------------------------------

Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1993 07:45:20 -0700 (MST)
From: Tokind <tokind@ACCA.NMSU.EDU>
Subject: File 6--Anarchy Gone Awry (Re: CuD 5.91) #3

((MODERATORS' COMMENT: This general topic has degenerated into
frivolousness on a few other newsgroups. There are, however,
some serious issues in the net/anarchy topic. CuD will run
serious responses. Flames, alt.wierdness, and ravings will
be ignored)).

A response to L. Detweiler's "Anarchy Gone Awry"

 It is clear that there are a lot of variations in the definition of the
word "Anarchy" on the net. I like the definition that you quoted from
author Bruce Sterling. It is exactly this undefined and unregimented
quality that makes the net such a productive environment for the exchange
of ideas. These same qualities are important for the practical development
of such ideas, and the net has unparalleled value as a tool for education
and reference.

> In my view, to the contrary the Internet is largely
> held together with the glue of social cohesion and human
> civility, and ingredients that are destructive to that
> order are likewise toxic to Cyberspace, and that,
> conversely, virtually all of the excruciating poison in
> the bloodstream today can be traced to violations and
> perversions of that trust.

 The definition of Anarchy that I subscribe to is very well defined by the
first part of your sentence. People are basically good, and all they need
to remain good is a seat in a "community" of some sort. Communities that
do not require basic standards of courtesy and respect do not last very
long; they fold in on themselves as members destroy relationships and head
off in other directions.  Likewise, communities that are too strictly
regimented drive off members who find the costs to their individuality and
self-esteem too high to tolerate.

 We have all participated in newsgroups or mailing lists that took an ugly
turn. It can be very disappointing when this happens, but if you stick
around, things usually return to center--or the facility goes away. You
can even locate sympathetic former members who will help console you in
your disappointment.

 Likewise, each node on the Internet is a community. Each has certain
standards of behavior and those standards are further informed by the
relationship between the node and it's carrier.  All of these
relationships are formal at a "local" level, but are quite informal in a
hierarchical sense. This is part of a definition of Anarchy that is not
generally accepted in this country; I submit that the anarchy I am
promoting is defined by an absence of formal, imposed, hierarchy.

> ...the Internet has been over-promoted as %anarchic' by
> certain subversive, quasi-criminal segments that have
> found a tenacious hold there, namely extremist
> libertarians and %Cryptoanarchists'.

My interests are not criminal. Nor are they extremist. Yes, there are
"antisocial" elements here, as there are anywhere else. The question of
how we deal with criminal or antisocial acts, as individuals and as
communities, is a very important one. As the communities of the Internet
are working through these issues there are a number of other concerns,
such as:
  o how can a 'network' guard against takeover
    by an overzealous government or criminal
    organization,
  o how can we insure an emergency communications
    capability in the case of a political or
    natural crisis,
  o how can resources best be applied to education,
    public or otherwise.

 Once upon a time the communications systems that we now refer to as "The
Media" were a public system. The FCC defines the airwaves as a public
trust, granted by license from the people, in exchange for a promise to
uphold certain standards of wholesomeness and to practice generally in the
"public interest".  Mr. Detweiler, when I monitor my television and radio,
I do not see what I consider a reasonable rendition of "the public trust"
being exercised. With the possible exception of NPR, PBS and CSPAN, the
communications being carried out on these systems are very narrowly
limited to commercial objectives. It is obvious without much reflection
that the result of this narrowly defined regulation is bland programming,
the suppression of challenging ideas, and the loss of a diversity of
representation. The whole system is designed around a "comfort factor".
They hesitate to introduce any material that might be offensive to viewers
in general.

 In the anarchy of the net I see a great potential for a new media that is
truly democratic, truly interactive, and truly productive.  Where each
member is a "participant" rather than a mere "viewer".

> While some of us have glimpsed various hideous
> corners of Cyberspatial Hell, those who subscribe
> to the Liberating Religion of Anarchy are in
> their Paradise on the Internet As We Know It.
> I call their Utopia a Ticking Time Bomb and a
> Recipe for an Apocalypse.
> I have come to these (admittedly melodramatic)
> conclusions after %10 months and %3500 messages
> of generally unpleasant and at times
> excruciatingly troubling and painful reading
> and participation on the Cypherpunks list and
> many personal communications with the Cypherpunk
> leaders...

