Hi,
On the one hand it would be nice to have total freedom on the net, much like it was until less than ten years ago. On the other hand it would be nice to have a reasonable degree of worthwhile content (relative to the trash (which *was* the case, pretty much, as little as ten years ago)). Note: I am not saying that the majority of the content of the Internet ten years ago was useful, far from it. I'm simply saying that the useful content was a large enough subset that it could still be found without extensive time and effort devoted to the search.
Just another example of the adage, "Anarchy only works if everybody follows the rules." Of course, that presupposes that people are informed enough to know the rules in the first place and smart enough to understand them in the second. Both are bad suppositions when applied to the population as a whole. Which is why most forms of anarchy are doomed to failure.
So, the question is not "freedom or constraint?" It just isn't that black and white. The question is what is the best balance between freedom and constraint. While I find some of the measures proposed by kandrathe a bit (or more) draconian, I think the "freedom without responsibility" approach you champion to be unworkable and naive. Actions, even simple actions like posting to a forum, must have consequences. Removing those consequences is not "freedom", it is "license" (in its 'bad" meaning). We see that in the flame wars that dominate unmonitored fora. We see that in the dreck that gets sent to your e-mailbox (try turning off your spam filter). We see that in the griefing that dominates so much online play.
Since there is no known reliable way to install a sense of responsibility into people, there will always be those that abuse any system. In an attempt to keep that abuse down, people form some kind of enforcement group. In the "old" Internet, the rules were unwritten and enforcement was by peer pressure. That works in a society of (mostly) rational people (this site being a great example of that). But if the abusers become a big enough fraction of the total, then they get peer support as well. At that point some form of enforcement comes about, often along with codified laws. It amounts to vigilantism and will work for short periods in small communities (gold rush San Francisco, the old DSF). But that is neither a stable nor a desirable solution.
From my experience, alot of the net's quality content is offered by 'amateurs', while 'professionals' tend to be responsible for most of the crap.
I must admit I'm both befuddled and intrigued by this statement. Now, "amateur" has developed a bad connotation in the past century or so. The original meaning was one who devoted his time to a topic for the love of that topic. And amateurs of that type are often much more productive and informed than many "professionals" (which, after all, only means that they get paid for their work :) )
However, you seem to contrast "amateur" and "professional" and imply that they are somehow opposites. But the only strict sense that they are opposite is in the matter of pay. I'm not sure just what professionals have put up crap, or in what sense they have done so. I'm even wondering what types of content you are talking about. In the technical fields, most of the content by "amateurs" (most of whom fit the "lacking in experience and competence" definition of amateur) is total crap. The content by professionals is often excellent, especially that content contained in on-line refereed publications (which are getting to be more the norm because of reduced costs and more rapid dissemination).
Now, in many cases, the "unofficial" web sites for some topics (e.g., Good Eats) contains more information than the official web site(s). Partially that is because the unofficial sites often "infringe" on copyright matters (which the copyright holder ignores if it is garnering free publicity but opposes otherwise). Partially because the official sites are either dedicated to many other things (The whole Food Network in the case of Good Eats) or because it is the work of one or two persons who have many other tasks. After all, a "professional" will work the required hours, and possibly a little more, but an amateur, almost by definition, devotes his life to his love.
So, I'm still intrigued. I don't know if that was an off the cuff BS generalization or if you have some specifics in mind. I think I disagree, but am not sure enough about what you mean to know what I think about it ;)
--Pete
On the one hand it would be nice to have total freedom on the net, much like it was until less than ten years ago. On the other hand it would be nice to have a reasonable degree of worthwhile content (relative to the trash (which *was* the case, pretty much, as little as ten years ago)). Note: I am not saying that the majority of the content of the Internet ten years ago was useful, far from it. I'm simply saying that the useful content was a large enough subset that it could still be found without extensive time and effort devoted to the search.
Just another example of the adage, "Anarchy only works if everybody follows the rules." Of course, that presupposes that people are informed enough to know the rules in the first place and smart enough to understand them in the second. Both are bad suppositions when applied to the population as a whole. Which is why most forms of anarchy are doomed to failure.
So, the question is not "freedom or constraint?" It just isn't that black and white. The question is what is the best balance between freedom and constraint. While I find some of the measures proposed by kandrathe a bit (or more) draconian, I think the "freedom without responsibility" approach you champion to be unworkable and naive. Actions, even simple actions like posting to a forum, must have consequences. Removing those consequences is not "freedom", it is "license" (in its 'bad" meaning). We see that in the flame wars that dominate unmonitored fora. We see that in the dreck that gets sent to your e-mailbox (try turning off your spam filter). We see that in the griefing that dominates so much online play.
Since there is no known reliable way to install a sense of responsibility into people, there will always be those that abuse any system. In an attempt to keep that abuse down, people form some kind of enforcement group. In the "old" Internet, the rules were unwritten and enforcement was by peer pressure. That works in a society of (mostly) rational people (this site being a great example of that). But if the abusers become a big enough fraction of the total, then they get peer support as well. At that point some form of enforcement comes about, often along with codified laws. It amounts to vigilantism and will work for short periods in small communities (gold rush San Francisco, the old DSF). But that is neither a stable nor a desirable solution.
From my experience, alot of the net's quality content is offered by 'amateurs', while 'professionals' tend to be responsible for most of the crap.
I must admit I'm both befuddled and intrigued by this statement. Now, "amateur" has developed a bad connotation in the past century or so. The original meaning was one who devoted his time to a topic for the love of that topic. And amateurs of that type are often much more productive and informed than many "professionals" (which, after all, only means that they get paid for their work :) )
However, you seem to contrast "amateur" and "professional" and imply that they are somehow opposites. But the only strict sense that they are opposite is in the matter of pay. I'm not sure just what professionals have put up crap, or in what sense they have done so. I'm even wondering what types of content you are talking about. In the technical fields, most of the content by "amateurs" (most of whom fit the "lacking in experience and competence" definition of amateur) is total crap. The content by professionals is often excellent, especially that content contained in on-line refereed publications (which are getting to be more the norm because of reduced costs and more rapid dissemination).
Now, in many cases, the "unofficial" web sites for some topics (e.g., Good Eats) contains more information than the official web site(s). Partially that is because the unofficial sites often "infringe" on copyright matters (which the copyright holder ignores if it is garnering free publicity but opposes otherwise). Partially because the official sites are either dedicated to many other things (The whole Food Network in the case of Good Eats) or because it is the work of one or two persons who have many other tasks. After all, a "professional" will work the required hours, and possibly a little more, but an amateur, almost by definition, devotes his life to his love.
So, I'm still intrigued. I don't know if that was an off the cuff BS generalization or if you have some specifics in mind. I think I disagree, but am not sure enough about what you mean to know what I think about it ;)
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?