worley@EDDIE.MIT.EDU (Dale Worley) (12/06/88)
From: lawrence (David Lawrence) Perhaps I should have used the term "subsidized good". The point is that I have an ethical problem with for-profit organizations advertising at someone else's (in this case, the taxpayer's and user's) expense. Ummm... Don't say "user's", please, say "user's employers". There's nothing wrong with making money, and I don't think anything I said implied that. I do think there's something wrong when a private party believes that access to a publicly funded network entitles them to the same rights as if they had purchased magazine space or commercial broadcast time. But does it entitle them to the same rights that my inane political flamings have? Certainly much of what is put over Usenet is of less social value than the sale of a product which actually helps people get useful work done. While I wouldn't argue that they should have the same rights as in purchased media space, it seems unreasonable that their rights should be less than Joe Hacker's uninspired diatribes. Indeed, the only difference between an for-profit corporation and a random user is that one expects to make money. Should this expectation automatically reduce their rights? And what about non-profit corporations? Is it OK for FSF to advertise that they sell Emacs tapes? Is it OK for Jerry Fallwell to canvas for contributions electronically? Dale