Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 330
Netizens-Digest Friday, August 13 1999 Volume 01 : Number 330
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
[netz] About the Netizens list being used to post ads?
Re: [netz] About the Netizens list being used to post ads?
Re: [netz] About the Netizens list being used to post ads?
Re: [netz] Netizens list and ads.
Re: [netz] About the Netizens list being used to post ads?
Re: [netz] Netizens list and ads.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 09:29:06 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] About the Netizens list being used to post ads?
Call to Netizens on the Netizens mailing list!
Recently someone sent his ad to the Netizens list. Following his
ad was an excerpt from an article. On another list someone
reported that if one wrote the person who sent the excerpt for the
full article or articles the excerpt was from they were told they had
to pay.
The Netizens list was *not* created to send around ads. It was
*not* created to lure people into a situation to have to pay
for something because their interest is peaked.
The list was created to support those who wish to support the spread
of the communication that the Internet makes possible.
I have seen a number of newsgroups spammed by ads and then their
useful life has ended.
And I have seen people on other newsgroups stand up to those who
send ads and let them know that the ads are not acceptable.
If those who abuse a list or a newsgroup by using it for the private
purpose of spreading their ads is *not* challenged, the list or
the newsgroup can become useless.
I am asking those on the Netizens list who feel that the Internet
is important as a communication medium and that it is important to
be able to support its further development so it will grow and flourish
and spread broadly and widely, to help figure out what to do about
those who sign up for the Netizens list to spread their ads.
Is it that those who are on the list need to try to let it be known
that this is not what the Netizens list is to be used for?
Is it that the owner of the list should let the person know that
this is not what the list is for?
I don't want to lose the Netizens list the way that some of the most
important Usenet newsgroups have been targetted and lost to spammers.
So I welcome suggestions preferable on the list, about what should
be done when someone on the list is intent on using the list for
spreading his ads, rather than for supporting the list and its
users by participating in the effort to support the Internet
as a means of communication.
Ads are *not* communication. Habermas, the German philosopher is
helpful in showing how the purpose of an ad is a private purpose,
while the purpose of discussion is a public purpose. The Netizens
list is for announcements that have a public purpose related to
communication and the spread of communication.
Habermas also shows how the public sphere of people discussing
and taking up public issues has been attacked and replaced by
public relations announcements from companies where they parade
their private interest as a public interest. This has corrupted
the public sphere.
The person using the Netizens list for the private purpose of
his ads is trying to corrupt the Netizens list.
The Netizens list was created for a public purpose.
Does there have to be an acceptable use policy indicated when
people sign onto the list?
The early ARPANET was built on the principle "no personal gain"
from the work that was being done.
On the NSFNET there was an acceptable use policy. The acceptable
use policy included that no activity for ones personal profit.
>From previous discussion on this list it is clear that there are
others on the list who also care about this issue.
What do we do?
On Usenet the fight against spam has hurt some of the most
interesting newsgroups as the people who used to post to
them instead had to spend their time fighting the spam.
Thoughts? Ideas?
I would expect that the solution will involved one doing something
to take the problem on. It's important *not* to be silent about
it.
In the spirit of netizenship
Ronda
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 10:39:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jay Hauben <jay@dorsai.org>
Subject: Re: [netz] About the Netizens list being used to post ads?
Hi,
A while ago the following was posted on the Universal Access-Canada list
UA-C@CCEN.UCCB.NS.CA concerning the same ads that appear regularly on the
Netizens list. Ronda refered I think to this post.
Jay
- -------------------
Paul Nielson <pnielson@ILOS.NET> wrote on Mon, 19 Jul 1999:
> I once asked Mr. Walker a simple question.
> Could you send me the complete text of an important public interest
> article annotated in your half-free, half advertising, half resale
> publication?
> He advised me to pay up and subscribe.
- -------------------
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 15:04:08 +0000
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: Re: [netz] About the Netizens list being used to post ads?
Ronda,
> I welcome suggestions preferabl[y] on the list, about what should
> be done when someone on the list is intent on using the list for
> spreading his ads, rather than for supporting the list and its
> users by participating in the effort to support the Internet
> as a means of communication.
