Re: This List--Public, Private, or Other? (fwd)

[rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray)]

Hal writes:
> Because of these considerations, I think cyberspace is not really subject to
> the kinds of ownership and control that we associate with private property.
> Look at the Extropians list as an example.  They try to say that the list
> is private property and feel free to kick people off.  But sometimes people
> get disgusted with their autocratic practices and leave.  The list ends up
> losing value.  The more they tighten their iron fist of ownership the more
> individuals slip out of their grasp, to paraphrase noted cyberspace pundit
> Princess Leia.  (I say this not to disparage members of that list, which has
> a lot of talented people, but because to me it is a good example of the mis-
> application of the idea of private property.)
> 
    On the other hand, the list also tries to perform a useful function
 for many people which is to filter down the enormous amount of chatter
 conversation out there to make it easier to read. It's interesting
 to note that the people who left the list were not leaving because
 of our tight copyright rules but because they disliked the code-of-conduct
 rules with respect to politeness and the enforcement of them. 
 Code of conduct is a form of property control which won't disappear
 even in a "free" cyberspace. People will still form electronic
 country clubs excluding the non-elite or the non-polite from their
 ranks.
 
    The Extropian's list copyright rules are mainly e-cultural politeness.
 Just as it is considered bad netiquette to forward private
 e-mail to a public newsgroup, the Extropian's list administration
 considers it inappropriate to forward private exchanges to
 public lists without prior permission from the author. Such a rule
 would likely be in place on "women only space" e-lists or 
 abuse recovery lists. Although the cypherpunks membership list
 is public, I bet many cypherpunks would consider it inappropriate
 to sell or give away this list to direct electronic marketing 
 agencies. The extropians list has its copyright rule also to
 create a safe-zone. One where you can speak your mind without worrying
 about someone publishing your words in a "usenet cd-rom archive" where
 your boss could see it. Until pseudonymity is easier to use, restrictions
 will have to stay in place.
 
     I see electronic copyright as mainly just good manners.
 
> My model of the ultimate future of cyberspace emphasizes selectivity
> and filtering of a huge corpus of messages, articles, essays, debates,
> etc.  The hard part is going to be picking out what is interesting to
> you, and making your contributions in such a way that interested people
> see them.  I really don't think our current infrastructure of mailing
> lists and usenet does a very good job of this, and I hope that in the
> future better approaches will be possible.  It's not clear what role
> ownership will play in that system.

   I think mailing lists do a much better job of filtering than usenet
 where membership to a discussion group can not be moderated or 
 limited. (it doesn't work in practice. it usually kills the group or
 e-sociopaths just bypass the insecurity of the system) I like
 AOL's "auditorium" model.
 
    In the future, people will still want to pay others for locating
 information, filtering, and formating it in the oceans of
 information out there. Lexus/Nexus, IQuest, and some of the financial
 report natural-language filters out there are good examples.
 
    Information itself would probably be relatively free, but useless
 because *finding it* would be the hard part. Electronic Consultants
 would make their money by hooking you up with the right database
 or search software, or sell you their personal time over an electronic
 market.
 
 -Ray
 

-- Ray Cromwell        |    Engineering is the implementation of science;   --
-- rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu  |       politics is the implementation of faith.     --