[11659] in Public-Access_Computer_Systems_Forum
Re: Filtering vs. Censorship
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Public-Access Computer Systems For)
Tue Sep 16 21:03:56 1997
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 16:36:24 -0500
From: Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <LIBPACS@UHUPVM1.UH.EDU>
To: PACS-L@LISTSERV.UH.EDU
Reply-To: Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <PACS-L@LISTSERV.UH.EDU>
2 Messages; 61 Lines
*-----
From: Jack Kessler <kessler@best.com>
Subject: Re: Filtering vs. Censorship
Joyce Latham and PACS-L,
Joyce said,
> There is no difference between filtering and censoring. It is not
> user-driven, it is determined by the developer of the software and the
> person or organization that installs it.
You've described a "bad" filter here. The folks who design them
aim for something better by figuring out what users want, even
letting user - feedback determine it. Censors aren't interested
in that, except pretty indirectly. The intentions are opposite.
There is a lot of information out there, but then there always
has been. Libraries -- librarianship -- could be seen as an
enormous "filter": Umberto Eco's mumbled worries about "Who,
what authority will decide which books to retain?" -- libraries /
librarianship have done this for a long time, but you wouldn't
call it "censorship".
Jack Kessler
kessler@well.sf.ca.us
*-----
From: "Swanson, Sandy" <sswanson@bw.brhn.org>
The term "filtering" is used a couple of different ways. In some cases, it
means the application of "quality filters." An example is its use in
evidence-based medicine, where articles (or literature search retrievals)
are screened for specific quality measures, that is, is this article about
therapy based on a randomized, double-blinded clinical trial as opposed to
an anecdote or opinion? I would interpret that as user-driven; the user
decides whether to apply the quality filter or not. (Take a look at PubMed
for an example: http://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PubMed/ , the clinical queries
section.)
Internet filtering software, on the other hand, is usually installed in such
a way that the user of the PC does not have the choice whether to apply the
screening mechanism or not. In addition, it doesn't screen for information
quality, but rather for "objectionable" or "forbidden" content. At least
one filtering software markets itself to businesses as a way to prevent
their employees from viewing non-business materials such as
leisure/recreation sites on the WWW.
Is it censoring? Some would argue that using an Internet filter in a
library is just another way to "select" what materials are available to
library users, as one "selects" whether to add any other item to the
collection. I disagree. In a public library one has an obligation to
represent many viewpoints. Internet "filtering" is a way to prevent certain
content -- certain points of view -- from being heard. I would agree with
Joyce Latham that in this setting, Internet filtering is censorship.
Sandy Swanson
sswanson@bw.brhn.org
