Matthew Hamrick  06-19-2003
09:32 AM ET (US)
|
Ernie, I bask in the white hot glow of your searing insight. One more time for the slow members of the class... The concept behind bi-directional hyperlinks is to allow the client access to a list of documents that link to the current document. It is an abstract concept independent of the any actual implementation. The Swiki I pointed to is one example of such a system, not THE example of such a system. " I have no credibility" At last we agree on something. Edited 06-19-2003 09:33 AM
|
ernie 06-18-2003
10:24 AM ET (US)
|
"The last point I want to make is that in the original conceptions of hypertext by Vannevar Bush, Doug Englebart, Ted Nelson, and others, hypertext linking was a two-way affair. In linking to one page, it would have been supposedly impossible to prevent someone from discovering the origin of the link. Readers unfamiliar with this might want to look at the Squeak Swiki at http://minnow.cc.gatech.edu/squeak/1302 . At the top of every page, there's a list of pages that link to the current page. There might be some good that would come of this. If I wrote an opinion, I would like to know what people are saying about it. In this way I could defend myself against criticisms or refine the message I am posting based on comments by people who linked to my opinion document."
So if 1000 people linked to your page, It would take longer to load this giant list than to actually read your page. You can already look at your web server's referral log and get this, why kill your pages with it?
"Several years ago, I joked with a friend about the need for a "credibility server" on the internet. Maybe it's time to build one."
This would rock! I have no credibility, but I could have one of my haxxor friends bust into this server and make me the next messiah, credibility-wise!
|
Matthew Hamrick 06-17-2003
11:41 PM ET (US)
|
While it's easy to mock our European friends as putting political correctness above free expression, there probably is something to the argument that there might be some benefit to some sort of right of reply type system.
Even in the states, our speech is not completely free. We have over the past several centuries established a tradition of limiting commercial speech. This is what opens liability to your stock broker when he or she lies to you about the relationship between his firm and the company issuing securities it is pushing, etc. Ditto for making unsubstantiated claims; and let's not forget SPAM.
This is why ranchers in Texas get torqued off when someone like Oprah comes out and says (and I'm paraphrasing here) "only dufuses eat beef." Remember that in addition to being held in high esteem by a large number of viewers, she's also engaged in a commercial operation to broadcast her program to loving viewers, coast-to-coast. It was this aspect that the TX ranchers were objecting to; her commercial operation was potentially threatening their commercial operation.
But at the same time we have to think about what would happen if we established that every time someone said something bad about beef in public, they got hauled into court. This would be pretty bad. Would I be able to say that a particular restaurant prepared their beef poorly? Would I be able to say that a particular rancher raises cattle with an unfortunately gamey flavor? Would we see the rise of the Church of Scientology Beef Org?
So, I guess what I'm saying here is that the ability to haul someone into court when they have wronged you is a fundamental cornerstone of the western conception of the rule of law. In the United States, free speech is another cornerstone in the great structure that is western culture. Or, it's supposed to be, anyway.
But this whole issue is begging the question, is it appropriate to protect uninformed speech? In the U.S. the answer is mostly yes (with exceptions in the commercial realm.) In Europe, the answer is less mostly yes (with French exceptions barring statements criticizing the government, French cheese, and their medical system.)
If we investigate the reason why we think that uninformed speech is to be protected, part of the answer lies in the technology that existed pre-internet. In the real world if i go off and make some statement about the French President or Texas Beef, it is carried only to those people within earshot. It is unrealistic to assume that a simple non-mediated statement will do much damage to the French political system or the TX beef industry. If the statement is picked up in the local newspaper or rebroadcast on the local TV news program, then we have something different. Even further down this path lies internet mailing list archives, chat rooms, and discussion forums. Statements I make about Beef or Oprah or French politicians will be stored for a long period of time and reach a near-global audience. People standing near me when I make a statement can challenge my statement or ask for a clarification. When my statement is picked up by the local newspaper, a reader can challenge the statement with a letter to the editor. This might not even be necessary if there is a fact-checking department at the paper looking for glaring inaccuracies in stories they publish.
On the Internet, we tend to get a less mediated, though potentially less accurate stream of information. This is (in my humble opinion) the reason that the Europeans are getting their knickers sweaty. In the US and in Britain, we're used to a steady stream of "unauthorized" statements in the public sphere. Fed on a steady diet of street preachers, assassination conspiracy theorists, federal EPA guidelines, and bad pop music, we (as AMERICANs) have learned to filter out the more inane messages we receive. We might consider the Europeans as being more gullible, I believe they would say they have higher standards for what's acceptable in public speech.
The last point I want to make is that in the original conceptions of hypertext by Vannevar Bush, Doug Englebart, Ted Nelson, and others, hypertext linking was a two-way affair. In linking to one page, it would have been supposedly impossible to prevent someone from discovering the origin of the link. Readers unfamiliar with this might want to look at the Squeak Swiki at http://minnow.cc.gatech.edu/squeak/1302 . At the top of every page, there's a list of pages that link to the current page. There might be some good that would come of this. If I wrote an opinion, I would like to know what people are saying about it. In this way I could defend myself against criticisms or refine the message I am posting based on comments by people who linked to my opinion document.
In the end, speech should be free; the internet is big enough to support crackpots, political cranks, as well as people exchanging vegetarian recipes. However, I wonder what could happen if we had an internet based application where readers could establish the credibility of a statement's author by examining comments made about the author's previous statements.
