nick@cs.hw.ac.uk (Nick Taylor) (12/06/88)
In article <2367@ficc.uu.net>, jeffd@ficc.uu.net (Jeff Daiell) writes : > In article <2062@brahma.cs.hw.ac.uk>, nick@cs.hw.ac.uk (Nick Taylor) once > again drags out the tired old canard that our only choices (in this case, > on computer network provision), are Big Brother and Big Business. > > I submit that the needs of computerdom would better be served by > small firms, competing and/or cooperating as dictated by their interests. I submit that small businesses are just as likely (if not moreso) to see it as in their best interests to accept megabucks from Big Brother as Big Business is. I would further submit that Big Business might well see it as in their best interests to take over these small businesses. Who, if anyone, will be able to stop them? Oh no, we're back with Big Brother again! Jeff seems to regard it as axiomatic that the government of the USA equals Big Brother. Why? Is it perhaps to do with Watergate, Irangate, etc? Do not permit the open manner in which these scandals were investigated to blind you to the fact that the business community is composed of the same type of people only they are much more loath to do their dirty washing in public! How many small businesses were involved in the Irangate affair? I understood the SUPREME in Supreme Court to imply that it was the highest court in the land. It would appear, from the Missouri case, that it is more akin to the SUPREME in Chicken Supreme! Why has this been allowed to occur? All of the examples put forward by Jeff seem to add up to an indictment of democracy in the USA. Is this really what he feels? How many others feel this way? Now the really awkward question : What are you doing about it? Nick Taylor Department of Computer Science JANET : NICK@UK.AC.HW.CS Heriot-Watt University ARPANET : NICK@CS.HW.AC.UK 79 Grassmarket /\ / o __ /_ UUCP : ...!UKC!CS.HW.AC.UK!NICK Edinburgh EH1 2HJ / \ / / / /__) Tel : +44 31 225 6465 Ext. 491 United Kingdom / \/ (_ (___ / \ Fax : +44 31 449 5153
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (12/09/88)
In article <2082@brahma.cs.hw.ac.uk>, nick@cs.hw.ac.uk (Nick Taylor) writes: > > I submit that small businesses are just as likely ... > to accept megabucks from Big Brother as Big > Business is. This may be true, but irrelevant to the question as to whether a computer network should reside with the legitimate sector of the economy or the coercive sector. > I would further submit that Big Business might well see it as > in their best interests to take over these small businesses. Who, if anyone, > will be able to stop them? Oh no, we're back with Big Brother again! Once again, the way most Big Businesses get to be super-big is with the help of Government. Eliminate Government's power to tilt the economy toward certain segments, and you have more balance. The idea of asking Big Brother to rein in Big Business is like asking a pusher to restrain an addict. > > Jeff seems to regard it as axiomatic that the government of the USA equals > Big Brother. I'm not prejudiced -- I equate every Government on Earth with Big Brother. > ... the business community is composed of the same type of > people ... If the business community is indeed that bad, why give them a juggernaut with which to facilitate their actions, that juggernaut being omnipotent Government? Better to make them earn their gains thru better goods and services than thru political pull. > > I understood the SUPREME in Supreme Court to imply that it was the highest > court in the land. It would appear, from the Missouri case, that it is more > akin to the SUPREME in Chicken Supreme! Why has this been allowed to occur? Because Federal judges are almost all Democans and Republicrats and won't go out of their way to gain justice for anyone else. This was not the first time a Supreme Court ruling in favor of alternative parties has been successfully ignored. > Now the really awkward question : What are you doing about it? Plenty. I write letters to the editor, submit Op-Ed pieces, support or oppose candidates and referendum questions, talk to anyone who will listen, and have twice run for office. I have three small children. It would be nice were they to grow up in a fully free society. Laissez faire, laissez passer. Jeff Daiell (opinions my own) -- "Justice, like lightning, should ever appear To some men hope, to other mean fear." -- Jefferson Pierce
doug@isishq.FIDONET.ORG (Doug Thompson) (12/10/88)
