Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 509
Netizens-Digest Tuesday, April 22 2003 Volume 01 : Number 509
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
Re: [netz] Responsible information providers
Re: [netz] Responsible information providers
Re: [netz] Responsible information providers
Re: [netz] Responsible information providers
Re: [netz] Responsible information providers
Re: [netz] Responsible information providers
Re: [netz] Responsible information providers
Re: [netz] Responsible information providers
Re[2]: [netz] Responsible information providers
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 11:51:20 -0400
From: Luis De Quesada <lgd1@columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: [netz] Responsible information providers
The democratic nature of netizens and our list I think should not and cannot
exclude a posting or part of a posting that expresses ideology, in my opinion that
would be censorship. On your point #5, I don't think" restrictions of postings
expressing views opposing those we promulgate" for example postings in favor of
privatization of the internet will ever be implemented on the list. This list is
based on democracy, restrictions are not democratic. To my memory the only posting
objected to was a racist remark made by someone, which is unethical, because it is
not right to have someone insulted on the list because of his race, origin,
religion, etc.etc. Other than racial insults, epithets, name calling, fun making,
etc. any other postings I think are welcome. This is just my opinion, I will let
Jay and Ronda elaborate further on these things.
Luis de Quesada
"Howard C. Berkowitz" wrote:
> Thought I'd share some early thoughts about some guidelines for
> responsibly providing information to netizens. I'm thinking here less
> of people on mailing lists and newsgroups than those that create
> websites to act as information sources.
>
> Again, this is the sort of discussion I understand, rather than
> ideologically mired discussions between people using different
> vocabularies and/or definitions. I think it's a positive step toward
> netizenship.
>
> 1. We recognize that many Internet users have low-speed connections. For
> that reason, we emphasize text as our basic form of content. Clearly,
> there are times graphics are necessary to explain or illustrate things,
> but we will not set up graphics-intensive download as the default
> behavior for our site.
>
> We will explore technical means of adapting the display depending on
> the resources of the user. These include access bandwidth and whether the
> user pays for connection time. These also include signaling the provider
> when the user requires a text-oriented display for compatibility with
> assistive devices for physical disabilities.
>
> 2. To the extent possible, we will make our site accessible to people with
> physical disabilities. Some design practices to do this include at least
> labeling icons with text, so a text-to-speech converter can help people
> with visual disabilities. We will avoid complex multilevel menus requiring
> complex movements with a mouse or other pointing device.
>
> 3. We will be responsible in applying software patches and good system
> administration practice to help protect the integrity of our own content,
> as well as preventing our systems from being compromised by malicious
> hackers who would use us as a platform for launching attacks.
>
> 4. As online publishers, we take responsibility that content on our site
> is not libelous, contains stolen property, violates widely accepted
> concerns such as child pornography, or can be used destructively.
> We will publish terms of service that identify why such material will
> not be permitted.
>
> 5. If we have created our online publication to promulgate a certain point
> of view, we will identify that view and, if we restrict posting opposed
> to it, state our policies for refusing posts.
>
> 6. If we are a provider of access to information sources, we will not restrict
> user access to them principally to force them to commercial equivalents
> we operate.
>
> 7. We accept the need to balance interests in our operation. If we benefit
> from shared resources, we will be thoughtful of their scarcity and
> participate in appropriate regulation. We recognize that the Internet
> requires some self-regulation to maintain its technical integrity.
>
> 8. We will clearly identify our privacy and security policy, with the
> understanding that we may be restricted from disclosing certain information
> due to laws in the jurisdiction of our operation. We will clearly
> identify our policy for disclosing user information policies, and put
> both third-party disclosure and unsolicited mailings under double opt-out
> controls.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 12:48:58 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Responsible information providers
At 11:51 AM -0400 4/21/03, Luis De Quesada wrote:
>The democratic nature of netizens and our list I think should not and cannot
>exclude a posting or part of a posting that expresses ideology, in
>my opinion that
>would be censorship.