>
> Ads are *not* communication. Habermas, the German philosopher is
> helpful in showing how the purpose of an ad is a private purpose,
> while the purpose of discussion is a public purpose. The Netizens
> list is for announcements that have a public purpose related to
> communication and the spread of communication.
I'm glad you feel welcoming, but I didnt think anyone needed to be
an explicit "welcomer" on a public mailing list, or to be in the
position of executing what "should" be done. I raised this point
before; if you are speaking as list-owner, your right is *guaranteed
100% to unsub and kill-file anyone you choose. To ask for
suggestions how to proceed is thus hypocrisy of the first order.
Otoh, if you are speaking as a subscriber, raising an open question
as to the means of governance of a public space, where your own
idea is precisely equal to anyone else's, then I ask again why you
come on so assertively when any one who participates in a *public
discussion knows (or rapidly learns) better than that. Specifically:
- -- "Ads are not communication" (yet Paul Nielson found it
communicative enough to ask if John Walker could send him "the
complete text of an important public interest article" (for free, of
course),
- -- "The Netizens list is for announcements that have a public
purpose" (yet at a guess 80% of the traffic here has not been
announcements),
- -- imputing intent to a fellow-subscriber (as others have *assumed
his use of commercial news is illegal); isnt this the sort of detail
one should ask directly of the 'party of the first part'? Isnt this why
the US Bill of Rights ensures that one is entitled to meet with ones
accusers?
- ---
The first step is to make your position clear, I agree. 'Position' (or
the modern equivalent, where youre coming from) however is
distinct from 'perspective' or the direction you are looking. I think
the discussion you are ostensibly hoping to stimulate would be
well served by your introducing yourself in general terms, where the
ambiguity of your status relative to the list itself is not an issue.
>From there, you might think to go on to provide some factual
details which others might not be familiar with: for instance. how
much traffic the Columbia server can bear, how many spam mails
are sent to you for adjudication, how many subscribers have ever
posted anything, what percentage of archival space is being
sacrificed to .sigs, and so on.
Then, you could *develop an argument* to the point that 'something
has to be done' for this reason or that, rather than just *asserting a
claim* that (if I may paraphrase you) 'if we let him do it, we have to
let everybody do it' which, imho, was not only an absurdly
reductionist view of 'democracy' to start with but has absolutely no
relevance in the dynamics of cyberspace.
You asked for suggestions; these are mine.
==========
Translation in plain English:
The last round on this topic petered out two weeks ago, with (I
believe) a total of 5 contributors. Why you have brought this
business up again *as if it is a topic for discussion* baffles me, but
I assure you, I have no interest whatsoever in either an assertions-
only or an an announcements-only list.
On any other list at this point, I would unsubscribe. Under the
circumstances, I welcome even one substantive suggestion why I
should not.
kerry
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 21:21:30 +0200
From: "Jamal Shahin" <J.Shahin@selc.hull.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: [netz] Netizens list and ads.
In response to Ronda's call, I thought I'd add my two pennies worth. I
have only chosen to include certain parts of Ronda's original message, and
hope that this doesn't change Ronda's original meaning.
On 13 Aug 99, at 9:29, Ronda Hauben wrote:
<color><param>FF00,0000,0000</param>> The Netizens list was *not* created to send around ads. It was
> *not* created to lure people into a situation to have to pay
> for something because their interest is peaked.
</color>Right, I don't know why the netizens list was started, but I have my own
understanding of what it is about. It seems that this list (at present) seems
to be more concerned about what is right to post, rather than the issues
that concern us *all*, including business users *and* individual users.
This is as much my fault as anybody else's, as I have neglected my duties
as a netizen (in this lists' eyes), in furtherance of my own research; some
of which was greatly helped by discussions early in the year on this list. For
which I am incredibly grateful to all who took part. I think that we all learnt
something.
<color><param>FF00,0000,0000</param>> The list was created to support those who wish to support the spread
> of the communication that the Internet makes possible.