Who controls the network? Is it possible that no one controls it, and furthermore that no one *can* control it? Perhaps we are living in an historical anomaly, but it's pretty clear to me that *this* network (usnet), at *this* time is not subject to much in the way of control. Each machine is controlled by its owner/operator, and there are technical rules that have to be followed for it to work at all, but I think it would be virtually impossible to bar anyone from the net, if that "anyone" were even slightly determined. In a way the phone company controls the network, because many links use telephone lines, but the phone company is not usually interested in what you send over the line unless its illegal. If you or I were communicating something that was defined as illegal, then the courts could order taps on our phone lines, analyse the data, and use it as evidence for prosecution. Say we were using the net to organize a drug smuggling ring? That use could be controlled in exactly the same manner our use of voice telephone for that purpose could be controlled. The control is the same, control of the phone line. Perhaps people are thinking of other kinds of control? Commercial monopolies controlling networking so as to squeeze small companies out of the market, maintain prices at monopolistically high levels? Well, Western Union and Ma Bell provide examples, as does the British and German post office, etc. I'm going to quote some comments by nick@cs.hw.ac.uk (Nick Taylor) >> In article <2367@ficc.uu.net>>, jeffd@ficc.uu.net (Jeff Daiell) writes : >> >>In article <2062@brahma.cs.hw.ac.uk>>, nick@cs.hw.ac.uk (Nick Taylor) >>once again drags out the tired old canard that our only choices (in >>this case, on computer network provision), are Big Brother and Big >>Business. I submit that the needs of computerdom would better be >>served by small firms, competing and/or cooperating as dictated by >>their interests. >I submit that small businesses are just as likely >(if not moreso) to see it as in their best interests to accept >megabucks from Big Brother as Big Business is. I would further submit >that Big Business might well see it as in their best interests to take >over these small businesses. Who, if anyone, will be able to stop >them? Oh no, we're back with Big Brother again! Every epoch of recorded history tells a story of centralization and monopolization of power, generally only limited by geographic restraints or other imperial centres. Various powerful groups struggle with each other for control of anything deemed to be worth controlling; anything that could produce wealth, military might, etc. Feudalism, which preceded the era of Democracy in the West, saw Europe riddled with wars between landowners. Those petty conflicts were replaced by grander and grander conflicts as organizing power increased. Whole nation states became organized under strong central governments by virtue of *public* popularity or support for a democratic government. Mass media, specifically the printing press, made public opinion into the decisive force in Western politics. Public opinion, of course, exercises its force through popular (usually elected) governments, and all the "Big Brother" and "media manipulation" apparatus which surrounds modern popular democracies. >Jeff seems to regard >it as axiomatic that the government of the USA equals Big Brother. Well, in one way it is. Any modern Western democracy has aspects of Orwell's "Big Brother", in terms of direct surveillance of individuals and in terms of society-wide pressures to conformity. Big Business and Big Government are usually, in my experience, almost indistinguishable at points, but nowhere has the marriage been more fully consumated than in America. Big governmnet is the creature of public opinion, and recent North American elections have demonstrated the triumph of PR over rational decision-making with renewed urgency. Public opinion scarcely exists at all without mass media. Mass media and mass marketing strolled onto the field of human history hand in hand, and have enjoyed a largely trouble-free marriage for 400 years now. You can't have a mass market without mass media. You can't have mass production without a mass market. Most mass media derive 50% to 100% of their total revenue from selling advertising. The advertiser, in a real way, is the employer, sole customer and boss of the communication medium. The same devices which can build a mass market for Chevrolets can readily be turned to create a masss movement (or a 2% shift in "public opinion") for a certain choice on a ballot. Remember, a 2% shift in public opinion, whether it involves which brand to buy or which brand to vote for can be decisive! So control can be said to belong to Big Government or Big Brother, whatever you want to call it, but Big Government is subject to public pressure which derives from public opinion which is subject to influence by the mass media access to which which is certainly dominated by Big Business. Therefore Big Business controls Big Government. While "we, the people" certainly have a say, minority opinions have a hard time getting heard in modern democracies. The major parties dominate election debates, media covereage is focussed on them, and corporate campaign donations go to those with a decent chance of winning power. It's a more civilized way of designating a king than a feudal war but it rarely involves extensive and decisive public discussion of real issues. Even where extensive public debate results in a decisive majority for an issue, consitutional and electoral ideosyncracies