|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 299 responses total. |
aruba
|
|
response 129 of 299:
| 
Apr 2 16:53 UTC 2005 |
According to
/---------------------------------------------------------------------\
| http://www.eff.org/Misc/Graphics/Icons/BlueRibbon/README.blueribbon |
\---------------------------------------------------------------------/
"All internet users are strongly encouraged to place a blue ribbon graphic
on their servers, such as the ones available here, with a link to the URL
mentioned below."
As far as I can see, the EFF doesn't have particular rules for who should
display the ribbon and who shouldn't. They'd like everyone to do it.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 130 of 299:
|
Apr 2 18:41 UTC 2005 |
I'll bet the KKK would love a nice graphic on Grex, also.
|
tod
|
|
response 131 of 299:
|
Apr 2 19:16 UTC 2005 |
"Its just a ribbon..it doesn't MEAN anything"
heh
|
scholar
|
|
response 132 of 299:
|
Apr 2 19:37 UTC 2005 |
Re. 129: It hardly seems to me that it is fair to read one sentence of a
document and take that as the totality of the document, especially when it
results in the distortion you have made. Sentences like "A blue ribbon is
chosen as the symbol for the preservation of basic civil rights in the
electronic world" certainly established that the act of displaying the blue
ribbon is an act in support of the ideology of free speech. It seems to me
queer and possibly disingenuous that someone could claim that the only free
speech worth preserving is that which is not suppressed by a particular
entity, though I imagine some will claim that they simply object to free
speech quashed by governments. This, however, seems to debase any real
significance of the blue ribbon. If we release ourselves of any motivation
to preserve free speech on Grex, what could the blue ribbon possibly stand
for? We lose any possibility of local significance, which is the only type
we can actually effect.
|
richard
|
|
response 133 of 299:
|
Apr 2 20:18 UTC 2005 |
who cares about the freakin' ribbon! the ribbon isn't the issue here.
the issue is what to do about users abusing the conferences. I think
closing newuser would be really bad, as it would discourage new users
from coming here and grex NEEDS new users for its survival. Filters
are only good until people find ways around them, and with open newuser
people will find ways around them.
So its a no win proposition with closing new user OR imposing new
filters. Neither will work. Therefore what other options would grex
have except to more closely moderate the conferences. I don't think
requiring good behaviour equates to censorship. You aren't repressing
ideas if you are saying, 'we want you to call a gay person
a "homosexual" and not use the word 'faggot' or any other words we
might find demeaning. You aren't repressing ideas if you say, 'we want
you to not flame a person in a conf for the sake of flaming a person'
You aren't repressing ideas if you say 'for the sake of those involved
in chats, we request that you don't re-post chat transcripts in Agora
or other conferences'
You CAN in fact continue to uphold the ideals of free speech and an
open exhange of ideas AND at the same time require some concepts of
decent behaviour that would make the conferences more enjoyable and
readable for all.
If Grex's conferencing environment is to survive as anything worth
reading, grex can't filter left and right, it needs to take care of the
conferences more directly.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 134 of 299:
|
Apr 2 20:56 UTC 2005 |
Richard, if you'd take a minute to untie your panties, you would realize
you're confusing and combining two separate issues. Issue #1: How should
grex deal with "problem" users, new or otherwise? Issue #2: IF grex
chooses a method inconsistent with the values symbolized by the Blue
Ribbon, should the ribbon be removed from grex?
My position on #1 is that the problem is not that great, and that lesser
solutions are preferable to more drastic solutions. You and others
obviously disagree.
My position on #2: Since you and others seem to be hell-bent on adopting
more drastic "solutions" all I ask is that you recognize such solutions
are inconsitent with the principles represented by the blue ribbon, and
it should therefore be removed from grex. Capiche?
|
richard
|
|
response 135 of 299:
|
Apr 2 21:01 UTC 2005 |
I disagree that such solutions are inconsistent with blue ribbon
principles. Grex is not repressing ideas or telling people what to
say. Grex has free speech and would continue to have, even with these
suggestions. Grex can go on proudly wearing the blue ribbon
|
cyklone
|
|
response 136 of 299:
|
Apr 2 21:06 UTC 2005 |
Nice try, but the EEF disagrees with you. Here, I'll post it again for the
memory-impaired:
http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Anonymity/
Assuming you have a high-school level ability to comprehend the written
word, you should admit now the EEF considers ANONYMOUS speech to be
fundamental part of free speech. You, OTOH, want to bar anonymous speech.
You can't have both. Pick the lady or the tiger.
|
richard
|
|
response 137 of 299:
|
Apr 2 21:11 UTC 2005 |
I don't want to bar anonymous speech. I am against closing newuser.
