Draft of editorial to SF Chronicle

[raph@netcom.com (Raph Levien)]

Chaos and Anonymity keep the Internet Vital

I could not let Martha Siegel's editorial ("Anarchy, Chaos on the
Internet Must End", 2 Jan 1995) go unchallenged. To the uninformed
reader, her arguments may seem plausible. However, her distortions
give a picture of the Internet quite at odds with the true nature of
the Net. Her views are by no means representative of those who
actually use the Net. Of the dozens of messages I saw in response to
the editorial, not a single one was in favor of her proposals.

As Ms. Siegel correctly points out, the Net is not governed by any one
individual person or organization. Rather, it is collectively run by
those who use it as part of their daily lives. The operation of each
Internet node is subject to the individual judgement of the people who
own it. Ms. Siegel is wrong, however, in believeing that such a state
of affairs is intolerable. Rather, this state of affairs has brough us
a remarkable flowering of discourse, ideas and culture, which is just
now beginning to be recognized in the mainstream press.

In a lawyer's dream world, there is a rule covering every action in
every situation, along with a well-functioning system to enforce the
rules. This is the exact opposite of the spirit of the Net, and of
Usenet in particular. Rather, there has evolved an informal set of
guidelines for promoting open, civil discourse, collectively known as
"netiquette." These guidelines may seem arcane to newcomers, but
basically they simply ask people who use the Net to be considerate of
other people, their time and their resources. A violation of
netiquette brings on not legal action, but responses pointing out why
the action was inconsiderate. Continued violation brings on ridicule
and scorn -- people who engage in this are considered to be either
sociopathic or just obnoxiously self-promoting.

The single most infamous breach of netiquette in Usenet history was
almost certainly the "green card spam," in which thousands of
advertisements for green card services were posted to completely
unrelated message areas, or "newsgroups." Advertisements presented in
a way considerate to others are tolerated and even welcomed on the
Net. Posting thousands of copies, though, is just going too far.
Negative response was immediate. The perpetrators were asked to stop,
but they refused to. One Norwegian hacker took it upon himself to
track down and "cancel" the offending messages. Most people on the Net
considered this to be entirely appropriate.

A number of other self-promoting hucksters have sensed an opportunity,
and have performed similar spams. In response, the Net evolved a
defense mechanism to counter these spams and minimize the damage. The
person currently serving this role is known by the pseudonym
"CancelMoose." Almost everyone on the Net supports this effort, and
agrees that it improves the overall value of Usenet.

Who was responsible for the original green card spam? Why, Ms. Siegel
herself, the same one who is complaining about "chaos and anarchy."
Chaos, anarchy, and anonymity are a large part of what keeps the Net
so vital.

Particularly galling is Ms. Siegel's appeal to free speech. Usenet in
its present form is perhaps the most conducive forum for free speech
in history. The threat to free speech is not from chaos or anonymity,
but from the sorts of changes that Ms. Siegel proposes.

Usenet is astonishingly effective in getting around the practical
barriers to free speech. These barriers come in many forms, including
libel, trademark, and copyright laws, fear of retribution, etc.
Because of its decentralized, communal nature, Usenet resists direct
attempts to censor. The main tool for circumventing more these more
indirect barriers is anonymity.

As an example of such barriers, take the t-shirt commemorating the
green card incident. It was emblazoned with the words, "Green Card
Lawyers - Spamming the Globe" and a fist clutching a green card.
Shortly after the shirt was proposed, Canter & Siegel threatened to
sue if the shirt was in fact produced. It was only after several
outraged lawyers promised to defend against such a case pro bono that
I and others could be proud owners.

Or take one of the sexual abuse recovery newsgroups, where anonymity
is the norm. If someone were to post a message asking for support,
saying "my uncle did it" under their real name, they would be
vulnerable to a libel suit from said uncle. On the other hand, if they
used an anonymous service such as the one in Finland, they would not
simply escape punishment for the libel, but prevent it from happening
at all.

In many countries (and even China is on the Net these days), writings
critical of the government, such as exposure of human rights abuses,
are illegal. The authors face imprisonment, torture and death. By
posting anonymously to the Net, the information can be brought safely
to the attention of the world.

Not all anonymous messages are pleasant or popular. Unpopular speech
is a necessary consequence of free speech. At least to the founders of
this country, the benefits of free speech outweigh the discomfort. Our
founding fathers were also comfortable with anonymity -- the
Federalist papers were originally published under the pseudonym
Publius, because the authors felt the ideas should be evaluated on
their own.

Judging from the materials already published by Ms. Siegel, an
Internet built according to her vision would free of such disturbing
ideas, but would readily support five hundred channels of green card
ads, impassioned pleas to purchase American flag plaques, and, yes,
anonymous testimonials for radial keratotomy specialists.