are seeing the Canadian government forcing through a bill which 55% of the population clearly opposes! On another matter, constitutional ideosyncracies seem to be resulting in a measure that is very popular being defeated by the opposition in one minonrity provincial government! (in a small province even) In the US election last month, less than half of eligible voters bothered to show up, less than a dozen members of the legislature seeking re-election were defeated (I guess the US must have unusually excellent legislators) and few were elected with more than 25% of eligible voters having selected them. The Democratic ideal of "majority rule" is probably a rare exception. Instead we have, usually, consensus rule and a very real, very raw power struggle with very elaborate rules. Tiny shifts in "public opinion" can be decisive and mass media is capable of generating those shifts. Thus the power struggle replaces the knigts of medieval chivalry with advertising executives, the sword and lance have been replaced with sound bytes and glossy photos. The aristocracy which could produce food and fighting men has been replaced by Big Business which can train advertising people and salesmen, and cough up the megabucks needed for widespread ad campaigns. While government can be seen to sometimes act in the public interest, and even respond to major shifts in public opinion over time, government can also been seen to rarely bite the hand that feeds it, big business. Just as government generally identifies the interests of big business as its own, that large slice of the public which works for big business often does that too. >Why? Is it perhaps to do with Watergate, Irangate, etc? Do not permit >the open manner in which these scandals were investigated to blind you >to the fact that the business community is composed of the same type >of people only they are much more loath to do their dirty washing in >public! How many small businesses were involved in the Irangate >affair? I think the pessimism about Big Government derives in part from the 1972 US election in which Richard Nixon won, even though his complicity in Watergate was plainly apparent before voting day, and in part from the 1988 election in which George Bush was elected without ever even having to deny involvement in Irangate, making his complicity in appear virtually certaint. These things don't matter, it seems. >seem to add up to an indictment of democracy in the USA. I am certainly *not* a libertarian, but as I've just shown, an indictment of Democracy as experienced in North America is not too difficult to generate. >Is this >really what he feels? How many others feel this way? Now the really >awkward question : What are you doing about it? It is my feeling that "who controls the network" is the same question as "who controls the world", or at least will be the same question within 50 years. I think we are already seeing signs of a fracturing in the monolithic fabric of public opinion. Computer networks have the possibility of vastly increasing the number of information sources available to the user, thus reducing the relative audience size for any one source. Computer networks will make control of public opinion more difficult in the long run I think, unless the aforementioned biggies can effectively limit the ability of you and I and everyone else to be information sources. Mass media is subject to the "lowest common denominator function". Every medium must seek the largest audience possible for each message, thus those messages must appeal to something shared by many people. This medium, on the other hand, is just as happy informing a few hundred people as a few hundred million. This permits more diverse sources of more specialized information. An underlying reason for that is cost. It is much cheaper to exchange ideas with this medium than by printing this on paper and mailing it, broadcasting it, etc. Faster modems and cheaper hardware is reducing that cost steadily. I'll predict that in 50 years one instument in the home will make available to you films, sound recordings, newspapers, electronic mail and conferences like this, as well as a huge array of small, special interest "publications", and that the dominance of television and newspapers in the total "media environment" will be vastly reduced. This same instrument, I think, will let *you* make information available to anyone else. -- Doug Thompson - via FidoNet node 1:221/162 UUCP: ...!watmath!isishq!doug Internet: doug@isishq.FIDONET.ORG
doug@isishq.FIDONET.ORG (Doug Thompson) (12/11/88)
jd>From: jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell)
jd>In article <2082@brahma.cs.hw.ac.uk>, nick@cs.hw.ac.uk (Nick
jd>Taylor) writes:
jd>>
jd>> I submit that small businesses are just as likely ...
jd>> to accept megabucks from Big Brother as Big
jd>> Business is.
jd>
jd> This may be true, but irrelevant to the question as to whether a
jd> computer network should reside with the legitimate sector of the
jd> economy or the coercive sector.
