Re: In re: Spam and Gate Crashing

> In a message dated 95-10-20, Brian K. Yoder <byoder[_at_]netcom.com> writes:
> Quoting yours truly who ventured:
> >>
> >> A practical solution (maybe) is to filter and delete Spams. The Spammer
> >> has no right to get his/her stuff posted, so it can be deleted.
> >> Unfortunately, the technology may not be up to the task.
 

> Mr. Yoder opines:
> >
> > That's an absurd way of handling the situation (though in a pinch it
> > might help a little). The net is a collection of cooperating people and
> > machines.
>
> The net is no longer a techno-utopia and I doubt it ever will be
> again. Unfortunately or fortunately it is just another means of
> communication permitting textual messages and global broadcasting
> (or browsing) at minimal cost. It is a new medium which is quickly
> becoming available to everyone with access to a computer.

What is that supposed to mean? That as soon as lots of people start doing something the government has to run it? Please don't degrade yourself by pretending that this is an argument. This notion that if something is important or common the government needs to control it is both unconstitutional and pretty revoltingly immoral to boot.

As for the issue of technological controls over spammers, letting the spam flow freely and just trying to avert your eyes from it electronically ignores both the cause of spamming (people trying to use the net for stupid things) and many of the consequences of it (flooding the bandwidth with garbage and impeding useful stuff). The solution is to make it clear right up front what the net is, what it is for, and make it clear that anyone who thinks otherwise should go start his own net. Just allowing the abuses to go on but trying to bury your head in the sand with a filter is a disasterous policy and just the kind of thing I might expect the government to impose as some kind of solution to spamming in certain situations.

> Ironically the US highway system was once a "collection of cooperating
> people and machines" until everyone got their own machines.
 

So what are you claiming here? That the highways are like the net? That the government is well suited to run freeways? That this implies that it would be good to put those bozos in charge of it? Why not turn over all the printing presses to Al Gore and Jesse Helms while you are at it?

If "arguments" like the ones above in favor of allowing the government to control the net are the best the other side can offer then we will have only ourselves to blame if they take over and make the typical mess of it.

--Brian

Brian K. Yoder
<byoder[_at_]netcom.com> Received on Tue Oct 24 1995 - 09:49:46 GMT