|
Grex > Coop7 > #128: Web-Page Building on Grex |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 382 responses total. |
rcurl
|
|
response 200 of 382:
| 
Jan 18 08:08 UTC 1996 |
When the fire alarm goes off in our building, everyone is expected to
stop what they are doing and go outside to a gathering area away from
the building. This happens a few times a year, and every time it has
been a false alarm. This is equivalent to someone yelling "fire" - that
is the alarm - and it may be false. Nevertheless, you take appropriate
response. If no countermanding of the false alarm is given, it would seem
to be reasonable for management to give everyone a rain check (though
that is another matter). I *always* take warnings seriously - I don't
care if someone is really fooling me - I'm not embarrassed by "rising
to the bait".
In answer to Arnold, I would say that we must have a social contract for
our democracy in which *almost everyone* agrees upon the premises, and
can distinguish democratic ideals from hatemongering and prejudice.
Or sense and senibility, from stupidity. If these are the case, hateful
or foul words can not lead to injury to either our persons or minds. We
are not in such a Utopian state, of course, but persons of good will
and good sense can fight back against the haters and profanizers, by
denouncing them loudly and often. The danger lies in neglecting the danger.
|
chelsea
|
|
response 201 of 382:
|
Jan 18 12:11 UTC 1996 |
And a first step toward this society would be to recognize people
have the ability to see fact from fiction and all laws regarding to
libel be stricken from the books. You can now say anything you
care to say about anyone else and let the listener sort it out.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 202 of 382:
|
Jan 18 13:21 UTC 1996 |
[Re fire alarms: When I was a student, during the end-of-term crunch people
would set off the fire alarms in the computer science building, in order to
evacuate the computer labs so that they could get a workstation. Everyone
ignored the fire alarms there. Very dangerous.]
|
rcurl
|
|
response 203 of 382:
|
Jan 18 20:23 UTC 1996 |
Not only are libel laws a violation of freedom of speech, as Mary points
out, but they are also applied selectively. If you are a noted political
figure, you cannot even use the libel laws.
|
abchan
|
|
response 204 of 382:
|
Jan 18 21:18 UTC 1996 |
The problem with fire alarms is after growing up with 99% fire drills and
only 1% real fires, kids don't tend to take them too seriously. Not sure
how to change that though.
|
adbarr
|
|
response 205 of 382:
|
Jan 19 00:58 UTC 1996 |
We tended to pay more attention to the air-raid sirens. Hide under your
desk, cover your head, face away from the windows, and contemplate glowing
in the dark. Ahh... childhood. Fire alarms were anti-climactic. Necessary,
but not as thrilling as armageddon in-your-face.
|
srw
|
|
response 206 of 382:
|
Jan 19 07:57 UTC 1996 |
Actually I don't remember asking for a "morality" policy for Grex.
I remember asking for an acceptable use policy for the web, so that we would
be behaving responsibly in the eyes of the community with regard to what we
exposed minors to. If anyone thinks "anything goes" is OK with the community
on this subject, they are deluded. If you are someone who thinks that
Grex should ignore this fact and continue to provide access to anything at all
to minors, despite community standards to the contrary, then I disagree
strongly with you and will fight you on this question.
I don't propose at all to decide what would be appropriate. Certainly
individuals will differ, but that is no excuse to have no policy. Limiting
ourselves to what a bookstore would provide to minors seems an acceptable
and responsible course for us to take.
|
adbarr
|
|
response 207 of 382:
|
Jan 19 12:06 UTC 1996 |
Exactly! And keep in mind that bookstores and libraries exercise conscious
choice in deciding whqt is purchased and offered on their shelves. The head
of the library or the owner has responsibility ... a new word?
|
remmers
|
|
response 208 of 382:
|
Jan 19 20:19 UTC 1996 |
The policy proposed in #206 seems ill defined. "Limiting ourselves to
what a bookstore would provide to minors..." Which bookstore? Their
policies vary.
|
adbarr
|
|
response 209 of 382:
|
Jan 20 00:01 UTC 1996 |
"Our" bookstore?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 210 of 382:
|
Jan 20 08:49 UTC 1996 |
The "the eyes of the community" is sure an undefined standard. I presume
that Steve means some kind of "average" standard - or is the most
restrictive meant? I find all this catering to those that worry about
what minors see and/or read to be somewhat pathetic. I don't know all that
minors see and read, but my impression is that they know *more* than
any of those attempting to hood(wink) them, and not to their detriment.
Exactly what awful thing is supposed to happen if a minor sees/hears/reads
something bluenoses think is objectionable? If it really happened, we
should be seeing more of it directly attributed to seeing/hearing/reading.
I don't think those are the routes that induce minors to bad acts.
|
adbarr
|
|
response 211 of 382:
|
Jan 20 12:35 UTC 1996 |
It is fear of ourselves. Nicely stated, rcurl. <hvcn needs you>
|
chelsea
|
|
response 212 of 382:
|
Jan 20 14:16 UTC 1996 |
I agree with you Rane. I didn't go out of my to protect my child
from any information. He went with me to any movie I cared to see.