Long whistle. Well that is loaded language! First of all, who
"legitmates" any sector? Is it ideology or is it something else.
Secondly, what makes you thing the one is any less coercive than the
other? If you remove any dominant central authority with coercive
power and a monopoly of violence, you end up with numerous competing
powers . . . The result of full laissez-faire is feudalism. While it
may be ideologically more pure, from your viewpoint, it has little
else to recommend it.
jd>> I would further submit that Big Business might well see it as
jd>> in their best interests to take over these small businesses.
jd>Who, if anyone,
jd>> will be able to stop them? Oh no, we're back with Big Brother
jd>again!
jd>
jd> Once again, the way most Big Businesses get to be super-big is with
jd> the help of Government. Eliminate Government's power to tilt the
jd> economy toward certain segments, and you have more balance.
jd> The idea of asking Big Brother to rein in Big Business is like asking
jd>a pusher to restrain an addict.
Ok, granted. But the goal of most small businesses is to become big
businesses. If they succeed, they become the drug pushers on the
block. So how does your schema get us out of competitive, destructive,
a-moral power struggles?
jd>>
jd>> Jeff seems to regard it as axiomatic that the government of
jd>the USA equals Big Brother.
jd>
jd> I'm not prejudiced -- I equate every Government on Earth with
jd> Big Brother.
Ok. That's a good starting point.
jd>
jd>
jd>> ... the business community is composed of the same type of
jd>> people ...
jd>
jd> If the business community is indeed that bad, why give them a juggernaut
jd> with which to facilitate their actions, that juggernaut being
jd> omnipotent Government? Better to make them earn their gains thru
jd> better goods and services than thru political pull.
Now there you betray true naivete. Better goods and services sometimes
facilitate the growth of a business, but you just have to glance at
General Motors, NBC, AT&T, IBM, Apple, etc., to see that there is a
*lot* more too it than Adam Smith (or Karl Marx for that matter) ever
anticipated. You profoundly misunderstand power, in most of its
nuances. Indeed, one of the most popular services in the USA is its
government which I'm sure you would be the last to call "better".
jd>> I understood the SUPREME in Supreme Court to imply that it
jd>was the highest
jd>> court in the land. It would appear, from the Missouri case,
jd>that it is more
jd>> akin to the SUPREME in Chicken Supreme! Why has this been allowed
jd>to occur?
jd>
jd> Because Federal judges are almost all Democans and Republicrats and
jd> won't go out of their way to gain justice for anyone else. This
jd> was not the first time a Supreme Court ruling in favor of
jd> alternative parties has been successfully ignored.
It's not the first case of a Supreme Court ruling being ignored!!
Neither the courts nor the govenment has a monopoly of power in the
USA, various elites do. Those elites have sufficient power to ignore
either the gov't or the Supreme Court as their self-interest requires.
If you feel you need more extensive documentation on these points I'd
be happy to provide it.
jd>
jd>> Now the really awkward question : What are you doing
jd>about it?
jd>
jd> Plenty. I write letters to the editor, submit Op-Ed pieces,
jd> support or oppose candidates and referendum questions, talk
jd> to anyone who will listen, and have twice run for office.
jd>
jd> I have three small children. It would be nice were they to
jd> grow up in a fully free society.
