From: pstemari@erinet.com (Paul J. Ste. Marie)
Date: Sat, 24 Dec 94 06:53:02 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: FRAUD: Progress & Freedom on the Web-Frontier?
Message-ID: <9412241444.AA05897@eri>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 05:39 AM 12/24/94 -0800, Dave Del Torto forwarded someone else's writings:

        [...]

>  Even more has been written about the most famous Gopac document,
>
>    ... a memo by Gingrich called "Language, a Key Mechanism of
>    Control", in which the then-House minority whip gave candidates
>    a glossary of words, tested in focus groups, to sprinkle
>    in their rhetoric and literature.  For example, it advised
>    characterizing Democrats with such words as "decay, sick,
>    pathetic, stagnation, corrupt, waste, traitors".  (LA Times,
>    12/19/94, pages A31)

Paging Prof. Chomsky, paging Prof. Chomsky...

This is exactly the sort of information manipulation that can create a chain 
reaction on the net.  The infamous modem tax is a good example of this sort 
of cascade effect.  Use of "hot button" terms can product astonishing effects.

>  How does this model scale to 200,000-plus people?  Well, at that
>  point it starts to sound a lot like the information superhighway
>  -- a technology for centralized broadcast of programs to a group
>  that isn't the "mass audience" of conventional TV broadcasting
>  but is distributed across the country.  More tailored programming
>  could be distributed as well -- to particular geographical
>  regions, to activists on particular issues, and so forth.  It's
>  not a decentralized model like the Internet, but then it's not
>  the political vision that normally goes with the Internet either.
>  It's closer to the asymmetrical distribution model found in the
>  plans of many cable and regional phone companies -- some of whom,
>  you might recall, sponsored the Progress and Freedom Foundation's
>  conference.

Yawn--this is the same old crappy broadcast paradigm that every govt drone 
that has looked at the net insists on regurgitating out of their craw.  The 
nature of the net is that everyone is a broadcaster, and the concept of a 
band of Newt-clones spamming the net is annoying.  It's good that these 
people are this clueless--someone that selectively and judiciously inserted 
a few posts here and there on appropriate newsgroups could have quite an 
effect, given an understanding of the language manipulation techniques 
mentioned above.

>  As a case study in these issues, let's consider an organization
>  called the Wireless Opportunities Coalition.  The WOC has

        [posted a web page with minimal credits for sponsorship]

>  Why is it "idi.net" and not "idi.com"?  Never mind.  My point
>  is not that these folks are evil or that they have no right
>  to speak.  My point is that they are a public relations firm
>  practicing their craft on the Internet.  In the future, I expect
>  that ordinary citizens using the Internet will want to inform
>  themselves about who's behind all of those slick web pages.

This gets right down to one of the fundemental differences between Usenet 
news and the WWW.  The Web is essentially a broadcast model for information 
exchange, even though everyone can publish their own Web page.  News & 
mailing lists, OTOH, give everyone involved an opportunity to respond and 
point out stuff that is complete bullshit.  Until you can hang responses off 
of Web pages, it will never give the value of the newsgroups and mailing 
lists, despite all the fancy fonts and glitzy graphics on the Web pages.
    --Paul J. Ste. Marie