Several years ago, I joked with a friend about the need for a "credibility server" on the internet. Maybe it's time to build one.
|
Abelard Lindsay 06-17-2003
08:44 PM ET (US)
|
Of course, the model for their action must be France, where one can be fined for saying nasty things about the French President, never mind how much ELF money he may have shoved into his own pockets...
At least the model is not as bad as that of Texas, where you can be hauled into court for saying nasty things about beef...
|
wrickiwroo 06-17-2003
07:22 PM ET (US)
|
So what happens when you slander some third party in your reply to someone's slander against you? What if you claim to have "right of reply" on the most spurious basis (i.e. My name is The, and you keep using it...)? Thank god Ahm a Texan not a You'reapeeing.
|
kisrael 06-17-2003
06:23 PM ET (US)
|
It doesn't seem like that terrible of an idea to me...especially if it can just be in link form...let them put it on their own dang server. Or as long as the size of response is limited to be no more than 50% larger than the original bit... (unless of course someone wants to rebutt your entire site...)
|
Lawrence Person 06-17-2003
04:36 PM ET (US)
|
I see that the Eurocratic elite are moving slowly but steadily to ensure that control of all forms of media will be guided by their enlightend hands; all the better to make sure the common rabble can't complain too much as the democratic rights they enjoyed as citizens in an independent nation are slowly but surely transfered to their social betters in Brussels. None of that pesky "First Amendment" in progressive Europe...<br>
Of course, the model for their action must be France, where one can be fined for saying nasty things about the French President, never mind how much ELF money he may have shoved into his own pockets...
|
Eli the Bearded 06-17-2003
04:25 PM ET (US)
|
The comments at lawmeme are worth reading.
|
gilbert 06-17-2003
03:06 PM ET (US)
|
Usenet, hell - I've seen it in BB QuickTopics.
Uhh, I mean... Your mother!
|
Eli the Bearded 06-17-2003
02:29 PM ET (US)
|
The Singapore government excercises a right of reply over
newspapers and magazines sold there. Every once in a while I
see replies from S'pore printed on the letters page in the
Economist.
I am of the opinion that it is a slippery slope best avoided.
Kooks can take the slightest thing as an insult and respond
vehement volumes -- I know I've seen it in Usenet.
|
Kevin Andrew Murphy 06-17-2003
02:04 PM ET (US)
|
Extending laws governing one thing to things that are similar to them creates idiocies such as requirements that cars be firmly tethered to hitching posts and airplanes must have boys running ahead of them carrying lanterns.
In any case, blogs are not newspapers. They are at best private soapboxes or tables at teahouses where one person pontificates and chats with his/her friends. If you don't like what's someone's saying about you, don't listen, or else put up your own soapbox or table in a teahouse and give your point of view there.
|
Brian Carnell 06-17-2003
01:14 PM ET (US)
|
"Would mean that op-eds would be safe." It would still mean, however, that "factual" statements in an op-ed would be subject to right of reply. And could authorities possibly separate the two. Is "President Bush stole the election" a factual statement or one of opinion? Is "My Congressman lied during his campaign when he said he would work for campaign finance reform" a factual statement or an opinion? I just don't think it's a good idea and I've got an issue like this. There is a pretty popular web site that has a very active forum where occasionally inaccurate information is posted about me. The web site maintainers decided to IP block me after I defended myself on a couple of occasions (these folks have a habit of IP blocking anybody who doesn't agree with their particular agenda). Now I think that it is rude and ultimately counter-productive, but should they be forced by the state to allow me a right to reply? I just don't see why that's necessary. If something arises to being libelous I've got legal recourse, but forcing them to include my replies seems like it imposes a pretty big burden on people who run web sites, especially small web sites. Edited 06-17-2003 01:17 PM
|
rvr 06-17-2003
01:01 PM ET (US)
|
I don't see where is the problem. If you read the draft, it doesn't mention blogs actually, but are in-person comments done by one of the panelist experts to the newspaper which covered the news. The right to reply can be as easy as providing a link to the reply, and indeed, comment systems and trackbacks allow it.
|
quinn norton 06-17-2003
12:53 PM ET (US)
|
talk about chilling effect. so i have to give people space on my server to say whatever they want about me? they don't have to use their own server? i imagine, given that i used to run a stalker blog, that i'd have to give my stalker equal time to post his interesting theories about who i'm working for and and my place in the oldest profession, and so forth.
ew.
|
atomgrid 06-17-2003
11:44 AM ET (US)
|
Thankfully, Bush isn't a European. And as a Texan, he's barely literate.
Assofaras "right of reply for corrections" it presumes that blogging is a type of fact-based journalism (it isn't) that follows standard journalistic procedures (factchecking, covering all or more than one point of view, etc.) which it, of course, doesn't. Most blogs are COMMENTARY about stories and links that are already floating around within the web universe. It's one thing to provide the opportunity to respond to a factual error, it's another thing entirely to provide space for a contrary OPINION (whether informed or uninformed).
One only need to open their local paper and turn to the Letters to the Editor to read the kind of half-baked missives that are either FOR or AGAINST a variety of petty issues (abortion, flag burning, sad kitties and puppies, ad nauseum). Now imagine your ENTIRE paper was devoted to that because it was required by law.
It would have a chilling effect on free speach and press rights.
|
ArkhamAdept 06-17-2003
11:15 AM ET (US)
|
Golly, this sounds just like the Fair Access Law that they used to have on Television. Of course it was abandoned, because no one wanted to hear some crackpot going off about conspiracy theories...
Media concentration is now at five companies and decreasing.
|
New Topic
My Topics
Views:
688
(Unique:
522
) / Subscribers:
2 | What's this?
