Chaos and Anonymity keep the Internet Vital I could not let Martha Siegel's editorial ("Anarchy, Chaos on the Internet Must End", 2 Jan 1995) go unchallenged. To the uninformed reader, her arguments may seem plausible. However, her distortions give a picture of the Internet quite at odds with the true nature of the Net. Her views are by no means representative of those who actually use the Net. Of the dozens of messages I saw in response to the editorial, not a single one was in favor of her proposals. As Ms. Siegel correctly points out, the Net is not governed by any one individual person or organization. Rather, it is collectively run by those who use it as part of their daily lives. The operation of each Internet node is subject to the individual judgement of the people who own it. Ms. Siegel is wrong, however, in believeing that such a state of affairs is intolerable. Rather, this state of affairs has brough us a remarkable flowering of discourse, ideas and culture, which is just now beginning to be recognized in the mainstream press. In a lawyer's dream world, there is a rule covering every action in every situation, along with a well-functioning system to enforce the rules. This is the exact opposite of the spirit of the Net, and of Usenet in particular. Rather, there has evolved an informal set of guidelines for promoting open, civil discourse, collectively known as "netiquette." These guidelines may seem arcane to newcomers, but basically they simply ask people who use the Net to be considerate of other people, their time and their resources. A violation of netiquette brings on not legal action, but responses pointing out why the action was inconsiderate. Continued violation brings on ridicule and scorn -- people who engage in this are considered to be either sociopathic or just obnoxiously self-promoting. The single most infamous breach of netiquette in Usenet history was almost certainly the "green card spam," in which thousands of advertisements for green card services were posted to completely unrelated message areas, or "newsgroups." Advertisements presented in a way considerate to others are tolerated and even welcomed on the Net. Posting thousands of copies, though, is just going too far. Negative response was immediate. The perpetrators were asked to stop, but they refused to. One Norwegian hacker took it upon himself to track down and "cancel" the offending messages. Most people on the Net considered this to be entirely appropriate. A number of other self-promoting hucksters have sensed an opportunity, and have performed similar spams. In response, the Net evolved a defense mechanism to counter these spams and minimize the damage. The person currently serving this role is known by the pseudonym "CancelMoose." Almost everyone on the Net supports this effort, and agrees that it improves the overall value of Usenet. Who was responsible for the original green card spam? Why, Ms. Siegel herself, the same one who is complaining about "chaos and anarchy." Chaos, anarchy, and anonymity are a large part of what keeps the Net so vital. Particularly galling is Ms. Siegel's appeal to free speech. Usenet in its present form is perhaps the most conducive forum for free speech in history. The threat to free speech is not from chaos or anonymity, but from the sorts of changes that Ms. Siegel proposes. Usenet is astonishingly effective in getting around the practical barriers to free speech. These barriers come in many forms, including libel, trademark, and copyright laws, fear of retribution, etc. Because of its decentralized, communal nature, Usenet resists direct attempts to censor. The main tool for circumventing more these more indirect barriers is anonymity. As an example of such barriers, take the t-shirt commemorating the green card incident. It was emblazoned with the words, "Green Card Lawyers - Spamming the Globe" and a fist clutching a green card. Shortly after the shirt was proposed, Canter & Siegel threatened to sue if the shirt was in fact produced. It was only after several outraged lawyers promised to defend against such a case pro bono that I and others could be proud owners. Or take one of the sexual abuse recovery newsgroups, where anonymity is the norm. If someone were to post a message asking for support, saying "my uncle did it" under their real name, they would be vulnerable to a libel suit from said uncle. On the other hand, if they used an anonymous service such as the one in Finland, they would not simply escape punishment for the libel, but prevent it from happening at all. In many countries (and even China is on the Net these days), writings critical of the government, such as exposure of human rights abuses, are illegal. The authors face imprisonment, torture and death. By posting anonymously to the Net, the information can be brought safely to the attention of the world. Not all anonymous messages are pleasant or popular. Unpopular speech is a necessary consequence of free speech. At least to the founders of this country, the benefits of free speech outweigh the discomfort. Our founding fathers were also comfortable with anonymity -- the Federalist papers were originally published under the pseudonym Publius, because the authors felt the ideas should be evaluated on their own. Judging from the materials already published by Ms. Siegel, an Internet built according to her vision would free of such disturbing ideas, but would readily support five hundred channels of green card ads, impassioned pleas to purchase American flag plaques, and, yes, anonymous testimonials for radial keratotomy specialists.