From: sdw@meaddata.com (Stephen Williams)
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 93 14:45:10 PST
To: nowhere@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Anonymous)
Subject: Re: Anarchy Gone Awry (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <9312060208.AA17728@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>
Message-ID: <9312062243.AA11661@jungle.meaddata.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


I'm not sure, yet, if I want to agree with this guy to any amount, but
this idea, recast into a safe form that doesn't get out of control,
might be a good idea.  I thought of it as a way to get K-12
students/schools connected 'safely'.

See below:

> Computer underground Digest    Sun  Dec 5 1993   Volume 5 : Issue 91
>                            ISSN  1004-042X
> Date: Thu, 02 Dec 93 04:36:10 -0700
> From: "L. Detweiler" <ld231782@LONGS.LANCE.COLOSTATE.EDU>
> Subject: File 1--Anarchy Gone Awry
> 
> Mr. Leichter raises some extremely pivotal issues in CUD #5.90 related
> to the `anarchy' of the Internet. B.Sterling is the author of one of
> the most brilliantly colorful characterizations and metaphors of the
> Internet as `anarchic', comparing its evolution and development to that
> of the English language:
....
> I think that many people have mistaken the word `anarchic,' implying no
> overseeing authority or order (which the Internet is less) with the
> word `decentralized' (which the Internet is more). Again, the
> Internet has many regulatory and self-governing systems and orders.
> For example, connecting sites are required to implement a certain
> minimum set of software standards and prevent or even root out
> corruptions in their local sites and software. We have centralized
> databases that require the registration of domains for fees. A complex
> network of agreements and policies governs interconnectivity and
> communication, and a complicated interplay of elements affects basic
> content such as `commercial vs. academic.' Lack of some of these
> regulations and protocols would be disastrous.
> 
> Leichter:
> >Most of the Internet, in fact, is
> >better described as self-governing.  There are a variety of social
> >norms concerning network use and interactions.  One doesn't post
> >messages to unrelated groups.  One doesn't evade moderation
> >restrictions.  One maintains a certain (rather limited, it must be
> >admitted) degree of restraint in how one describes other network
> >participants.  There are few effective mechanisms for enforcing these
> >norms, and they are certainly broken on an all-too-regular basis; but
> >the network continues to function because social pressure *can* be
> >applied to those who become too annoying; and in the most outrageous
> >cases, it's possible to remove the offenders' access to the net.
> 
> I advocate that we build new formal mechanisms to enforce this order!
> We have for too long pretended that a central element of the Internet
> is not integral to it, namely that of the `degree of restraint over
> network participants' exerted through `social pressure'. Let us codify
> and formalize these `norms concerning network use and interactions' and
> develop systems that enforce them! I believe such systems can be
> developed that do not stray from the sacred Internet tradition of
> decentralization of control and freedom from censorship. Why should we
> continue to subject ourselves to the torture of `few effective
> mechanisms for enforcing these norms broken on an all-too-regular basis'?
> 
> One of my most enduring Cyberspatial hallucinations is that of a
> Ratings server. A Ratings server would be a massive distributed network
> for the propagation of information similar to Usenet, and could
> conceivably be built upon it. But the Ratings server is not
> Information, as Usenet is, it is Information about Information. Anyone
> can post an arbitrary message to the Ratings server that refers to
> Information somewhere else in Cyberspace. It is in a sense a Rating of
> that Information. The Information could be *anything* -- a mailing
> list, a person, a particular Usenet posting, an FTP site. But postings
> on the Ratings server can be perused by anyone, and anyone can
> contribute Ratings to the server or indicate their own opinion on the
> existing Ratings. Different mechanisms exist such that some Ratings are
> `local' and some are updated globally.

I had a similar idea, but knowing how hard it is to get everyone using
new software and data streams, I wanted to piggyback onto News.  My
original reason for thinking about it was for Internet systems that
would like to give access to News, etc. to K-12 students and schools.
A big problem is material that parents and teachers would object to.
I have absolutely no desire to censor anything or prevent adults from
running into or getting anything (quite the opposite, actually), but
there is no getting around the desired restrictions on info flow to
minors.

Basically, I suggested that special messages be standardized that
would endorse messages for certain distributions.  Old (existing...)
news software would just pass the messages like others, but news
systems that wanted to rate or hide improper messages could pay
attention to them.  My software would probably take the form of
patches to INN and tin, etc.  There would be positive and negative
endorsements, of course with the possibility of signature keys, etc.

You could configure certain users or the system to be sensitive to any
combination of endorsements:  The idea is that the administrator or
user could determine who they would pay attention to.  Other things
like voting, number of endorsements, etc. could easily be done.

One senario is that teachers or organizations worldwide could
'register' to each other and share the responsibility of endorsing
messages in certain groups.  If there needed to be culpability, the
endorsers could be tracked down if needed.

This would be totally optional on an adult's account and mandatory on
a minor's account, unless proper permission was obtained.  It might,
in certain situations, also reduce the signal-to-noise ratio.  Another
interesting use is to change the nature of moderated groups: the group
could be unmoderated in the current sense, but users could choose
moderators who would agree to endorse messages that had good content.
You could have several 'competing' moderators in the same group,
almost like news organizations.

'alt.best.of.internet' is a limited capability version of this idea.

> 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.
> For example, we could require that new sites that enter the Internet be
> `trusted' by an existing site. We could require that membership in
> certain groups requires a certain amount of collateral peer approval,
> with automatic suspension or expulsion as the consequences for
> violating it! We could have *meaningful* polls on arbitrary issues. We
> could have news servers that automatically sort and archive articles
> according to their passing certain Ratings thresholds. We could
> restrict the influence of troublemakers! These are all examples of
> strengthening and formalizing the informal social orders that are, in
> my opinion, today just barely holding the Internet together. With a
> Ratings system, I think the civility of the Internet would increase to
> a fantastic degree. In short, we could have our *own* cyberspatial government!
> 
> Note that there is no centralized authority or unfair influence in this
> system, unless people corrupt their servers. When everyone who has
> joined a group *individually* decides to screen their postings of
> messages that fail to meet a certain `quality' or posters who have a
> certain `reputation', that is not Orwellian Censorship but the
> beautiful Internet freedom and right of Bozo Filtering. When everyone
> who joins a group *agrees* to a charter that may bar troublemakers
> based on Ratings, no one can claim they are being unfairly oppressed.

My method, IMHO, is a positive version of the negative method espoused
here.  I do not like a central 'ratings server' of any kind.  There
should be multiple competing 'opinions' and you can ascribe to any
existing one or in combination or be independant.

> 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.

So how does our current society hold together?  Where is that central
'ratings server'?  (Nielsons dosn't count :-))

We should stay decentralized, especially, on the net.  When some of us
think of an anarchic system, we are making the assumption that some
good stability and structure will be created organically.  Probably it
will be better than that designed with preconceived opinions.

And, I feel compelled to add, you are the only mouth-frothing person
I've run across recently.

sdw
-- 
Stephen D. Williams  Local Internet Gateway Co.; SDW Systems 513 496-5223APager
LIG dev./sales       Internet: sdw@lig.net CIS 76244.210@compuserve.com
OO R&D Source Dist.  By Horse: 2464 Rosina Dr., Miamisburg, OH 45342-6430
GNU Support          ICBM: 39 34N 85 15W I love it when a plan comes together