[11164] in Public-Access_Computer_Systems_Forum
Re: Clifford Lynch, Scientific American (March) -- a NARROW view!
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (PACS-L Moderator)
Tue Mar 25 20:23:45 1997
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 17:44:54 -0600 (CST)
From: PACS-L Moderator <libpacs@UH.EDU>
To: Multiple recipients of list PACS-L <PACS-L@UHUPVM1.UH.EDU>
Reply-To: Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <PACS-L@UHUPVM1.UH.EDU>
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
2 messages
*-----
From: Jack Kessler <kessler@best.com>
Subject: Re: Clifford Lynch, Scientific American (March) -- a NARROW view!
Jim Warren,
You said,
> I am one of a great many who disagree -- ardently -- with Lynch's
> narrow-focused view of the Internet. It is not merely -- nor even mostly
> -- a tool "merely" for information (nor merely for commerce).
Lynch didn't say this. I did. He and I share a fear that this is what the
Internet is going to become.
> Many of us feel that, first and foremost, the net is perhaps the ultimate
> tool for soundless *speech* ... and for uncensorable inkless *press* ...
> and for egalitarian faceless *assembly* to seek irresistable redress of
> grievences -- unfettered electronic speech, electronic press and >
political assembly.
This sounds great, Jim. I am with you on this. I just don't think it is
going to happen automatically. Information doesn't necessarily "want to be
free": it takes a lot of work to get it free and keep it that way. You know
this -- we agree.
> More briefly, what goes on on the net is functional *speech* --
> unfettered speech -- polite, abusive, logical, emotional, unbiased,
> partisan ... and as truthful and trustworthy as soundwave speech, and
> egalitarian press sans black-pollutants on ex-trees cum landfill.
This goes on in some places. But it doesn't go on everywhere, and it goes
on very little on the commercial online services. I am for it, but I see it
less and less -- a rapidly increasing trend -- online. I do see a lot of
commercial advertising, though.
> To paraphrase Dave Hughes, one of the net's most ardent activists, what
> we do on and with the net is speech ... where the fingers are the
> tongue, speaking to the mind through the eye, in a park that is global in
> size.
Hughes has a way with words. Agreed again. Ted Nelson's dreams are a real
part of this too.
But so are William Gibson's nightmares. Lynch and I both are worried that
there may be some nightmarish aspects in all of this. My own nightmares
about it perhaps are even a little more dramatic than Clifford's.
> This is the reason many of us are plaintiffs opposing the U.S. govt's
> current effort to expand their censorship powers via the obscene
> Communications "Decency" Act (that, incidentally, applies to *all*
> communications using *any* "telecommunications device" -- not just the
> net [read the bill-text!]).
I am for you on this: greatly applaud your efforts.
> Think about the greatest *effects*, gretest potential and greatest
> *controversies* regarding the net ... and see if you don't perhaps agree.
I do, I do, and I imagine that so does Lynch. I think that you have mis
- read my posting, mistaking the nightmares for the dreams.
Free speech and populism are great things. Both are threatened by the
censorship trends which you oppose.
They are threatened as well, though, by the rising split between
"information haves" and "information have nots", by the general chaos of
the nets and the opportunity it affords for manipulation, and by the
persistent inability of those who design and run the nets to see the needs
of the newest "general public" and "international" users. If someone better
- intentioned doesn't get to these last two groups fast, the commercial
advertisers certainly will.
Keep fighting that censorship.
Jack Kessler
kessler@well.sf.ca.us
*-----
From: Sue Martin <SKMARTIN@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu>
Subject: Re: Clifford Lynch, Scientific American (March) -- a NARROW view!
The Internet is BOTH a repository of organized/published information
AND an electronic version of the telephonic party line. The more
formal information that is available on the Net, the more frustrating
it is for those who are seeking "real" information as they are
thwarted by individual home pages, postings from listservs, etc.
There is a real need to distinguish between formal publication and
informal speech; perhaps the Internet 2 will stimulate a more precise
distinction. But the real point is that this is an area where
librarians could make a significant contribution; our talents and our
training should lead us in the direction of better organization of and
easier access to information.
The world is looking toward librarians to help out with this problem;
so far, we haven't been very proactive. I agree that Cliff has gotten
it right again, and I don't agree with the assessment that the
Internet is only a forum for uncontrolled "speech." In no time at
all, information that is now published in print will be published on
the Internet, and the need to distinguish between these two kinds of
communication will be ever more necessary.
Sue Martin
Georgetown University