Please understand I am not talking about this specific list, but
about information providers in general. Think about an environment
where there is universal access, so Netizens can go to sites
supported by specific organizations and find out their official
positions, or get to news and analytic organizations.
>On your point #5, I don't think" restrictions of postings
>expressing views opposing those we promulgate" for example postings
>in favor of
>privatization of the internet will ever be implemented on the list.
Again, you are speaking of this list. If one of the goals of
netizenship is to allow publication of points of view, shouldn't
organizations associated with a point of view be able to publish it?
In other words, the Democratic National Committee website is to
publish their views. They built it for that purpose.
Should they be required to carry material from the Republican
National Committee? I don't think so. The US First Amendment
prevents legislation affecting freedom of publication -- which means
that anyone can publish, but not that they are forced to publish
views contrary to that of the publisher.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 12:21:15 -0400
From: Luis De Quesada <lgd1@columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: [netz] Responsible information providers
Hello: I thought you were referring to our list when you mentioned postings. And
you may be right that the Democratic or Republican National Committees should only
accept their own views on their particular websited, because they paid for it,
however bear in mind that at times there has been dissention within both the
Democrat and Republican organizations, like "Democrats for Reagan or Bush", or
"Republicans for LBJ", etc.. And if there is dissention within I think these
dissenting views should be free to post or air, without interference.
I can't help but feel uneasy when you mention "restrictions on postings". However
since you say you're proposing something else and something outside our list I'll
let the Haubens elaborate further on that. Sorry for any misunderstanding on my
part.
Luis
"Howard C. Berkowitz" wrote:
> At 11:51 AM -0400 4/21/03, Luis De Quesada wrote:
> >The democratic nature of netizens and our list I think should not and cannot
> >exclude a posting or part of a posting that expresses ideology, in
> >my opinion that
> >would be censorship.
>
> Please understand I am not talking about this specific list, but
> about information providers in general. Think about an environment
> where there is universal access, so Netizens can go to sites
> supported by specific organizations and find out their official
> positions, or get to news and analytic organizations.
>
> >On your point #5, I don't think" restrictions of postings
> >expressing views opposing those we promulgate" for example postings
> >in favor of
> >privatization of the internet will ever be implemented on the list.
>
> Again, you are speaking of this list. If one of the goals of
> netizenship is to allow publication of points of view, shouldn't
> organizations associated with a point of view be able to publish it?
> In other words, the Democratic National Committee website is to
> publish their views. They built it for that purpose.
>
> Should they be required to carry material from the Republican
> National Committee? I don't think so. The US First Amendment
> prevents legislation affecting freedom of publication -- which means
> that anyone can publish, but not that they are forced to publish
> views contrary to that of the publisher.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 13:19:11 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Responsible information providers
>Hello: I thought you were referring to our list when you mentioned postings.
No--I'm trying to start pinning down a reasonable set goals for
providing information to Netizens worldwide.
> And
>you may be right that the Democratic or Republican National
>Committees should only
>accept their own views on their particular websites, because they
>paid for it,
>however bear in mind that at times there has been dissention within both the
>Democrat and Republican organizations, like "Democrats for Reagan or Bush", or
>"Republicans for LBJ", etc..
Of course. And each one of those dissenters should have the right to
publish, but they may have to publish at their own cost.
>And if there is dissention within I think these
>dissenting views should be free to post or air, without interference.
I'm a little confused. I don't see any reason why such views can't be
posted, but not necessarily on the site or list of someone that has
an official structure and an official position. There are many other
opportunities for making information available.
>I can't help but feel uneasy when you mention "restrictions on
>postings". However
>since you say you're proposing something else and something outside
>our list I'll
>let the Haubens elaborate further on that. Sorry for any
>misunderstanding on my
>part.
