07-24-2004, 10:25 PM
Hi,
Do you have a set of rules that are balanced and could reasonably be accepted and applied? Do you have even an idea of roughly what form these rules would take?
Good questions. We need to determine what the rules are meant to accomplish.
Are they to protect people from "offensive" material? Even the definition of what is "offensive" varies a lot from culture to culture and from person to person. Each person needs to determine what they do not wish to view for themselves. Restricting what is put on the net is not the solution, but requiring that there be a header that contains a list of potentially objectionable content might be.
Are they to protect people from inaccurate information or outright lies? This might even be more difficult. Someone trying to scam you or convert you will probably not say so up front. But a code that some agency or other (and here is a real problem with great potential for abuse) has found this site to be factually correct (independent of the spin) would be nice. But even "facts" are often in dispute. For instance, I find Consumer Reports an invaluable guide, not because I always agree with their findings, but because they tell you what their findings are based on. If a factor they consider insignificant is important to me, I can adjust their result to meet my desires. That is because they give all the information they use to get to their results. If all they gave was their final recommendation, I would find it a lot less useful.
Are they to keep junk and nonsense off the net? Then they are wrong, for the junk has as much right to be there as the "useful" stuff. Besides, one man's junk is another man's collectibles. However, intentionally spoofing search engines to either waste people's time or to generate more hits for one's site should be discouraged through some form of punishment. And a specially hot place in hell should be reserved for the inventor of the pop up :)
Just as most of Europe and North America live under a large set of laws and regulations and yet can maintain a large amount of personal freedom and anonymity, so too should it be possible on the net. Just as the laws, by and large, restrict some actions to "protect" society, so should it be on the net. However, since in most cases on the net, it is neither life, limb, nor property that's at stake, a fair degree of latitude should be given and errors made in the direction of freedom rather than the converse.
I hold out hope that small communities such as this one can and will continue to provide a "focal point" for the "quality" on the net
Perhaps the imagery needs to be changed. Change "net" to "sea", as in "sea of sewage". Then we can speak of the occasional "island" that, until the waves wear it down, rises above the sea. ;)
--Pete
Do you have a set of rules that are balanced and could reasonably be accepted and applied? Do you have even an idea of roughly what form these rules would take?
Good questions. We need to determine what the rules are meant to accomplish.
Are they to protect people from "offensive" material? Even the definition of what is "offensive" varies a lot from culture to culture and from person to person. Each person needs to determine what they do not wish to view for themselves. Restricting what is put on the net is not the solution, but requiring that there be a header that contains a list of potentially objectionable content might be.
Are they to protect people from inaccurate information or outright lies? This might even be more difficult. Someone trying to scam you or convert you will probably not say so up front. But a code that some agency or other (and here is a real problem with great potential for abuse) has found this site to be factually correct (independent of the spin) would be nice. But even "facts" are often in dispute. For instance, I find Consumer Reports an invaluable guide, not because I always agree with their findings, but because they tell you what their findings are based on. If a factor they consider insignificant is important to me, I can adjust their result to meet my desires. That is because they give all the information they use to get to their results. If all they gave was their final recommendation, I would find it a lot less useful.
Are they to keep junk and nonsense off the net? Then they are wrong, for the junk has as much right to be there as the "useful" stuff. Besides, one man's junk is another man's collectibles. However, intentionally spoofing search engines to either waste people's time or to generate more hits for one's site should be discouraged through some form of punishment. And a specially hot place in hell should be reserved for the inventor of the pop up :)
Just as most of Europe and North America live under a large set of laws and regulations and yet can maintain a large amount of personal freedom and anonymity, so too should it be possible on the net. Just as the laws, by and large, restrict some actions to "protect" society, so should it be on the net. However, since in most cases on the net, it is neither life, limb, nor property that's at stake, a fair degree of latitude should be given and errors made in the direction of freedom rather than the converse.
I hold out hope that small communities such as this one can and will continue to provide a "focal point" for the "quality" on the net
Perhaps the imagery needs to be changed. Change "net" to "sea", as in "sea of sewage". Then we can speak of the occasional "island" that, until the waves wear it down, rises above the sea. ;)
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?