At 08:40 PM 9/3/96 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote:

And so on. Many of the debates about anonymity seem to ignore reputations, filters, kill files. It is almost as if the critics of anonymous speech are saying "If there is not accountability for restaurant recommendations, we'll all be buried in garbage food." This ignores the _emergent order_ or _evolutionary_ nature of actors in the restaurant and restaurant evaluator market.

Could be a lack of understanding of the possibility of authentication, which IMO can be necessary for 'reputation' to be viable.

Free speech is often messy. 98% of everything I read or hear is crap, to do Sturgeon one better. But I use judgement to decide what to read, who to listen to, and what to mostly ignore. I use _reputation_ to choose restaurants, books, movies, speakers to listen to, etc.

Sometimes I listen to anonymous speech, but mostly I don't. Pseudonyms take a while to gather a "positive reputation," and some never do. This is the way speech works. "Accountability" is a red herring.

I wouldn't exactly say that...but it's more of a personal responsibility thing. Our model should be default acceptance of responsibility for words and deeds, but I see that as a personal issue, not a matter for 'enforcement.' -- Jon Lebkowsky <jonl@hotwired.com> FAX (512)444-2693 http://www.well.com/~jonl Electronic Frontiers Forum, 6PM PDT Thursdays <http://www.hotwired.com/eff> "No politician can sit on a hot issue if you make it hot enough."--Saul Alinsky