Re: Flaming, Spam and Gate Crashing

The following is a "flame." AKA an emotional waste of electrons.

In a message dated 95-10-25 14:27:20 EDT, you write:
>>
>> 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>

Let's end this.

Sorry I got your blood boiling. What I said was, "A practical solution (maybe) is to filter and delete Spams." I offered this as a solution to be implemented by mailing list hosts, not the "government." I agree that government intervention would be a disaster. Hence the highway analogy. The government builds a great highway system (like the Net), and it gets less wonderful as it becomes loaded with traffic (you and I). We are at a turning point. I do not propose governmental limits to fix the problems (that would follow the highway analogy to predictable doom). The private sector must come up with solutions for fear that the government will try.

GCirillo
Bethesda MD

PS- Your statement that: "'arguments' like the ones above in favor of allowing the government to control the net are the best the other side can offer..." is fairly telling. There was no implication that I was espousing govt control (my position is the opposite). And what is this "other side"? The issue of govt control is remarkably bi-partisan (or multi-partisan). People always find a way to support govt control if it promotes a cause they're interested in. E.g. The Left = Govt support of "questionable" art. The Right = Govt control of media content. If life was always a simple as their "side' and our "side"... Received on Thu Oct 26 1995 - 12:55:29 GMT