And what pray tell, does "free" mean? I honestly don't know the answer
to that question. I get the feeling that you think I should know the
answer. A lot of propaganda tells me the US is a "free country", that
here in Canada I live in the "free world", that close military
alliances with the UK and the US help keep Canada "free" and all that.
Free from what? Free to do what?
Meanwhile you tell me I'm not free at all, and my common sense is very
much aware of numerous restrictions on total freedom. I'm not free to
do lots of things I sometimes get a mind to do.
jd>
jd>Laissez faire, laissez passer.
jd>
Yeah?
=Doug
--
Doug Thompson - via FidoNet node 1:221/162
UUCP: ...!watmath!isishq!doug
Internet: doug@isishq.FIDONET.ORGjeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (12/13/88)
In article <934.23A16D71@isishq.FIDONET.ORG>, Doug Thompson writes: > > The result of full laissez-faire is feudalism. Wow! I'm used to having right-wingers call me a commie because I don't want to nuke Managua, and left-wingers calling me a fascist because I don't think starting one's own business should be a capital crime ... but to be told that advocating a free market, individualistic philosophy makes me a collectivistic statist takes the cake. I guess next he'll say the result of consistent atheism is Fundamentalism, or vice-versa. > But the goal of most small businesses is to become big > businesses. True. But many don't make it. And those that do, on the free and open market, can't translate that bigness into an ability to abuse the customer without consequence. That sort of monopolistic or oligopolistic position requires the help of Government. Look at McDonald's - probably the biggest burger chain at all. But they keep their prices down and their service good because they haven't gotten The State to legislate Burger King out of business. > jd> > jd> If the business community is indeed that bad, why give them a juggernaut > jd> with which to facilitate their actions, that juggernaut being > jd> omnipotent Government? Better to make them earn their gains thru > jd> better goods and services than thru political pull. > > Now there you betray true naivete. Better goods and services sometimes > facilitate the growth of a business, but you just have to glance at > General Motors, NBC, AT&T, IBM, Apple, etc., to see that there is a > *lot* more too it than Adam Smith (or Karl Marx for that matter) ever > anticipated. Yes ... that "*lot more too [sic] it" is Government. Again (and, Elise, forgive me for repeating myself) the oligopolies and monopolies we see came about through legislation. Several of the firms you name have strong competition, by the way -- some competing against others in the list. But let's get back to the goal of this group, talking about the future of computerdom. Should it be owned and operated by the Jim Wrights, Ed Meeses, etc., of the world, by a monopoly arranged via State coercion, or by those whose interests are served by doing a good job? Jeff Daiell -- "The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who, in times of moral crisis, preserved their neutrality." -- Dante
doug@isishq.FIDONET.ORG (Doug Thompson) (12/29/88)
jd>From: jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell)
jd>
jd>In article <934.23A16D71@isishq.FIDONET.ORG>, Doug Thompson writes:
jd>>
jd>> The result of full laissez-faire is feudalism.
jd>
jd> Wow! I'm used to having right-wingers call me a commie because I
jd> don't want to nuke Managua, and left-wingers calling me a fascist
jd> because I don't think starting one's own business should be a
jd> capital crime ... but to be told that advocating a free market,
jd> individualistic philosophy makes me a collectivistic statist
jd> takes the cake. I guess next he'll say the result of consistent
jd> atheism is Fundamentalism, or vice-versa.
Ok, set the propaganda and rhetoric aside and think for a minute . . .
In an environment in which everyone maximizes his individual gain, the
most powerful people will do the most maximizing. Pretty
straightforward. So you end up with a bunch of petty-chieftains
engaging in endless intrigue (read wars) to gain a little more power.
Feudalism emerged LONG before central government control over
anything, and is the result of the lack of a strong central
government.
Laissez-faire is the "primordial" or "natural" state of the human
species, and so is feudal organization, more or less, where the best
bullies in the neighbourhood rise, like the scum that they are, to the
surface.
