"Mike Connor" wrote in message
...
"Wolfgang" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
SNIP
Nothing is happening that hasn't happened many times before and it
will continue to happen, off and on, for as long as unmoderated usenet
groups survive which, to be sure, may not be all that long. You see,
the REAL problem, as I've mentioned here before, is that unmoderated
usenet groups are the closest thing to a democratic institution that
the world has ever seen......and a LOT of people simply don't like
democracy very much. What's happening here that isn't good is what
always happens to free speech.
Interesting points. Nevertheless, free speech as such is a myth here. It
seems that quite a few providers have a relatively high complaint
tolerance,
and also that less people complain to ISPīs anyway.
I agree that this group, ( one of the few I have any real experience of,
apart from ROFFT), and others like it, may indeed be the last bastions of
freedom as such, but only because ISPīs are not primarily interested in
controlling content, but in making money, and it is not possible for
various
other bodies ( Governments, associations etc)to exercise any real control.
"Free speech", can of course be hard to define. My own favourite ( rightly
or wrongly), is "The freedom to express an opinion, without fear or
favour".
It does not include the "freedom" to attack others personally with
impunity.
As an interesting aside, there are many providers, ( as I know to my
cost),
who
will simply suspend service, or attempt to force their subscribers to
conform
to their policies. Irrespective of right or wrong. There is no recourse.
What often happens here, is that somebody ( for whatever reason) launches
a
personal attack, the person attacked replies in kind, and this often
escalates to a "tit for tat" situation. The final outcome ( again, rightly
or wrongly) may well depend merely on the complaint tolerance of the ISP
concerned, or the personal integrity of any of the parties concerned.
Which
again, differs very considerably from person to person.
Furthermore, for more than a few people, personal integrity and
willingness
to accept responsibility for their actions, only lasts as long as it is
convenient for them. They expect others to adhere to their codes, but for
some odd reason, they imagine that they themselves are exempt. Biases
develop, and these severely affect the statements made by some, more or
less
dependent on what they think of the poster concerned.
These groups have nothing whatever to do with democracy. Democracy is a
political system based on the premise that the numerical majority of an
organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group. This
specifically does not apply to this, or practically any other group on
Usenet, moderated or otherwise. I am always amazed at people who
mistake such groups for democracy.
These groups are composed of individuals who may do as they please within
the confines set, and enforced, by their providers. Some can get away with
practically anything, others may lose their providers in a very short
time.
Freedom is something entirely different.
Allow me to clarify.
Others may have declared that ROFF is a democracy. I have never done so. I
am well aware of what a democracy is and, for what it's worth, essentially
agree with the outline you provided above. However, ROFF most certainly IS
a democratic institution or, to be more precise (and as I've said before),
as close to it as the world has ever seen. The adjective "democratic" has
more than one meaning and the one I use here is neither trivial nor obscure.
Something is said to be democratic if it refers to the political system
called democracy and/OR if it is characterized essentially by social
equality. In the latter sense, it is roughly synonymous with "egalitarian".
I chose "democratic" over "egalitarian" deliberately and for reasons that I
won't bore anyone with unless asked. In either case, what makes an
unmoderated Usenet news group democratic or egalitarian is that anyone who
can get here has, in exactly equal measure....a very important part of the
equation...., the right AND the means to express him or her self (or not, as
they see fit) and avail him or her self of the offerings put forward by
others (with the same qualification).
Your point about an Internet Service Provider being able to terminate access
to Usenet is taken (and it is certainly true), but it is completely
irrelevant to the nature of the institution under discussion. Your ISP
exists and acts outside the confines of Usenet. Anyone who doesn't like you
or what you have to say, or has any other reason legitimate or otherwise,
can hire an assassin to slit your throat and thus summarily halt your
participation in anything and everything. This fact, in and of itself, has
nothing to do with the nature any organization you might have interacted
with. It sucks, but it's another issue entirely. To argue otherwise is
simply to confuse what happens within a certain context with external
conditions or factors that prevent that context from applying.
As for integrity and responsibility, these are highly subjective matters.
You and I have both been criticized a good deal more than the average
ROFFian with regard to both, and the casual unbiased observer would, prima
facie, have no reason to suppose that such criticism was necessarily
undeserved.
One last thing. No one does ANYTHING here with impunity as long as I'm
around.
Wolfgang
who hears the sound of dozens of little feet scurrying toward the
dictionaries.
