01/06/06 fear.net 1234 6

01/06/06 fear.net 1234 6  


Fear and Fearmongering on the Internet


One of the most pervasive things I see on the Internet
discussion groups I am in is fear.

I don't just mean fear in general, but a fear inspired
also by the comments of others in the discussions.

I have thought about this for years and observed it in
some detail, and have made uncomfortable conclusions--
that people want control so badly that they fear those
who thrive in the uncontrolled environment an Internet
situation can provide.

It happens every year on most lists, where someone may
be offended by a discussion going in directions he/she
doesn't feel comfortable with, and rather than using a
delete key or ignoring the situation, the person feels
a need to stop the discussion altogether.

Sometimes these people call on the moderator, saying a
discussion is "off topic," and sometimes responses are
to fan the flames until they can claim it has become a
"flame war" that must be stopped.

There are a number of tactics and strategies seen over
and over again to stop discussions, and rarely is this
a legitimate tactic or strategy actually addressing an
obviously interesting question at hand.

Political Correctitude may be called into play and the
options for stifling conversations that should be some
kind of representative for the least stifled are many.

In fact, it is this kind of thing that directly led to
the formation of this blog.

As you have hopefully seen in the blog's introduction,
I try to write just one thing per day that might be in
some manner a factor in changing the world, but I must
honestly say that the people I send them to are pretty
much unresponsive, to say the least and reactionary to
say the most.

Reactionary politics is a term used to describe things
done in reaction to changes to stifle those changes.

An example I use is the creation of copyrights to stop
the effect of the Gutenberg Press.

When only the extremely wealthy or educated could read
there was no law against copying anything, as only the
very elite were involved in copying and publishing.

When The Gutenberg Press made publishing easier enough
that the masses could partake in what used to be world
enough only for the very elite, the elite took measure
after measure to the royal court for 150 years until a
copyright law was finally a reality.

The only reason, however, was a desire for the scribes
and stationers of The Stationers Guild to maintain the
monopoly they had prior to The Gutenberg Press.

This is reactionary politics.

The same thing takes place to stifle things every day.

Even worse, a great deal of mis/disinformation is sent
into the situation by those who are unethical enough.

Those who are ethical are barred by their ethos from a
similar counterattact.

This then requires not only a decent audience, but the
decent participation of that audience to shout down an
assortment of those who end discussions, or at least a
decent participation in pointing out the logical flaws
in their arguments or the lack of arguments at all.

The truth is that I am very impressed and depressed by
the power people have shown in being able to stop some
discussions that everyone was obviously interested in.

After all, how could such a discussion become intense,
if the truth was that there was no interest.

As for "off topic," I notice that somehow the question
does not arise when the moderator's favored side is in
a winning position.

Censorship is a terrible thing.

I should add here that one of the most powerful usages
of copyright throughout the ages has been censorship.

I should also add here that the anti-negative is not a
similar thing to positive, much less the same thing.

I have written articles about anti-negative, and about
copyright that I can put in the blog on request.

One of the real questions that you should ask out loud
when you run into such censorship situations is if the
people in the disucssion NEED your input to realize an
attack on their values has been made.

All too often one might presume that audience silences
mean that the audiences have accepted what someone has
said rather than that they are simply ignoring them.

Ask!

Another example in the copyright arena is a rather big
reliance on threat legal action rather than on a legal
quotation that actually shows a law has been violated.

We get these all the time at Project Gutenberg.

Our first response is simply to tell them that the law
has not been quoted in their message, and that we will
await a further message that details which provisions,
under which specific laws, they feel are violated.  In
the end we have always found they are just blowing out
legal smoke and have no real coypright understanding.

It is really amazing just how much action is taken off
the record by such silly threats and assertions.

"What I have done is legal."

"What you have done is illegal."

Of course it gets much fuzzier on Internet discussion
groups where the rules aren't well defined.

The solutions can be simple when you are censored:

1.  Form a "back channel" communications group that a
concerned group can use to continue the disucssion if
the moderator tries to end the disucssion.

You might be surprised to learn just how many famous,
really famous, Internet groups started this way.

2.  Write your answers in a blog and mention the URL.

If the moderator censors even that, combine these two
and send URLs via the back channel.

[Back channel means private email to those usually in
a public discussion.  You can simply save the address
from anyone you want to talk with, usually in headers
that accompany each email.  I am a little distraught,
when it comes to discussion groups that keep everyone
so anonymous that you can't contact them outside some
method officially sanctioned by the moderators.

That is too much power and control.

When it comes down to it, most fear is caused by some
lack of control, but who wants THAT much control over
a conversation?

A lot of people do.

Otherwise we wouldn't be having THIS discussion.

It happens a lot.

And, by the way, it happens a lot with winter coming.

I have a theory that "Seasonal Affective Disorder" is
much more widespread than most people think and is in
many ways also present in such groups.