Hal <74076.1041@CompuServe.COM> writes...
I think the bottom line is that it will be difficult to provide anonymous/pseudonymous postings in a way which won't elicit the kinds of strong objections Johan has been facing. His controls are OK for now, but in the long run I think they won't work.
This may be an example of an intractable problem. A case where legitimate interests are mutually exclusive at least in practice of not in theory. If Johan has restricted output due to pressure from those communities, then he has already been forced to hobble his service's most significant *potential* benefit to the community. If a serious whistlblower were to come along with some serious evidence and credibility, it is likely that he/she would want to post his/her evidence in one or more of the groups Johan has locked out! I mean no aspersion on Johan here, he is laboring under pressure I'm sure, and he is a pioneer in all of this, and we are sharing his experience. I don't mean to take political sides either, both sides of the debate have legitimate arguments. In the one other post I made on this topic before, I received but one reply remarking that I "was preaching to the choir". On the one hand, we have the principle of free speech and the right to privacy and even anonymity if we so choose it. Taken in an unrestricted way, this principle is rather radical (politically). True there are areas of our social and political lives where a right to privacy and anonymity are both desirable and generally accepted/practiced (these vary of course in different parts of the world). But there are other equally common areas in which they are not. The strongest pressure against anonymity on the Usenet comes from quarters where a strong positive pressure exists, on *principle* for posters to "declare themselves", to "stand behind their words". In a realm where egalitarianism, semi-anarchy, and bad signal/noise ratio already make for a questionable mix or product value, "naming yourself" is a significant benchmark. Even in these groups, most participants would recognize the need for access to anonymity when it was really "justified", but such cases are believed to be fairly few and far between. as gg pointed out:
The point is that this is a broadcast medium, though without the limitations of conventional broadcast.
The mutually exclusive nature of these principles emerges in practice from what a former boss of mine called the human "ornery" factor. In this case that some number of individuals will exercise their "right to anonymity" not because they have to, but just because it's there. Believe me I sympathize with this view. It keeps authorities and would-be authorities on notice that there are those who will test the limits of their rights and signal the rest of us if they are eroding. I also accept Hal's argument that we are protecting ourselves from possible future abuses of central authority. But I also sympathize with the sentiments of the other side, that most of the time it is desirable to put your name where your mouth/keyboard is. A consensual solution to this problem depends on a common political viewpoint, something that is certainly not in the cards for contemporary net participants. Of course a solution may one day be "imposed", but that will not likely be to anyone's liking. The likely direction of such an imposition is signaled by what Dave Clunie experienced at PAX and what Johan is now experiencing as well. matthew rapaport Philosopher/Programmer At Large KD6KVH mjr@netcom.com 70371.255@compuserve.com