stevea@locus.com (Steve Anderson) (02/01/91)
One of the EFF newsletters (#1 I think) discussed the Prodigy
controversy. I'm interested in pointers to periodicals that have
covered this issue. Also, could someone offer to email me that
particular EFF newsletter?
The Jan. Consumer Reports sort of plugs Prodigy, and I'm considering
writing them a letter.
Thanks,
--
-Steve A. Anderson I do not speak officially for Locus or IBM, just me.
stevea@locus.com ...{uunet|ucla-se|sequent}!lcc!stevea 2 dogsm.tiernan@pro-angmar.UUCP (Michael Tiernan) (02/12/91)
In-Reply-To: message from drdave@buhub.bradley.edu
I'm on GEnie, GEnie is proported to be friendlier than Compu$erve since it
only costs 4.95 a month with certain things costing $6.00 (e-mail is free and
uncensored) It does not have internet connections and I doubt that it will
soon but it was rumored to be in the discussion stage at the higher leves. I
like it over the other "software required" system that I'm on (America Online)
because I can call it from anywhere on the road and I don't need to cart
around my software or my machine to do so.
There's nothing that Prodigy is offering that many of us haven't been able to
do for quite awhile. The only difference is that they charge more for it.
I personally would suggest a look at GEnie for anyone. Their Cus/Sup # is
800/638-9636 Give'em a call and try it.
"Please return the soapbox to where you found it".
<< MCT >>
GEnie : M.Tiernan
AppleLinkPE : M Tiernan or BCS Mike
Internet : pro-angmar!m.tiernan@alfalfa.com
UUCP : ...!uunet!alfalfa!pro-angmar!m.tiernan
"God isn't dead, he's only missing in action."
- Phil Ochsdsp@polari.UUCP (Don Smith) (02/15/91)
In looking back at the EFF news and issues of CuD that I've read I
hesitate to continue the thread but my $.02 is...
From my reading of Prodigy's answer to it's critic's in the NY Times I
beleive they claimed status as a publisher and therefore the right to
edit what's on their "service".
For paying $13.00 a month and having your thoughts edited and
distributed... does this sound like the vanity publishers in the book
world?
Aunt Martha wants her poems to be published in book form and sold by
the publisher. For this incrediable right she pays out several hundred
dollars.
?,
DonTom.Jennings@f111.n125.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Tom Jennings) (05/02/91)
Remember the Prodigy trouble of about a year ago, a conference or
discussion removed by Prodigy, and eventually some participants kicked off?
The original "problem" was the discussion of gay & lesbian rights and issues.
The discussion was removed by Prodigy, and when participants complained, and
continued the discussion via point-to-point mail, that got yanked too, and so
did some of the participants.
It *is* signifigant that it was gay/lesbian stuff, in that it is an *unpopular*
subject. If it were "blacks' rights" why, there would have been an outrage. (I
reduce to 'issues' only for clarity in this paragraph.) It was a good test of
speech, and reaction was mixed -- no one wanted to mention the subject matter,
so it became rather hypothetical.
It's easy to support free-speech issues on "safe" subjects -- the real test is
when it is an unpopular one, or even one you don't agree with.
--
Tom Jennings - via FidoNet node 1:125/777
UUCP: ...!uunet!hoptoad!fidogate!111!Tom.Jennings
INTERNET: Tom.Jennings@f111.n125.z1.FIDONET.ORGbrad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (05/04/91)
In article <14193.281F5781@fidogate.FIDONET.ORG> Tom.Jennings@f111.n125.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Tom Jennings) writes: >It's easy to support free-speech issues on "safe" subjects -- the real test is >when it is an unpopular one, or even one you don't agree with. I agree with this 100%. It's one of the strongest parts of my personal philosophy. But this is not a free-speech issue, so it is not relevant. People do not understand that freedom of the press (and Prodigy is press) has two very important components: a) Nobody can tell you what not to print (freedom from censorship) b) Nobody can tell you what *to* print. (editorial control) Both are important. To insist that Prodigy allow gay/lesbian discussion against their will is not much different from forbidding them from having gay/lesbian discussion if they want it. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press. That's no law in *either* direction. -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
bei@dogface (Bob Izenberg) (05/05/91)
Tom.Jennings@f111.n125.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Tom Jennings) writes: > Remember the Prodigy trouble of about a year ago, a conference or > discussion removed by Prodigy, and eventually some participants kicked off? > > The original "problem" was the discussion of gay & lesbian rights and issues. > The discussion was removed by Prodigy, and when participants complained, and > continued the discussion via point-to-point mail, that got yanked too, and so > did some of the participants. A friend whose mother is into needlepoint related a similar tale, but it was a group of people discussing needlepoint and quilting that was booted off. I know that sewing is a sensitive issue, so maybe that's why this hasn't received much coverage... ;-) In all seriousness, I was thinking of a more famous seamstress a minute after hearing my friend's potential urban legend. Nobody wants to cop to being the network that wouldn't let Betsy Ross talk about her sewing... Can anyone confirm the needlepointer story? -- Bob Bob Izenberg cs.utexas.edu!dogface!bei [ ] "So young, so bad... So what!" 512 346 7019 Wendy O. Williams
lee@wang.com (Lee Story) (05/08/91)
In article <52328@apple.Apple.COM> cep@Apple.COM (Christopher Pettus) writes:
Until electronic mail is made into a common carrier, with the same
restrictions and rights that other common carriers have, this problem
will continue.
I'm glad that someone else thinks this would help, though in an age of
Republican anti-regulatory sentiment, and with the number of
Libertarians and related critters on the net, I'm not surprised that
it isn't given serious consideration here.