He read whatever he cared to read. We talked about any subject
without my being concerned about how age-appropriate it might be.
He survived. Actually, he did better than survive. But that's
not how all parents want to do it. And I'm not arrogant enough
to say my way was the only right way.
If Grex installed an adult discussion area it would be a show
of support for parents who maybe aren't as liberal as most of
participating in this discussion. If users made appropriate
use of it it might forestall Grex having to take more aggressive
steps in the near future as the online community grows and
standards shift more toward the center. And the times they
are a shiftin'.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 213 of 382:
|
Jan 20 21:48 UTC 1996 |
An "adult" cf has a certain appeal - it would break the previous barrier
against allowing closed cfs. Then maybe Grex would be more openminded
about allowing closed cfs for *useful* purposes. However, I would not
want it to be required that anything anyone claims is "objectionable"
be limited to the "adult" cf. That would be an infringement of freedom
of expression everywhere else on Grex. But maybe it would be a sufficient
sop to the fearful.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 214 of 382:
|
Jan 21 00:51 UTC 1996 |
It starts a bad precedent to have even one closed "topical" cf (I dont
have a problem with the staff cf being closed although I realize there
are others who think it should be open too)
It is not the job of grex staff to be babysitters or to protect
people's kids from whats out there. As I've said before, I dont think
its responsible for parents to be so paranoid that they condition their
kids to be afraid of everything they dont understand. The right
philosophy is to shelter them from nothing but to explain everything.
Closed confs on grex should never be allowed. Ever. Period.
|
robh
|
|
response 215 of 382:
|
Jan 21 02:21 UTC 1996 |
(Who thinks the staff conference should be open?)
(Who would WANT to read it?)
|
rlawson
|
|
response 216 of 382:
|
Jan 21 02:42 UTC 1996 |
<robetr raises his hand until he realizes that robh's question was one of
rhetorical nature> <which might be a while, btw>
|
sidhe
|
|
response 217 of 382:
|
Jan 21 19:26 UTC 1996 |
I would argue that in placing said policy, you undermine the concepts
grex was founded on, perhaps not immediately, but certainly tangibly.
How are we going to determine adulthood? Simply have newuser's
record of age make a breaking point in who can and can't see it? That
would be acceptable, as if someone wants to see it, they don't need to be
verified. And, Grex is covered by the fact that we have it in writing
that this person claimed age of majority.
But, don't make another verification policy. Not on this.
|
scott
|
|
response 218 of 382:
|
Jan 21 20:44 UTC 1996 |
We may have to set it up with two areas:
A "verified adult" area, where you can say what you want, but must be a
verified adult to read it.
An "unverified" area policy, to cover the rest of grex which can be accessed
by unverified people and minors. We would probably have to have some form
of censorship of unverified errors, most likely to act on complaints.
Verified users might be exempt from censoring, since they would be accountable
for their actions.
I don't like this, but I don't want to go to jail, either. It's possible that
a desired side-effect of the decency requirement will be to force verification
of anybody who wants to do anything useful on the net. So much for the
Republicans wanting to "get government off our backs."
|
rcurl
|
|
response 219 of 382:
|
Jan 21 21:04 UTC 1996 |
Re #211: Arnold, what does hvcn need me for? To be the designated
jailbait? B^P.
|
scg
|
|
response 220 of 382:
|
Jan 22 06:59 UTC 1996 |
I really hope we wait to see whether the Communications Act passes before we
bring ourselves into compliance with it. Its passage no longer appears to
be a sure thing.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 221 of 382:
|
Jan 22 07:42 UTC 1996 |
I say the same thing, whether or not passage is a sure thing. However it
has been useful to explore options, even though no conclusion is possible.
|
srw
|
|
response 222 of 382:
|
Jan 23 08:12 UTC 1996 |
Oh, I agree, too. Complying with the CDA makes no sense unless it is law.
This possibility has been put off for a while, but it threatens to come back
again eventually. It is valuable to consider appropriate ways to respond
in the contingency, though.
It is also separate from the question of whether we should apply any
limits at all without this particular law.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 223 of 382:
|
Jan 23 09:46 UTC 1996 |
At this evening's board meeting, STeve Andre convinced me that it would be
a really Bad Idea to have an adult discussion area on Grex. Zillions of
people who don't go anywhere else on Grex go visit the sexuality conference
and the cyberflirt conference. If we had a genuinely closed adult discussion
area, it most likely would see incredible amounts of traffic. I don't want
to see Grex get swamped in that kind of traffic.
|
robh
|
|
response 224 of 382:
|
Jan 23 15:09 UTC 1996 |
That was my feeling as well, only I was more concerned about the
number of new users this would bring in, once word got onto the
Internet that we were a system with an ADULT area. (And something
tells me these wouldn't be folks who would want to take an active
role in the Grex community...)
|