Suggestion: read a history book.
jd>
jd>> But the goal of most small businesses is to become big
jd>> businesses.
jd>
jd> True. But many don't make it. And those that do, on the free
jd> and open market, can't translate that bigness into an ability
jd> to abuse the customer without consequence. That sort of
jd> monopolistic or oligopolistic position requires the help
jd> of Government. Look at McDonald's - probably the biggest
jd> burger chain at all. But they keep their prices down and
jd> their service good because they haven't gotten The State
jd> to legislate Burger King out of business.
Gimme a break!!! McDonalds has to server the WORST, crappiest, most
tastless piecce of dead cow-flesh ever to have the name "hamburger"
bestowed upon it. All they have going for them is standardization and
high potency advertising. Then there is their emplyee-relations policy
. . . now that really is *feudal*.
jd>
jd> Yes ... that "*lot more too [sic] it" is Government. Again
jd>(and,
jd> Elise, forgive me for repeating myself) the oligopolies and
jd>monopolies
jd> we see came about through legislation. Several of the firms
jd>you
jd> name have strong competition, by the way -- some competing
jd>against
jd> others in the list.
jd>
jd>But let's get back to the goal of this group, talking about the
jd>future of computerdom. Should it be owned and operated by
jd>the Jim Wrights, Ed Meeses, etc., of the world, by a monopoly
jd>arranged via State coercion, or by those whose interests are
jd>served by doing a good job?
I'm all for meritocracy, where those who do it best, do it most. But
just look at McDonalds and you see that the "free market" (excuse me
while I puke) can't do it. Just look at the Navy (excuse my while I
laugh) and you see that big government can't do it.
Can people do it? Yes, but only in an environemnt of trusting
cooperative endeavour, not one of cut-throat competition OR
legislated morality.
I'm half way on your side . . . those you have observed to be bastards
I also think are bastards, by and large. But I'm half way against you,
I don't think warring feudal lords present a more attractive
alternative.
The free market is not a meritocrocay, it is an aristocracy of sorts,
and just as vile and destructive as any image of BIG GOVERNMENT IN
MOSCOW that you can conjure up.
The future of computerdom? Well, I think it will belong to the people
for a good long time because it is impossible to really control as
long as "we the people" have our own computers :-)
=Doug
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fido 1:221/162 -- 1:221/0 280 Phillip St.,
UUCP: !watmath!isishq!doug Unit B-4-11
DAS: [DEZCDT]doug Waterloo, Ontario
Bitnet: fido@water Canada N2L 3X1
Internet: doug@isishq.math.fidonet.org (519) 746-5022
------------------------------------------------------------------------jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (01/04/89)
In article <1084.23BB8DEB@isishq.FIDONET.ORG>, Doug Thompson writes: > > McDonalds has to server the WORST, crappiest, most > tastless piecce of dead cow-flesh ever to have the name "hamburger" > bestowed upon it. All they have going for them is standardization and > high potency advertising. This may be true, but irrelevant. The arguement I was making was that, altho they are the #1 burger chain, they can't abuse that position via high prices or arrogant service, because they haven't gotten Der Staat to outlaw their competition. > But I'm half way against you, > I don't think warring feudal lords present a more attractive > alternative. > Stop and think. If the fat cats thought a free market would let them run wild, they'd *support* a free market. Since it would actually rein them in, they don't. That's why their campaign contributions go to Democans and Republicrats, not Libertarians. That's why they support greater and greater growth for the "public sector". In 1981, there was a proposal to limit property taxes here in Houston, and the Chamber of Commerce went into hysterics in their panic to defeat the measure. When there's a proposal to deregulate an industry, it's the bigger practitioners of that industry to fight hardest *against* deregulation. Wait - coffee break's over. 'Til next time, laissez faire, laissez passer. Jeff Daiell (opinions my own, until taxed away) INDEPENDENCE FOR TEXAS! -- If a hungry man has water, and a thirsty man has bread, Then if they trade, be not dismayed, they both come out ahead. -- Don Paarlberg
nick@cs.hw.ac.uk (Nick Taylor) (01/10/89)