The advantages of a single uniform, reliable and universally
accessible long-distance email system would probably outweigh the
disadvantages of additional bureaucracy, additional cost, and a few
usage restrictions. Yes, I'll admit that it might become the captive
of vested economic interests (as the airwaves have become under the
FCC), but even that (choke) would be preferable to the current
situation, where UseNET and the Internet are the provinces of software
developers (lucky us) and university faculty, and the commercial
services are inadequately interoperable and lack essential features
like netnews-style open bulletin boards. It appears to me that to the
average educated person electronic mail and electronic discussion is
the obscure province of afficionados, mostly technicians and
academics, and is decidedly not the "information appliance" that it
should be by now. Who knows? Readily-available email, complete with
directory services, bulletin boards, and other ancillary services might
inspire a revival of epistolary writing.
Other disadvantages of common carrier email services should be
discussed, such as the probability that the NSA would be able to more
easily compel the carriers to monitor politically-sensitive
communications (but more easily than on the government-sponsored
Internet backbone? I'm not at all sure that's true). We would also
have a constant battle against censorship of personal material (but
the voice carriers and Postal Service have a pretty good record of
providing non-content-sensitive service, and besides, we already have
that battle -- thus EFF, etc).
Comments?
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lee Story (lee@wang.com) Wang Laboratories, Inc.
(Boston and New Hampshire AMC, and Merrimack Valley Paddlers)
------------------------------------------------------------------------lee@wang.com (Lee Story) (05/08/91)
In article <1991May04.163524.11374@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes:
People do not understand that freedom of the press (and Prodigy is press)
has two very important components:
a) Nobody can tell you what not to print (freedom from censorship)
b) Nobody can tell you what *to* print. (editorial control)
Both are important. To insist that Prodigy allow gay/lesbian discussion
against their will is not much different from forbidding them from having
gay/lesbian discussion if they want it.
Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press. That's no
law in *either* direction.
Well sorry, Brad, but it's not clear to many of us that a service like
Prodigy is self-evidently "press", as you seem to claim. In the part
of the service which presents (publishes) advertisements (mostly!) and
Prodigy-initiated or Prodigy-contracted informative articles (rarely),
they would seem to deserve tha same protections offered to the print
and broadcast media.
But in their provision of email service they would seem to be merely a
by-subscription carrier, and their unpleasant lack of interfaces to
other carriers does not disguise that fact. I don't see why the same
protections offered to mail and telephone subscribers shouldn't apply.
And I don't see why bulletin boards to which subscribers are welcome to
contribute shouldn't be considered either (1) simply useful extensions
of email, or (2) publishing ventures, but ones in which the subscribers
are the publishers and Prodigy remains the carrier.
Isn't some scheme like this simple and fair enough to be worth
codifying as law, and the added marketability of email and bulletin
boards sufficient to encourage commercial services to provide them
even if they aren't allowed to control the contents?
(By the way, I think the trashy, ad-oriented nature of Prodigy has
encouraged many of us to criticize them for practices that would
raise few complaints on GEnie, CIS, etc. They may be doing us a
real service.)
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lee Story (lee@wang.com) Wang Laboratories, Inc.
(Boston and New Hampshire AMC, and Merrimack Valley Paddlers)
------------------------------------------------------------------------brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (05/09/91)
I have seen no proof of Prodigy doing anything but charge for their E-mail. They are not press, but an E-mail provider, when it comes to E-mail. But in all the public areas of the system, they are indeed press, and have explicitly said and acted in such a fashion at all times as far as I can tell. I am not sure how other people have gotten any other impression. Prodigy screens everything posted in the public areas. It's 100% edited. How can you consider them anything but press? -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
HELLER@cs.umass.edu (From the screen of Deneva...) (05/10/91)
In article <LEE.91May8120907@meercat.wang.com>, lee@wang.com (Lee Story) writes... >> >> In article <52328@apple.Apple.COM> cep@Apple.COM (Christopher Pettus) writes: >> >> Until electronic mail is made into a common carrier, with the same >> restrictions and rights that other common carriers have, this problem >> will continue. >> >> like netnews-style open bulletin boards. It appears to me that to the >> average educated person electronic mail and electronic discussion is >> the obscure province of afficionados, mostly technicians and >> academics, and is decidedly not the "information appliance" that it >> should be by now. Who knows? Readily-available email, complete with >> directory services, bulletin boards, and other ancillary services might >> inspire a revival of epistolary writing. >> >> Comments? >> -- >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Lee Story (lee@wang.com) Wang Laboratories, Inc. >> (Boston and New Hampshire AMC, and Merrimack Valley Paddlers) >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ With many non-computer techies getting home computers, often with modems and with the existence of FidoNet, much of what you are looking for already exists. It would be nice if things were nicely bundled, and some sort of E-Mail common carriers were available in the same way as the telephone, the USPS, and UPS/FedEx/etc. Robert Heller ARPANet: Heller@CS.UMass.EDU BIX: locks.hill.bbs GEnie: RHeller FidoNet: 1:321/153 (Locks Hill BBS, Wendell, MA) CompuServe 71450,3432 Local PV VAXen: COINS::HELLER UCC Cyber/DG: Heller@CS
zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Sameer Parekh) (05/14/91)
In article <30316@dime.cs.umass.edu> HELLER@cs.umass.edu (From the screen of Deneva...) writes: >With many non-computer techies getting home computers, often with modems and >with the existence of FidoNet, much of what you are looking for already exists. > >It would be nice if things were nicely bundled, and some sort of E-Mail common >carriers were available in the same way as the telephone, the USPS, and UPS/FedEx/etc. No. The main problem here is that liability does not lie with the poster/mailer. If I mailed someone a cc # through a BBS, not only I would be liable, but the owner of the BBS. (As the RIPCO case has shown.) We need liability to rest solely on the poster/mailer. -- The Ravings of the Insane Maniac Sameer Parekh -- zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM