To: jvncnet!muns02.howpubs.com!kerr@dowv
cc: Steve Yelvington , online-news@marketplace.com
In-Reply-To: <9410111510.AA29799@muns02.howpubs.com>
Message-ID: 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: OR
X-Status:   



On Tue, 11 Oct 1994 jvncnet!muns02.howpubs.com!kerr@dowv wrote:

> Steve Yelvington wrote:
> 
> >The censorship issue is a delicate one for online services and information
> >providers. There are going to be some things showing up online that we
> >would never allow in the newspaper. I think we are going to try to err on
> >the side of inclusiveness ... but we're crafting policy statements that
> >will make it clear to users that we can, and will, bring the door down on
> >offensive behavior.

It is interesting, in this country, we can watch felonies and violent
crimes for 18 hours/day including actual violence and death and that is
not considered offensive.  An activity that theoretically is common
practice an average of 3 times a week for married couples is considered so
offensive that you must have proof of age to even access it.

Yes, I think my son should learn to use an uzi and be kept totally
ignorant about how to maintain a sexually intimate relationship with his
future wife.

The side effect is that we end up with media that is nothing but sexually
explicit (3 minutes of dialogue and 2 hours of repetitive motion).  We
also end up with soap operas and romances in which a truly touching and
romantic hour is concluded with a "train in the tunnel", or more common
today, a scene of extreme violence.  Charming.  We need more of that kind
of censorship :-).

> When you're building an online service, there will undoubtedly be _many_
> things in it that would never appear in the paper.  By setting up a two-
> way media channel, the gates are opened for users to self-publish the
> information they want, and at least some of this information will walk
> the line between good taste and impropriety.

The two way media has simply vented a domain which has no other outlet.  I
have no trouble getting the latest word from Jim Dobson (Focus on the
Family) on about 5 christian radio stations within a 30 mile radius.  I
found one feminist radio station in New York City, and 4 hours of "The
Grease Man".

> The real problem I see here is crafting a set of user rules that allows
> for freedom of expression while protecting children and other 
> impressionable users from harmful information.  For our purposes, I

It's interesting, I was so well "protected" that I didn't know how to
conduct a relationship from introduction to first date to first kiss to
spending the night together until 8 years AFTER I was married (and by then
divorced).  Up until then, there would be friendly talks, and no romance,
or kiss in the kitchen and rejection, or ambush in the bedroom.  I didn't
learn to create a continuous thread of romance leading to seduction and
great sex until I was 36 years old.  I paid a tharapist a great deal of
money for that education.

> wouldn't want to limit a user who wanted to share an original bawdy
> poem or engage in explicit sexual discussion or upload an original nude
> figure study in public conferences that are available only to adults.
> I feel that the same rule of thumb applies to unpopular political views 
> and other unorthodoxy: If it's in the appropriate conference (i.e.
> if it's not spammed all over creation), it's OK.

There is a big difference between spamming the net with pornographic
invitations (which I'm sure would be rapidly self purging), and providing
3 out of 25,000 stations that provide an open dialogue on alternative
lifestyles (gay, lesbian, bondage, swapping, or even dates arranged with
consideration for sexual preference).

By the way, sex is only one of the domains censored.  Alternate
spiritualities including Native American, Wiccan, Spritualist, and New Age
have almost no Television or Radio outlets.

> Of the research we've done, constants in guidelines to user behavior seem
> to be: No illegal activities, no harassment of other users, nothing
> that violates local obscenity laws (although this is in question,
For which locality.  In Raritan New Jersey, it is illegal to say "sh*t" on
a public street.  E-mail harassment is usually a product of posting
contriversial information.  Spamming is unsolicited harassment and generally
gets stopped with "bricks" (500k of gif files sent back to the sender).

> given the case filed against two Calif. BBS operators by a Tennessee 
> postal inspector), no language of hate and no sharing of proprietary
> or illegal information.  These will vary according to the specific
> bbs or online service.

Language of hate is quite common on certain internet newsgroups. 
Sometimes it leads to very interesting dialogues.

Sharing of proprietary and illegal information is not just a policy, it's
backed up by federal law.

> >There are legal questions, too. For our own internal purposes, we chose not
> >to set up Usenet server software because we found a less resource-intensive
> >alternative ... 

Actually, very few servers or groups download the entire usenet feed, it's
over 300Mb/day.  You could fill 4 CDs/week with the news.  That's about 12
hours of downloading.  Online services usually nntp connect to caching
servers.

> The problem is figuring out how to integrate Usenet into a single service, 
> when most of the participants in Usenet couldn't give a hoot about the 
> local user code of conduct. It might appear hypocritical to say to 
> your users: "Now, you can't say the poo-poo word here," when many Usenet
> participants occasionally pepper their language with expletives.  
The posting ettiquette for alt.christian is much different from
alt.bondage.  Does that mean that alt.bondage should be censored?

> (Which brings me to another thought: Has anyone else noticed how 
> gosh-darn squeaky clean the discussions are in online-news, outside of 
> the occasional "capatalist thunder lizard" interjection?  Such a prim 
> and proper crowd!)
We are an articulate group of highly educated people with command of the
English language.  It's rare to find a misspelled word :-).
 
> One idea we've kicked around for filtering Usenet for our users is to put
> the obviously racy news groups in the appropriate areas and give access 
> only to mature audiences (18 and up).  Then, we would provide explanations
> and disclaimers to subscribers and parents for the other news group feeds 
> we provide to let them know _exactly_ what is going on in Usenet (and
> the Internet in general) and to give parents an option to limit their 
> child's access to areas of the network that the parents might think is
> inappropriate for their child.

Most of the POPs I've dealt with required that you be 18 to set up the
primary account.  Then they put the vanilla groups in your default
.newsgroups file.  If you wanted alt.sex.* you had to explicitly ask for it.

The guardian of a minor child can set up an account for the child, and can
quite easily see whether that child has subscribed to a questionable
group.  This is an opening for that parent to communicate with the kid. 
If he's getting it on the net, it's probably because he's been getting
misinformation from the kids at school.
 
> Any thoughts or reactions to these ideas?
Lots of 'em :)

> I think the bottom line, though, is to be very, very honest with users
> regarding the type of information available through an online service,
Absolutely!  Truth in labeling is the most important factor.  It the door
says "sexually explicit material within" and you walk through that door,
you have offended yourself.

> and give them as many options as possible for filtering this information.  
Better yet.  Provide the ability to monitor that information.  The access
doesn't need to be restricted as much as the responsible party should be
informed.  Even then, there is the risk you are going to inform the
religeous fanatic who will beat his kid with an electrical cord for
reading alt.sex.  He's usually the one who will want to jail the sysop too.

> That should hopefully prevent misunderstandings on down the line. 
You gotta be kidding.  Lawsuit happy lawyers and religious fanatics will
find some justification for making sure that their opinion is the only one
the law will allow.  If they can use the courts, legal harassment, and
economic muscle, they will.  Many bookstores have discovered that a
zealous prosecutor can seize their inventory and file legal briefs and
motions that prevent them from doing business until they are bankrupt.

Today, we have boards being tied up by federal prosecutors and sysops
going bankrupt over legal fees because of targetted persecution.  Want to
shut down a local board?  Upload commercial software to it and call the feds.

> Best regards,
> ****I speak for myself alone.****
   Me too.
	Rex Ballard




From rexb Mon Oct 24 16:16:15 1994