</color>Okay, this is what I thought too. But this can be interpreted in so many
ways! As I remember asking the list before (no response was given, if I
remember correctly -or perhaps a response beyond my comprehension);
what is the point of communication for communication's sake? We must
learn (and I'm treading dangerously here, because I'm sure that Kerry will
have something to say on this) to use communication in ways that haven't
been practised before. Perhaps, though, we can draw from other
broadcast/ comms. examples. Ads on TV? Tele(phone)marketing? All
tedious, granted, but all in existence. Some ISPs in the UK are free (no
cash subscription, only call costs) because of the revenues gained in
advertising. Is this a good thing?
It's surely all about filtering. And with the Internet, the filtering comes
down to the individual. What should I read, what I shouldn't read. When
should I just hit the "D" key, and when should I move the message to my
IMPORTANT folder?
<color><param>FF00,0000,0000</param>
> I have seen a number of newsgroups spammed by ads and then their
> useful life has ended.
</color>And I have seen a number of discussion-lists just fade into oblivion for lack
of discussion, period. At least John's posts give us something to talk about.
:)
<color><param>FF00,0000,0000</param>> I am asking those on the Netizens list who feel that the Internet
> is important as a communication medium and that it is important to
> be able to support its further development so it will grow and flourish
> and spread broadly and widely, to help figure out what to do about
> those who sign up for the Netizens list to spread their ads.
</color>Ronda, I know and respect your work. I hope that you realise this. I think
that your contribution to the debate on the development of the Internet is
vital. But please, please, realise that maybe we have gone beyond the
stage of the Internet being simply a utopian communications network. MCI,
BT, Yahoo, Amazon, Lexis-Nexis (sp??) etc. *all* show this. [And perhaps
more to the point, so does ISOC!] Seriously, who is going to pay for it?
Who is going to support it, unless private enterprise is allowed to flourish
on the Internet *alongside* its development as a communications medium.
In a sense, I am *supporting* John's work, because I think that he
(probably, since I don't subscribe) provides a service to people, using the
Internet. Promoting its growth and development, in other ways to you. I
think that both John and you are necessary for the Internet's growth.
No Government is willing to "carry the can" for a global communications
network. In fact, you might find (corrections, please?) that the only states
that actively fund ISPs are non-democratic ones! Gosh, even my university
is being charged for every single byte of information that goes across the
Atlantic (replacing the original fixed charge for the year), and this charge is
soon to be passed on to individual faculties and then departments. But
maybe I digress.
But is the question: Can John Post his Messages (or Ads) to the List? OR
Should the Internet Be Completely Free of Commercial Interests? I think
that the two have been connected by your posting (and I've tried to
highlight this). And therefore my digressing isn't irrelevant.
<color><param>FF00,0000,0000</param>> Is it that the owner of the list should let the person know that
> this is not what the list is for?
</color>Now that's not very democratic, is it (if you're thinking what I'm thinking)?
But of course, if he's not acting in the spirit of Netizenship, as defined by
the list, then perhaps you should just block his subscription to the list? Not
that I'm advocating that.
<color><param>FF00,0000,0000</param>> So I welcome suggestions preferable on the list, about what should
> be done when someone on the list is intent on using the list for
> spreading his ads, rather than for supporting the list and its
> users by participating in the effort to support the Internet
> as a means of communication.
</color>Actually, (don't tell John Walker [:)] - whom I do not know, and have
never had occasion to communicate with personally) I find his messages
quite useful. The reason being that he includes his contents pages (with
one-liners) at the end of the text. This means that I never have to buy a
subscription to his magazine, because everything I need is right there. I
then go off and do a news trawl on a one-liner that he mentioned, and hey
presto! free news! BTW, perhaps it's a skill I've developed from too much
MTV, but I'm able just to skip the advert bits.
Has anybody thought to ask John if he'd like to include a piece about the
netizens list in his news-cast (or whatever it's called)? Would John like to
actively fight for the issues that the netizens list finds so dear in a wider
arena? Could John actively participate in the Netizens list and tell us
actually more about his news-casts? Or maybe I'm missing the point.
