Hi Jon, I'm not quite sure why you think these technologies are new. The concept of kill files on netnews readers has been available for many years, certainly since before I started using usenet 10 years ago. Heck, most newsreaders these days have highly advanced filtering capabilities that I haven't bothered to figure out, but certainly including blocking posters, subjects, domain names (i.e. the aol and webtv scourges :) ), etc. Freedom of speech is merely that - the freedom to express your views. Freedom of speech does NOT mean that I have to sit there and listen to them if I don't want to. It's censorship only if the people have no access to the communication technology, and I don't think that's the case here. If all ISPs decided to stop letting flamers use their services, (a) the Internet would be a lot quieter :), but (b) then we could talk about censorship and freedom of speech issues. But that's unlikely to happen even in the worst of my police-state nightmares. It's a weird issue, though. The huge benefit of computers is that they can personalize your experience, especially as intelligent agent software starts to get used. Most people have their "My Yahoo" or "My Excite" pages customized to show the information they want. Is it censorship for them to choose not to see everything that's on the standard page? Of course not. But as your computer molds itself to fit you, it reduces the chance of surprise, of seeing something that you would never have sought out on your own, of being forced to confront the different. This is why members of hate groups love the internet - they can find their own groups and reinforce their beliefs. And, quite honestly, I don't see that as necessarily a bad thing. I don't feel the need to let random people yell in my face in the real world, and I'm certainly not going to put up with it online, where they can be removed with a click. By arguing against the customization of our online experience, you're ironically arguing against choice. The main reason I don't have a problem with killfiles and the like is that people on the net will find a way to get heard. If they're blocked out of Yahoo and Motley Fool, they'll start their own sites. If they're killfiled by half a newsgroup, their stuff will still be seen by the other half and responded to. If people have a problem with blocking software, they're being blind to their options that go around and past such software. As John Gilmore, co-founder of the EFF, famously put it: "The Net interprets censorship as damage, and routes around it." You can't force people to recognize opposing views. It's fundamental human nature that people will choose to ignore any views that conflict with their own. Even if you force them to see such views, they will not benefit from them unless they are in a receptive frame of mind. This is perhaps a failing of human nature, and one that would be wonderful to get rid of, but you can't legislate human nature. Sites that have "no flaming" policies will attract a lot of people. Sites that specifically don't have such policies will also attract a lot of people. That's the joy of the internet - people can choose their environment as never before. While blocking software and the like may be ugly and dismaying to our eyes, we can not argue against it without arguing against the freedom of the internet. And I can't support that. Thanks for your time, Eric Nehrlich http://www.sfis.com/personal/eric ------------------------------------------------------------------------ He later responded with: Jon Katz wrote: > > Hey Eric, kill files are very different from new preference > technologies..They are very much advanced and sophisticated. Kill files were > used to deal with screaming crazies on mailing lists..I used them..The > filtering and preference stuff is being used to block out opposing points of > view..very, verydifferent. The only difference between a screaming crazy and an opposing point of view is a matter of degree. The screaming crazy has an agenda and they're just trying to express it. Heck, part of the reason they probably resorted to screaming is that their opposing point of view was getting ignored. The fact that you think their methods and/or agenda is not worth hearing just reinforces the points I made in the rest of my e-mail. I haven't used any of the preference software you mention, but I find it difficult to believe that the technology has advanced sufficiently to block out "opposing points of view". The stuff I've seen either crudely blocks out all stuff that contains certain keywords such as sex or abortion, or depends on moderators to decide what's appropriate or not. Maybe I'm flaming out my butt here, but if such relatively intelligent software existed, I think my friend who works on intelligent agent research at the Media Lab would have told me about it, because that's what they're aiming for (they want their software to be able to match the user's preferences so that it knows what the user would find interesting, which, by the same token, would filter out uninteresting, or possibly opposing, points of view). Regardless, my original point stands. If people don't like such things, they won't use them. If they do, they will. The internet's a damn big place, and there's plenty of room for everybody to get the online experience they desire. Having a few areas for people who want filtered sites is no different than people retiring to gated communities in the real world. It may reduce their experience, but that's their loss, and their choice. And I don't think it's our business to take that choice away from them. Eric Nehrlich http://www.sfis.com/personal/eric --------------------------------------------------------------------- To which he responded: > I disagree. One is self-defense..The other is self-censorship At which point, I realized he was only reading the first paragraph and really had absolutely no grip on the concept I was trying to draw his attention to. So I shut up, and flamed on my web site instead.