From: Mark Walker (mark@permanentend.org)
Date: Mon Aug 18 2003 - 09:40:14 MDT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg Burch" >
> I'm very sorry to see Lee leave the list, but I have to count it as a
mistake
> on Lee's part. The mistake arises from what the concept of free speech
means
> in the specific context of this forum. Everyone probably agrees that some
> kind of specific post could justify excluding someone from the list. Hard
> questions arise when we realize we almost certainly wouldn't agree on the
> precise limits beyond which a single post could justify exclusion. We
enter
> the ground of irony when we realize that even some people who disagreed
very
> strongly with Mike Lorrey don't support his exclusion (vid. Hubert Mania's
> post of today.)
>
I too saw a little irony in all this, but not the same irony: This little
incident doesn't seem to exactly confirm the hopes that technology and
spontaneous order will solve extant social problems. It is interesting the
way Greg describes the problem. We have two choices: either no list
moderation, which leads to an unacceptable degradation of list quality; or
some form of coercion is used to enforce list rules. This either/or seems to
go back to the Greeks and his proposed solution of distinguishing between
government/private suppression of speech is also a familiar idea. Will our
greater understanding of human nature and greater technological mastery not
help? What would a technical fix to the problem look like? The most common
suggestion is that if you don't like someone's posts you should put them in
your killfile. As it turns out, Mike has been in my kill file for a
longtime. Not that I find everything he says offensive or unworthwhile, it
is simply that my assessment of the signal to noise ratio doesn't make it
worth my time to read his numerous posts. (A little too much Yosemite Sam
for my taste). Clearly the kill file advice has been around for a while and
hasn't done much to avoid the present problem. (For the record: I have no
idea what Mike is alleged to have done to merit the expulsion so I have no
idea whether this (temporary) expulsion is justified or not). I am sure Mike
has no idea he is in my killfile--I've never had an acrimonious exchange
with him for instance. The reason, as I explained, is simply a cost/benefit
calculation. I wonder if the problem is that the killfile solution doesn't
provide sufficient feedback. Imagine a public registry of killfiles:
somewhere on the Ex site you could register your killfile preferences, so I
could look up my name and see the names of those who are not "buying" what I
have to say. It would be even better if the list could be configured to send
only those emails that are not in my killfiles. The hypothesis of this
experiment is that people might be a little more careful in what they say,
because they will have an interest in not increasing their killfile
quotient; and that there may be fewer merely ad hominem exchanges as people
can publicly signal their disapproval by changing their killfile
preferences. I don't think most of us would see this as curtailing free
speech, since the right to free speech does not entail that others have a
duty to listen. In any event, without some sort of feedback mechanism it
seems pretty clear that there is little hope for some sort of spontaneous
order, which means that we will be stuck with the either/or that Greg
describes.
If I were a critic of transhumanism I would certainly use this as an example
of how little technology and science seem to improve age-old social
dilemmas. If my experiment is not tried I hope others will be suggested and
tried that will attempt to move us at least a little beyond this age-old
either/or.
Mark
Mark Walker, PhD
Research Associate, Philosophy, Trinity College
University of Toronto
Room 214 Gerald Larkin Building
15 Devonshire Place
Toronto
M5S 1H8
www.permanentend.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Aug 18 2003 - 09:51:52 MDT