 I applaud your concern and your interest in learning about what is going
on in those "hideous corners". But I think that you should ask, in all
honesty, if your explorations would have been possible on a centrally
controlled "Internet". Social activism of the kind that you are practicing
does not take place in an environment where a central authority--be it an
agency, board, commission, president--whatever, regulates the activities
and even the "exposure" of members.

I like your idea for a Ratings server. But I probably like the idea for
entirely different reasons than you do. I see this as a very effective
tool for individuals and communities to fine-tune access to their
interests. A teacher could use this mechanism to locate specific materials
for teaching. A student could use it to track down research materials. A
service provider could monitor the Ratings server for references that
would be of interest to clients. A sysop could check for references to a
service provided on his or her system in response to complaints from the
community or in response to a request for a special service. Likewise,
agencies or individuals who are investigating potential criminal activity
could use the server to gather information.

> The fantastic possibilities of this system are
> evident upon some reflection and consideration.
> We could establish arbitrary new groups that have
> *formal* requirements that are matched by Ratings
> servers. [...] We could require that membership in
> certain groups requires a certain amount of
> collateral peer approval, with automatic suspen-
> sion or expulsion as the consequences for
> violating it! ... We could restrict the influence
> of troublemakers! ...

I support your conclusions--to a point! I am frustrated with the signal to
noise ration on the television set. I only have three controls at my
disposal: MUTE, CHANNEL, and OFF. On the internet, the controls available
to me are almost infinite. I can even craft my own! The important
distinction is that I am a _participant_. I can make my own choices about
what I see, and the choices available are not established by consensus but
by interest. I can create or contribute to a program that interests me. I
don't want ANY "automatic" controls whatsoever!

> Note that there is no centralized authority or
> unfair influence in this system, unless people
> corrupt their servers.

While you are certainly correct in the sense that the server would not be
physically centralized, you do not address the question of the Ratings
server becoming an Ideologically central control on participation. The
second part of your statement is ignored by your argument--but could have
dire implications for individual liberties at a community level. De-facto
Majority rule has every bit as much potential for injustice as
"dictatorship". I refer you to the history of the Third Reich.
 (That was my final and only melodramatic contribution |:-% ) I would urge
you and readers of your essay to consider whether the right questions are
being asked. Again, I support the idea of a Ratings server, although the
name could stand some work. At present the net is being molded by a number
of new influences. Businesses, both large and small are moving in. Many of
these are interested in the net as common carrier. Government is moving
towards a VERY active role in the regulation and development of the
Internet. And people are pouring onto the net in numbers that could not
have been anticipated just two years ago. There are other influences, but
these are the most visible right now. What are the potential influences of
these interests? Could any or all of them have the effect of stifling
freedom on the net? Business might like to limit competition for bandwidth
by exercising a right to "filter" in the "Public interest". Government
would almost certainly like to keep a tight grip on any activity that
might be considered criminal or subversive. And the people; well, many
will be confused for a time. There will be some stumbling around and a
decreased signal-to-noise ratio for obvious reasons. That famous vocal
minority will also be there, looking to sanitize the net. This will only
encourage the arguments of business and government to regulate activities
and participation on the net.

> I fervently hope that the glorifications and
> manipulations of Internet Anarchy by mouth-
> frothing libertarian extremists, Cryptoanarchists,
> and sympathizers can be adequately controlled and
> minimized in the future, and some harmonious
> systems and effective countermeasures along the
> lines of the Rating server can be established by
> visionaries and tinkerers, but in any case, for
> the sake of humanity's integrity, sanity, and
> well-being, I pray that Future Cyberspace is far
> less Anarchic than the Current Internet.

 Many "visionaries" start out their careers as "mouth-frothing
extremists", at least as far as their "peer review groups" are concerned.
Only the perspective of hindsight can define what has value and what is
noise. Harmonious systems are boring and static.  They have a tendency to
aim for the lowest common denominator. We have quite enough of this in our
other "established" media systems.

 I think that the question you should be asking is, how can we preserve
the individual voice--the free exchange of ideas--in an environment that
is quickly evolving into an important domain for "The Big Boys?"


=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
+                               END THIS FILE                                +
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+===+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=