Does anybody still remember this subject? I know that I am as guilty as anyone for steering this discussion off course. My only excuse is that I liked the scenery and nobody complained about the detour! I should like to backtrack to a point made about six weeks ago by a poster whose name I don't recall. He asked about what form of control we should require of the network of the future. It seems to me that we should get our requirements spec. sorted out before we decide on who is most likely to come up with the goods. I suppose that the first question is : "Do we think that the current controls will suffice in the future?" My answer is "no". I hope we all agree that the current situation is pretty anarchic but still workable. The future network will find its way into a vast number of offices and homes and will probably become indispensible to a significant proportion of the population. I do not think that the current ad hoc manner in which we access the net will be acceptable under those circumstances. I think we need to be able to restrict access in order to prevent the mischievous and malicious from making the net unworkable. [Comments?] However, when we talk about restrictions we have to do our best to ensure that they are not used as a (very powerful) tool of repression. Now, I don't want to go running off down the Big Brother avenue again so how about this as an idea: Create a system whereby people can have their access suspended by popular demand. An automated voting system could be instituted which would accept nominations for suspension and votes for and against. If the votes for minus the votes against exceed some number (which should be some proportion of those who could have been adversely affected by the defendent's activities) then the defendent should be suspended. The defendent should be given one final opportunity to defend himself (in case his supporters had not realised how seriously others were treating the issue) and if the result still held the suspension would be implemented. [Comments?] I am sure there are many loop-holes in the above but if we thrash them out we may come up with a workable system based on popular choice and so circumvent the need for a special authority which, as has been pointed out at great length, might abuse its powers. I firmly believe that network technology can be used to either increase democratic participation in decision making (at all levels) or to thwart it. We have a chance here to demonstrate the former before we all get too used to the latter! Nick Taylor Department of Computer Science JANET : NICK@UK.AC.HW.CS Heriot-Watt University ARPANET : NICK@CS.HW.AC.UK 79 Grassmarket /\ / o __ /_ UUCP : ...!UKC!CS.HW.AC.UK!NICK Edinburgh EH1 2HJ / \ / / / /__) Tel : +44 31 225 6465 Ext. 532 United Kingdom / \/ (_ (___ / \ Fax : +44 31 449 5153
jack@cwi.nl (Jack Jansen) (01/12/89)
In article <2114@brahma.cs.hw.ac.uk> nick@cs.hw.ac.uk (Nick Taylor) writes: > >Create a system whereby people can have their access suspended by popular >demand. An automated voting system could be instituted which would accept >nominations for suspension and votes for and against. If the votes for minus >the votes against exceed some number (which should be some proportion of those >who could have been adversely affected by the defendent's activities) then >the defendent should be suspended. The defendent should be given one final >opportunity to defend himself (in case his supporters had not realised how >seriously others were treating the issue) and if the result still held the >suspension would be implemented. [Comments?] I like the scheme! A few points, though: - The majority needed to remove someone from a group should probably be *very* big. Unanimous is probably asking too much, but it should be close, I think. - I think it is important to gradually introduce newcomers, in stead of letting them ask the wrong questions in the wrong groups on their first day, thereby making a fool of themselves, and starting a flame war between people who joined last week ("He shouldn't have sent that"). Maybe something where your first few postings are automatically given a smaller distribution, or where the message is sent to a random old-timer (or a few of them) for approval? - Equally important, it should be possible for everyone to create a new newsgroup. This might be next-to-impossible in the current scheme, but if we start throwing people out of newsgroups we should at least give them a chance to convene with people of like mind. -- -- Fight war, not wars | Jack Jansen, jack@cwi.nl Destroy power, not people! -- Crass | (or mcvax!jack)
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (01/12/89)
