[8829] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: VERY serious $ Business now done on Internet
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rose Marie Holt)
Mon Dec 6 13:02:41 1993
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1993 09:48:56 -0800 (PST)
From: Rose Marie Holt <rmholt@u.washington.edu>
To: Douglas Barnes <cman@caffeine.io.com>
Cc: David Farber <farber@central.cis.upenn.edu>, cook@path.net,
In-Reply-To: <199312051540.JAA11502@caffeine.caffeine.io.com>
At the very real risk of starting an inappropriate flamewar, a few
comments:
Com and Priv of the net does not mean University/govt employees will lose
free accounts. Examples: libraries, freee accounts on inhouse computers,
generous medical benefits - provided by employer via purchase from
private suppliers
We are not sufficiently distinguishing BUSINESS and ADVERTISING on the
net. Nobody wants to pay to be barraged by unsolicited ads; analogy: the
outcry to FAX junk mail. Nowhere near the outcry to USPS junk - we dont
pay for it, and if it gets too annoying, an agency (private, I believe -
the mail preference service exists to help cut down the bulk) has been
formed in response to public outcry.
BUSINESS on the other hand, is not limited to advertising, and will use
the net to further its perceived ends. No reason it shouldnt. Ivory
twoer net users should ask themselves what the net is good for if its not
felxible and large enough to promote business as well as academis
pursuits. Lots of grad students opt for private industry - we dont all
go to university jobs. Business is a good thing, properly regulated.
Universities ARE publicly funded and, IMHO, have NO BUSINESS regulateing
the free speech on Email, USENET and unmoderated mailing lists of anyone
with an account, without damn good reason (like violations of the law, as
in the recent deluge of copies of a chain letter that came across
recently). There is, I believe, a solid body of law regulating
irresponsible misuse of "Free speech" in other public forums (EG crowded
theaters). A body of law will be established relating these principles
to the internet. Plenty of mentally ill people exercisae their free
speech rights all the time - stop by Telegraph Ave in Berkeley, for
example. As long as they hurt no one (including themselves) they are
left alone. That should IMHO be the internet policy
> by a large number of spoiled children who believe all resources placed
> on the net should be free.
>
> 2) Yesterday I spoke with a dear friend now in medical school, and
> mentioned this list. "Commercialize and Privatize? Oh, I hope they
> don't, that sounds terrible." Certainly not an idiot, she was
>
> 3) On another mailing list I read, which is being severely disrupted by
> a mentally ill gentleman in Colorado, requests to delete him were met
> by numerous insistent protests of, "You can't censor him, because this
> list is on the net, which is publicly funded."
RM Holt, rapidly losing lurker status
