mcb@reason.ig.com (Michael C. Berch) (10/02/90)
In the referenced article, niu.bitnet!TK0JUT2@netsys.NETSYS.COM writes: > The recent note indicating how Sears/IBM censors GEnie may provide a warning > for the dangers when corporate interests control information flow. [...] My understanding is that GEnie is owned and operated by General Electric Information Systems, and that Sears and IBM operate the PRODIGY Service as a joint venture. PRODIGY is definitely "information-controlled" (I prefer not to use the term "censored", which implies state action) by its management; I do not know whether GEnie is. -- Michael C. Berch mcb@presto.ig.com / uunet!presto.ig.com!mcb / ames!bionet!mcb
jpallen@ics.uci.edu (Jonathan Pine Allen) (10/02/90)
In article <Oct.1.16.54.59.1990.3288@reason.ig.com> mcb@reason.ig.com (Michael C. Berch) writes: >My understanding is that GEnie is owned and operated by General >Electric Information Systems, and that Sears and IBM operate the >PRODIGY Service as a joint venture. PRODIGY is definitely >"information-controlled" (I prefer not to use the term "censored", >which implies state action) by its management; I do not know whether >GEnie is. I find it interesting that this article, and the one before it, suggest that censorship is a concept that can only be applied to the "public sector". I think it's more useful to think of censorship as a description of the information flow restrictions that exist in a certain context, given the mix of private and public information sources, their associated costs, audiences, ease of access, etc. I would argue that in a situation where the "public sector" got completely out of the business, i.e. no more Internet, and the only means left for distributing our various net boards would be through "information-controlled" databases such as PRODIGY, we would be fully justified in invoking the heated devil-term of "censorship". JPA