>Luis
Luis,
Jay has suggested that the ideal model is where everyone's view is
heard directly. I've noticed you often close your posts by saying
the Haubens will elaborate. Isn't that, to some extent, making them
your representatives? I'd like to know _your_ views.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 14:08:52 -0400
From: Mark Lindeman <lindeman@bard.edu>
Subject: Re: [netz] Responsible information providers
>
>
>> [Luis] And
>> you may be right that the Democratic or Republican National
>> Committees should only
>> accept their own views on their particular websites, because they
>> paid for it,
>> however bear in mind that at times there has been dissention within
>> both the
>> Democrat and Republican organizations, like "Democrats for Reagan or
>> Bush", or
>> "Republicans for LBJ", etc..
>
>
> [HCB] Of course. And each one of those dissenters should have the
> right to publish, but they may have to publish at their own cost.
>
>> [Luis] And if there is dissention within I think these
>> dissenting views should be free to post or air, without interference.
>
>
> [HCB] I'm a little confused. I don't see any reason why such views
> can't be posted, but not necessarily on the site or list of someone
> that has an official structure and an official position. There are
> many other opportunities for making information available.
Based on Luis's first sentence above, it seems possible that he
misunderstands what Howard is saying. Howard didn't say that the DNC
and RNC "should only accept their own views"; he said that he didn't
think they should be "required" to carry opposing views.
I don't know whether it's my place to say that the DNC and RNC "should"
post dissenting views, but it would certainly make their sites more
interesting! I don't think they should be required to do it -- and that
difference between our ethical judgments and our policy preferences is
always very important.
Now, as I understand Howard's suggestions for "responsible information
providers," they aren't binding rules imposed from outside, but they are
norms that information providers could voluntarily adopt. The American
Association of Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) has a code of ethics. It
doesn't require public opinion researchers to do all the things that I
personally wish every public opinion researcher should do. But it does
impose some important ethical standards, and when someone violates those
standards, they are subject to AAPOR censure. For instance, the pollster
who claimed that his research demonstrated broad public support for the
Republicans' 1994 "Contract with America" was censured when he refused
to present any evidence for his claim.
I guess that Howard is suggesting a similar code, although I don't know
whether he envisages an International Association of Information
Providers. The code doesn't require providers to present all views, but
it does require that if they restrict the views expressed, they need to
state their policies openly. That's a good idea.
(By the way, Jay did once remove a member from this list for, as I
recall, repeatedly using profanity and ethnic slurs. I thought Jay made
absolutely the right decision, but that aside, I admired that he
explained what he had done and why and invited comments from the list
participants. I've seen lists and forums where no one was quite sure
what the list owners / moderators were or weren't filtering out.)
Mark
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 13:53:23 -0400
From: Luis De Quesada <lgd1@columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: [netz] Responsible information providers
Hello: Well since the Haubens are the ones who initiated this entire thing, I
think they do represent the very essence of netizens. I don't want to speak for
them. I do not regard them as "bosses" or anything like that. But I do respect
their opinions and think they have an important voice in matters concerning
netizens and in its destiny. As far as my views in what you're saying about what
netizens might find in other venues, you do have valid points. The Haubens are not
my representatives, we coincide in our line of thinking,as far as being against
privitizing the internet, or its infrastructure or whatever's left of it, but I
have a difference of opinions with them on a number of issues and that's no problem
with us, we remain the best of friends. By the same token I've noticed Mark, Larry
and Dan coincide with your views and I am not going to call you their
representative, or vice versa, your views just coincide most of the time, am I
correct?
Luis
"Howard C. Berkowitz" wrote:
> >Hello: I thought you were referring to our list when you mentioned postings.
>
> No--I'm trying to start pinning down a reasonable set goals for
> providing information to Netizens worldwide.
>
> > And
> >you may be right that the Democratic or Republican National
> >Committees should only
> >accept their own views on their particular websites, because they
> >paid for it,
> >however bear in mind that at times there has been dissention within both the
> >Democrat and Republican organizations, like "Democrats for Reagan or Bush", or
> >"Republicans for LBJ", etc..