<color><param>FF00,0000,0000</param>> The person using the Netizens list for the private purpose of
> his ads is trying to corrupt the Netizens list.
</color>I think that's a little strong, Ronda. Maybe (and this isn't pity) John is just
trying to make a living out of the Internet. Maybe what he's doing is
actually *good* for the Internet? Maybe John, you just need to slim down
your .sig file, and add some relevant_to_the_Netizens_list commentary to
your postings. I'm sure that all we really need to see is a url for where to
turn for more information, right??? It *is* a bit much to have to sift through
it all, especially after Ronda's previous messages to you on this point. But I
don't actively object to it. Just a preference, a polite request from one
individual to another (albeit through a disc.list).
<color><param>FF00,0000,0000</param>> Does there have to be an acceptable use policy indicated when
> people sign onto the list?
</color>Why not? When people enter public places, they have to adhere to
byelaws and regulations. I think that this is a good idea. Take a look at the
TOA that need to be agreed to before one can join an ISOC discussion list.
(you might find one at www.istf.isoc.org, sorry, can't remember the
correct url)
<color><param>FF00,0000,0000</param>
> The early ARPANET was built on the principle "no personal gain"
> from the work that was being done.
>
> On the NSFNET there was an acceptable use policy. The acceptable
> use policy included that no activity for ones personal profit.
</color>And that's why they're all writing books about it now. Or that's why other
people are making money out of books written about it. Fair comment?
<color><param>FF00,0000,0000</param>> In the spirit of netizenship
>
> Ronda
</color>And the same from me. (Spirit of netizenship, that is.) In the end, aren't
we all advertisements for ourselves, anyway?
Best regards to all listeners, and looking forward to comments. Stay tuned,
we'll be right back after these short messages...
<nofill>
- --
Jamal
http://www.internetstudies.org/
http://www.hull.ac.uk/eurstuds/
tel: +39(0)348 794 6568
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 15:58:30 -0400
From: Mark Lindeman <MTL4@columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: [netz] About the Netizens list being used to post ads?
It may come as no surprise that I generally agree with the points raised by
Kerry and Jamal.
To me, the very fact that John Walker has defended his posts on the list
distinguishes them from "spam." And, like Jamal, I find at least some
portions of them useful -- which I cannot say for the very post I am
writing. Sometimes this sort of meta-discussion is useful or at least
unavoidable, but like Kerry I'm tiring of it.
This has nothing to do with thinking that commercial "speech" should be
untrammeled on the list. On the contrary, the list owner can and should
set whatever limits s/he chooses [not limited to "commercial"], with or
without input from list members. Moreover, when list members are offended
by the content of postings -- whether "commercial" or otherwise -- it is
often appropriate for them to raise the issue in public and/or private
posts. This issue has been raised, lowered, and hammered into the
ground. Time for the list owner to fish or cut bait, methinks.
Cheers,
Mark Lindeman
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 18:00:42 +0000
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: Re: [netz] Netizens list and ads.
Thank you, Jamal!
> We must learn (and I'm treading dangerously here, because I'm
> sure that Kerry will have something to say on this) to use
> communication in ways that haven't been practised before.
I hope to see more consideration of the idea that the fundamental
tension is between _danger and safety_ on the net. To my way of
thinking, *of course* interacting with other minds is dangerous, by
any definition one cares to propose -- but the response that
therefore one should be protected from that danger is exactly the
wrong one, just as highway engineers are beginning to realize that
paving every street to 'save' them from mud and wheel ruts is not
so smart, and replacing glass bottles with PET has led to other
more difficult problems. Indeed, one can point at practically any
other bit of technological progress, and see that _concentrating
the power to address problematic issues does not result in fewer
problems, but more people with less experience to deal with them.
In the case of global communication, we have the chance to try, at
least, to go the other way -- to face the danger, and to help one
another _learn to deal with danger -- but admittedly, its one
dangerous idea.
kerry
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #330
******************************
