Why I started My Blog

Why I started My Blog


I started this blog for two major reasons, one was positive,
one was anti-negative, hopefully you'll see the difference--
that difference was one of the greatest discoveries I made.

The first reason was to leave behind a somewhat coherent set
of my thoughts about the Brave New World of the Internet.

The other was because those thoughts were being distorted by
the very people to whom I had sent them to archive, the list
moderators who said they wanted them.

While I certainly lay no claims to inventing the Internet, I
was the first I have ever heard of to understand what it was
to become over the first few decades of its existence:  this
pioneering spirit is usually one of the first things to go--
once the "dude" and "suits" have their way and starting with
the politicking that places people in power who have no idea
of the who, what, where, how, why and when power originated,
the power they have usurped from those who created it.  In a
much better statement than I could make here, Ayn Rand tells
about this kind of "second hand" power broker in her books--
Atlas, Shrugged, The Fountainhead, and Anthem.  Anthem is on
Project Gutenberg and is a very quick read, so get started--
Atlas Shrugged is one of my two favorite books of all time--
but it is a thousand pages, so I can't say get started on it
in quite the same manner--not to mention that you will enjoy
The Fountainhead much more if you read it before Atlas.

The second hand power brokers I refer to here are moderators
of the Internet "lists," those virtual meeting places, where
people gather to discuss nearly everything.

Moderators, by their very definition, should be moderate, at
least in their moderation of such lists.  The best lists are
those where you never see the moderators' actions.

I ran some of the early lists starting in the late eighties,
lists that had thousands of members, without ever having the
need to make my presence felt as a moderator.

"Power corrupts, and absolute power, corrupts absolutely."

It is very difficult for any moderator to use these kinds of
power moderately as each time one does it, it is like using,
if you will pardon my descent into fictional examples:  like
using the power of The Ring or the power of The Dark Side.

I have seen more than one nice sweet real life librarian say
and do the most awful things when corrupted by this power.

Not to mention the hordes of moderators who were never sweet
librarian types to begin with.

[And, by the way, Star Wars is the story of Darth Vader, not
of Luke Skywalker according to George Lucas, and The Ring is
the story of, well, The Ring, whether it be Tolkien, Wagner,
or the ancient stories from which they were taken.

Once a moderator gets a taste of that kind of power, it is a
step by step, act by act, descent into Dante's Inferno.  You
should at least take a look at the Cliff's Notes version.

One might think that someone whose life's work was creations
of various aspects of the first electronic library would not
have much to say that would/could/should be censored, and it
would be myself who would be the first to agree with you.

Particularly since I have avoided the role of moderator, and
of chooser of what books, format, etc. such a library would/
should/could take.

My critics, however, would take over such electronic library
systems and their features, and force me to reply to efforts
to do so on a continuing basis.

Wait a minute!

I just said I avoided the role of moderator, but said before
that that I WAS a moderator.

What's the deal?

The deal is that I never once used the power, I ran what was
called "an unmoderated list."

The term moderated has become twisted, like "civil servant,"
which translates more properly into "civil master."

People are "moderated" offline in various lists to where you
can't hear or see them any longer unless you go to them in a
direct manner, they are no longer heard in the discussions I
saw them help create.

I have been a victim of this probably more than most, and it
is probably simply for two reasons

1.  I have more to say than most.

2.  I have more critics than most.

3.  These critics are expert at starting "flame wars" then a
    following note to the moderator complaining that I am an
    awful influence on the list because I responded to their
    flaming rants and raves.

I can't go any further with this logic, at least on lists, a
certain "Law" derived from a certain EFF lawyer bars the way
on most Internet conversations.

Nevertheless, it has been quite amazing to note how Internet
development, or redevelopment, has been structured by those,
those "second hand" power brokers who had nothing to do with
the creation of the power they are trying to broker.

I refer also to the "dudes" and "suits" who invented some of
the tricky ways to "second hand" power via the route of:


"Netiquette"


I won't say much about netiquette other than to say that the
terms came into much disrepute after some very early netter,
I'm not sure I ever met, made it a point to point and point,
and point out again, that these "Netiquetters" were working,
and working very hardly, to take control over something they
had not created.

Once again I refer you to Atlas Shrugged, where this is very
well described in a manner beyond what I can do here.

Nevertheless, "Netiquette," as a movement, was quashed.

However, I worry what will happen in the future as I am sure
some future "second handers" will dig it up from its grave--
just as assuredly as other second handers have done with the
other movements of its kind.

The reason "netiquette" and "moderation" are so easy to poke
holes in, and thence to watch the person using them noisily,
flatulently actually, fly around the room backwards spitting
out the hot air than inflated them in the first place is the
simple reason that no one can interrupt anyone else on lists
of this kind. . .that is. . .no one but the moderator.

What possible reason could there be for censoring someone in
a forum where everyone can be heard, heard all the time.

Anyone who wants to take the time can write the very most of
well-prepared and well-researched piece to cast light on the
darkest situations, and no one can stop them, excepting, the
list moderators.  Cue Darth Vader's Theme, please. . . .

Since the "delete key" is the most powerful weapon of such a
virtual universe, there is no need for mass censorship, such
power is ultimate and in the hands of every individual.

The ONLY REASON for using the power of the Dark Side is from
the perspective of not allowing someone to communicate to an
audience who wants to hear.

The audience who does NOT want to hear, has ultimate power.

BUT. . .!!!

That is not enough for those who ascribe to The Dark Side!!!

They want to ensure that no one ever hears or sees at all.

Thus is the power of The Dark Side made obvious to all.

/

This isn't the only power of The Dark Side, of course, there
is also the power of The Dark Ages which I reference in such
articles and essays as "The Chandelier Diatribe."

In these essays I respond to those who would quite take over 
the aspects of building an electronic public library such to
stop the spread of knowledge. . .under the spell of:


"Knowledge Is Power"


I leave you today with these two examples:


There are two Shakespeare professors [pick your own subject]
who each say they are the world's greatest.

One demonstrates this by stating that there are some items a
public will never understand about Shakespeare, because only
the elite Shakespeare professors know them.

The other says, "I am the world's greatest professor in such
Shakepearean lore, because I have taught more people more of
Shakespeare than anyone else."

One believes "knowledge is power" means don't share it and I
remark that this leaves a world filled with darkness.

The other believes that "knowledge is power" means share it,
and I remark that this leaves a world filled with light.


"Tis better to light a single candle 
than to curse the darkness. . . ."