I don't think that this question is relevant to Usenet. Or rather, Usenet is not a relevant model for considering this question. Usenet is not the network we're using. In fact, we're using a number of seperate networks, but it looks like a single homogenous one. This is because of a set of protocols agreed to by individuals who are part of or have access to other networks. For example, the DoD controls ARPA. For the conventional Usenet node, it's dealing with a number of controlling organisations. First, there are the BoCs for the node itself and for all their neighbors. Then there is AT&T, Sprint, and other conventional long-distance carriers. For some links there are also common data carriers such as PC-Pursuit. Within organisations their are local networks, and they have their own controllers. I think that there will always be secondary "networks" like Usenet and FIDO net built on top of whatever popular systems are out there. Some will have stronger central control than Usenet (such as FIDO), and some weaker (such as Altnet). Some will share the same media and software as others (Peacenet using FIDO, Bionet or Altnet using Usenet), and some won't (For example, usenet versus FIDOnet). I can't see any way of shutting any of these down, long term, that won't radically reduce service (and income) on whatever they're built upon. And it will just get better in the future. So, the question should become either, "what will the commercial networks of the future look like", or "what will the media our networks run on look like"... -- Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Work: uunet.uu.net!ficc!peter, peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. `-_-' Home: bigtex!texbell!sugar!peter, peter@sugar.uu.net. 'U` Opinions may not represent the policies of FICC or the Xenix Support group.
nick@cs.hw.ac.uk (Nick Taylor) (01/12/89)
There have been some interesting responses to my suggestion of a participative democracy of users controlling the network of the future. I believe that the concerns expressed about a 'tyrrany of the majority' are valid. Originally I had thought that there would be enough people prepared to vote against biased suspensions to avoid such travesties. After further thought I now realise that these 'public defenders' might well have to spend all day voting against suspensions - clearly an impractical suggestion. So it looks like the suggested requirement for a VERY large majority might be a solution. Another solution, however, would be to define more clearly just who is eligible to vote and insist that a majority of the electorate be necessary for a suspension to be enforced. There's a lot to talk about there. I like the idea of gradually introducing new-comers too. Some of the recent postings seem to be assuming that the future net will remain a news service. I very much doubt that. I think that we should always bear in mind that the news service is likely to represent a smaller and smaller proportion of the network's 'value' to society as time goes on. Nick Taylor "I have seen the future - and it smirks" Who said this please? Department of Computer Science JANET : NICK@UK.AC.HW.CS Heriot-Watt University ARPANET : NICK@CS.HW.AC.UK 79 Grassmarket /\ / o __ /_ UUCP : ...!UKC!CS.HW.AC.UK!NICK Edinburgh EH1 2HJ / \ / / / /__) Tel : +44 31 225 6465 Ext. 532 United Kingdom / \/ (_ (___ / \ Fax : +44 31 449 5153
seida@MARTIN-DEN.ARPA (Steven Seida) (01/17/89)
Nick Taylor writes: >Some of the recent postings seem to be assuming that the future net will >remain a news service. I very much doubt that. I think that we should >always bear in mind that the news service is likely to represent a smaller >and smaller proportion of the network's 'value' to society as time goes on. I sure trust the net for news a lot more than the tv and even newspaper news people. The purpose of tv and newspaper news is to get people to look at the commercials. This of course helps to generate the desire to make everything "sensational". This is one of the strong reasons that my friend who recently received a degree in journalism is returning to school for a degree in Computer Science. I subscribe to a family oriented publication that reports on the government. It has no advertisements, it is dependent on contributions. The news sure is different and more realistic out of this journal than anything I see on TV or in the papers. This as well as the experiences that I have that involved national attention indicate that the whole story is seldom told in the media. I have also heard the networks are accused of setting the national agenda. I don't know of any studies of the subject but it wouldn't surprise me if it were true. How about the coverage that the Hacker's Convention got? (Discussed recently on the info-futures list.) Maybe things are better in the U.K., but I think the net will have to continue as a news service just so we can determine the real from the imaginary. Steven Seida