the industry are aware of the social and political aspects of computerization belongs here. I don't believe that discussion of individual morality is best addressed here; an agile imagination can relate any type of employment to moral implications. For instance, is working at MacDonald's support for the destruction of South American rain forests? I think Dave has some authority and responsibility to keep the newsgroup focused, but maybe redirecting the discussion is better than cutting it off except in cases of extreme divergence. Jim Hess P.S. Dave recently returned one of my submissions on the apparent tendency of libertarians to be engineers and computer scientists. If there is such a relationship, and it is connected to the methods of analysis or types of systems studied by computer experts, I think it has a place here. I re-posted it on alt.individualism, however, and am having great fun with it there. I don't feel censored; it is reasonable and possibly more efficient for forums to specialize.
werner@rascal.ics.utexas.edu (Werner Uhrig) (03/05/91)
I find the article by Thom Gillespie interesting as it describes a (probably not uncommon) problem in all moderated newsgroups: the moderator tries to keep out "noise"-articles, articles for which s/he believes that they do no belong into his group (after all, that's why most groups are moderated). (I am not sure that Dave did, but) I would hope that most any "rejection note" by a moderator includes a "let's discuss it if you object strongly to my decision" remark. And I am completely satisfied that if a submitter makes a rational enough argument, the moderator decides to post the arguement and original article after all, even if he disagrees. Given the outcome (that a sufficiently insistent author gets his article published after all) not as an indication that the system of moderated groups is failing, but rather that it is working "very well, thank you". My compliments to both Thom (rabble-rousing author) and Dave (suspected policeman/moderator) :-) Werner ps: if Dave had insisted to refuse posting Thom's article, I would have been unhappy though!