>
> Of course. And each one of those dissenters should have the right to
> publish, but they may have to publish at their own cost.
>
> >And if there is dissention within I think these
> >dissenting views should be free to post or air, without interference.
>
> I'm a little confused. I don't see any reason why such views can't be
> posted, but not necessarily on the site or list of someone that has
> an official structure and an official position. There are many other
> opportunities for making information available.
>
> >I can't help but feel uneasy when you mention "restrictions on
> >postings". However
> >since you say you're proposing something else and something outside
> >our list I'll
> >let the Haubens elaborate further on that. Sorry for any
> >misunderstanding on my
> >part.
> >Luis
>
> Luis,
>
> Jay has suggested that the ideal model is where everyone's view is
> heard directly. I've noticed you often close your posts by saying
> the Haubens will elaborate. Isn't that, to some extent, making them
> your representatives? I'd like to know _your_ views.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 15:13:25 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Responsible information providers
>Hello: Well since the Haubens are the ones who initiated this entire thing, I
>think they do represent the very essence of netizens. I don't want
>to speak for
>them. I do not regard them as "bosses" or anything like that. But I do respect
>their opinions and think they have an important voice in matters concerning
>netizens and in its destiny. As far as my views in what you're
>saying about what
>netizens might find in other venues, you do have valid points. The
>Haubens are not
>my representatives, we coincide in our line of thinking,as far as
>being against
>privitizing the internet, or its infrastructure or whatever's left
>of it, but I
>have a difference of opinions with them on a number of issues and
>that's no problem
>with us, we remain the best of friends. By the same token I've
>noticed Mark, Larry
>and Dan coincide with your views and I am not going to call you their
>representative, or vice versa, your views just coincide most of the time, am I
>correct?
>Luis
True. But I've never ended one of my posts saying that Mark, Larry or
Dan will elaborate.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 14:50:09 -0400
From: Luis De Quesada <lgd1@columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: [netz] Responsible information providers
Hello: Yes I know, but then Mark, Larry or Dan didn't create netizens and neither
did we. The Haubens created the entire thing and I always want to hear what they
have to say about an issue affecting netizens whether I agree with it or not. Also
when I don't have an answer that's educated enough, I always say, well lets see
what the experts have to say on it. And perhaps contrary to "popular opinion" they
are experts.
Luis
"Howard C. Berkowitz" wrote:
> >Hello: Well since the Haubens are the ones who initiated this entire thing, I
> >think they do represent the very essence of netizens. I don't want
> >to speak for
> >them. I do not regard them as "bosses" or anything like that. But I do respect
> >their opinions and think they have an important voice in matters concerning
> >netizens and in its destiny. As far as my views in what you're
> >saying about what
> >netizens might find in other venues, you do have valid points. The
> >Haubens are not
> >my representatives, we coincide in our line of thinking,as far as
> >being against
> >privitizing the internet, or its infrastructure or whatever's left
> >of it, but I
> >have a difference of opinions with them on a number of issues and
> >that's no problem
> >with us, we remain the best of friends. By the same token I've
> >noticed Mark, Larry
> >and Dan coincide with your views and I am not going to call you their
> >representative, or vice versa, your views just coincide most of the time, am I
> >correct?
> >Luis
>
> True. But I've never ended one of my posts saying that Mark, Larry or
> Dan will elaborate.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 00:52:52 +0200
From: Dan Duris <dusoft@staznosti.sk>
Subject: Re[2]: [netz] Responsible information providers
I welcome your efforts to set guidelines. Actually, I really liked
what I saw.
I think that's a good base for further ideas. BTW: Maybe also W3C
standards should be introduced to guidelines about websites. I think
today there are not so many pages that validates and that's a problem.
We have to make sites that validates since they don't require a user
to have a special browser. Accessibility part in your email is great,
too. I completely agree on that.
dan
- --------------------------
email: dusoft@staznosti.sk
ICQ: 17932727
*- put knot yore trust inn spel chequers -*
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #509
******************************