Requiring a code of behaviour for posters IS NOT barring anonymous
speech. In no way am I saying that anybody must reveal who they are.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 138 of 299:
|
Apr 2 21:19 UTC 2005 |
I stand corrected. I had you confused with others who want to ID all new
users. However, when I reviewed your posts, it is clear that you want to
restrict the content of speech. That is the very ESSENCE of censorship, so
if you position is adopted by grex, it would be hypocritical to allow the blue
ribbon to remain.
|
naftee
|
|
response 139 of 299:
|
Apr 2 21:21 UTC 2005 |
richard believes in a "closed" private BBS and an "open" public newuser. It's
very strange.
|
other
|
|
response 140 of 299:
|
Apr 2 21:23 UTC 2005 |
cyklone, I think you are flat wrong, and here's why:
I think there is a practical limit to the reasonable upholding of the
principles of free speech by private organizations. When a business
(either for profit or not) declares itself to uphold those principles,
it must be assumed that it will not and *cannot* do so without
compromise.
To deny that is to expect that an organization will allow any and all
speech content by any persons, even if that content leads directly to
the failure of the organization itself. To do that would not be an
effective way of supporting the principle of free speech, because it
would allow a small number of determined pests to destroy any
organization which pursues an uncompromising policy supporting free speech.
Therefore, in practice, it is not only perfectly acceptable, but
desirable for non-governmental organizations to limit abuses of free
speech in order to preserve their own ability to further support free
speech.
This sounds rather Orwellian if you don't actually think about it, but
if you do think about it, you'll realize that
- it is pretty basic, and
- it necessarily introduces uncertainty because of the
variability of interpretation of the reasonable extent of free speech
that an organization can support without letting itself be threatened by
it.
The conclusions:
- Grex not only has the right, but it has a responsibility to
its stakeholders to place some limits on abuses of its free and open forums.
- Minimally limiting abuses of free speech is absolutely not
antithetical to the concept of free speech, but is necessary to prevent
the spiral to oblivion that results from allowing tyrannical abusers
unrestricted ability to poison the well of public discourse.
- The Devil is in the details when it comes to deciding what
constitutes 'reasonable limits on free speech.'
|
richard
|
|
response 141 of 299:
|
Apr 2 21:27 UTC 2005 |
I only want to require good behaviour, I am not suggesting that anyone be
prevented from speaking their mind on any topic. Nothing on the EFF page says
anything that says sites shouldn't or couldn't require that.
It says "display the Blue Ribbon to support the essential human right of free
speech, a fundamental building block of free society"
If your interpretation is that there should never be any rules, that good and
ethical behaviour can't be required by host sites in exchange for use of their
services, then I think your interpretations are WAY too broad.
|
richard
|
|
response 142 of 299:
|
Apr 2 21:31 UTC 2005 |
re #139, naftee I didn't say I the "bbs" should be closed/private, I said the
organization that sponsors it is a private organization. Big difference.
you seem to think that your free speech rights mean that this
private organization can't or shouldn't be able to take steps to protect
its hardware, software and other assets from user abuse. That is wrong.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 143 of 299:
|
Apr 3 00:08 UTC 2005 |
Re #141: I have never said that free speech is entirely without limits. The
common example on line is posting credit card numbers without the knowledge
of the cardowner. So don't bring red herrings into this. I am objecting to
your "good behavior" standard since I have yet to see it articulated in any
way that would avoid abuse by the "good behavior" censors. Maybe you should
think about some standards rather than general principles.
Re #140: That was actually the best argument I've heard so far. It doesn't
make me "flat wrong" however. First of all, the solution must fit the
problem. In order to craft a proper solution, the problem must first be
fairly assessed. Just because some on grex scream the sky is falling
doesn't make it so. Grex has survived waves of twits before without
implementing drastic measures, and I remain unconvinced that the passage
of time won't do the same in this case. At the very least, a one or two
month wait to see what happens is not going to result in the downfall of
grex.
In addition, I have already endorsed twit filters as the lesser evil that
furthers the goals you describe. What I'm seeing from many on grex,
however, is an attitude of "let's not even waste our time with that idea,
we need to move on to more drastic measures." Rejecting an untested
moderate proposal while pushing more extreme ideas is the hallmark of
fanaticism. Even more to the point, at least a portion of that filter
proposal has ALREADY been tested and proven successful! The same goes for
temporary IP blocks. Those who want to go further are extremists, and I
don't believe the blue ribbon is justified when it is associated with such
extremism. While the arguments you make would be persuasive if the
ultimate existence of grex was at stake, I don't see that as the case.
Right now the attitude seems more like "we must trample on free speech to
preserve our playground the way we like it and want it forever to remain."
|
mary
|
|
response 144 of 299:
|
Apr 3 02:00 UTC 2005 |
What would have to be the state of things for you to agree Grex is
in trouble and it's "ultimate existence" is at stake? Would you be
looking at the number of those willing to financially support Grex?
The number of users sustaining interesting discussion? Do you think
it's possible to wait so long to act that nobody will be left to
care what happens?
|
mary
|
|
response 145 of 299:
|
Apr 3 02:10 UTC 2005 |
(Mary hums M-Net's theme song while waiting for an answer...) ;-)
|
slynne
|
|
response 146 of 299:
|
Apr 3 02:16 UTC 2005 |
Closing newuser does not necessarily mean that we have to verify anyone
who runs it. It just means that there might be a waiting period before
one has access to the systems. This would theoretically prevent someone
with a splatted account from immediately running newuser. Anonymity can
still be preserved.
I am still not convinced that closing newuser is the best way to handle
this issue. I think we already know that ip blocking wont work. I
*really* dont like the idea of moderating anyone's words.
I wonder if it is possible to give item authors more control over
individual items. Like giving them fw powers over any item they author?
This would involve a huge shift in policy, I know. And it would allow
item authors to censor responses in items they create. But since any
user would be free to enter another item that they control, it would not
be an abridgement of free speech. Obviously this is not something that
could apply to any items already in existance since part of what would
make a scheme like this work would be for anyone responding to an item
to know that their words are under the control of the item's author. Any
item author who ends up abusing this power would soon find people
reluctant to respond to any items they author.
I dont suppose that is something that is technically possible?
|
naftee
|
|
response 147 of 299:
|
Apr 3 02:34 UTC 2005 |
re 142
Read your response #113
" So posting on grex is not like speaking on a
sidewalk, it is like posting to a privately owned bulletin board. Grex
posting is a PRIVILEDGE, it is not a right. "
You're saying right here that the BBS is private. But the strange thing is
why you believe that the newuser command should not be reserved as a
private command reserved for priviledged users. What do you expect new people
to do on this "public" system which really isn't public at all ?
|
cyklone
|
|
response 148 of 299:
|
Apr 3 03:07 UTC 2005 |
Re #144: Off the top of my head, no, I haven't thought of any particular
metrics to monitor. However, I can say that mnet has survived fine, and
until grex nears that level I don't see any cause for concern. As far as I
know, mnet also grants trex a great deal of leeway to IP block disruptive
users. It seems to work out fine.
|
scholar
|
|
response 149 of 299:
|
Apr 3 03:10 UTC 2005 |
Some months ago, Rex banned all of Sympatico, by far Canada's largest ISP,
in favour of getting rid of me.
Now, I use the system openly, but Sympatico is still banned, at least for the
most part; I have accidentally found one or two addresses that appear to never
have been subject to the ban.
|
cross
|
|
response 150 of 299:
|
Apr 3 03:12 UTC 2005 |
Richard would make any homophobic or xenophobic remarks automatic grounds for
removal from BBS. While those comments are distasteful at best, this *is*
censorship. If we adopt such policies, we no longer support free speech.
As it is, we've already crossed the line too far.
|
spooked
|
|
response 151 of 299:
|
Apr 3 03:47 UTC 2005 |
Having fairwitnesses moderate content, as a solution to Grex's declining
agora state is not only ethically concerning, but in reality is impractical.
It is a no-goer - simple! (FWIW, I have not read agora in years - thought
it was bad enough back then...)
The flexible solution, which can solve the problem for both existing users
AND new users is one I described in this item somewhere back there - 2 sets
of filters:
1) User-defined conf/party/write filters: Complete flexibility on who to
ignore, if anyone, is at the discretion of each individual user.
2) Staff-defined conf/party/write filters: Staff may maintain a global list
of troublesome identities, and only if a user wants to block communication
with these people shall they employ this list. NEW USERS can have the option
to enable this by default, thus largely filtering most of the junk from their
eyes from day one.
Both can be employed if a user chooses, AND if a user wants to "hear" from
someone potentially blocked in set 2 by staff (but still keep the others
filtered) then that should be possible, also - for example, like the
.yeswrite (if I recall correctly) functionality with the orville write
program.
Finally, the filters should be able to be turned on/off/modified at anytime
at each individual user's discretion.
This solution is both flexible to each individual user, and is technically
not that brain-intensive to implement (will require a few changes to the
bbs/party/write). In the case of bbs the changes will only be possible in
fronttalk because we do not have code to picospan - though, I guess we could
implement some paging front-end filter capabilities (in fact, some users
already have coded their own, I think).
|
mary
|
|
response 152 of 299:
|
Apr 3 03:48 UTC 2005 |
I'm hoping for something a little more interesting than survival.
|
spooked
|
|
response 153 of 299:
|
Apr 3 03:51 UTC 2005 |
Mary slipped in
|