From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 19:54:37 +0800
To: Rich Graves <cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: [rant] A thought on filters and the V-Chip
Message-ID: <m0tgnTn-00090jC@pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 06:38 PM 1/26/96 -0800, Rich Graves wrote:
>On Fri, 26 Jan 1996, jim bell wrote:

>> On the other hand, this would be an EXCELLENT "argument" to bring in front
>> of a Congressional committee considering the adoption of any V-chip type
>> proposal.  Once they discover that a ratings system could be used for the
>> diametrically opposite reasons of their reason for having it in the first
>> place, they'll try to modify their proposal to prevent this.  
>> 
>> If we're lucky, this'll have the effect of killing the whole concept of
>> government-sponsored (required?) V-chip-type technology.
>> 
>> OTOH, I agree with other posters who think that truly voluntary content
>> selection would be an excellent addition to television:  In effect, an
>> automatic, programmable TV-Guide search engine.
>
>While it's hard to find a general theme here, I think I disagree. 

What?  You mean you LIKE to read TV guide every week, cover to cover, in 
advance, to scedule your TV viewing habits?

>Anyway, 
>I don't think that even truly voluntary content selection is a good idea, 
>because it reduces art to numbers, which is wrong.

Aw, admit it.  You're just still pissed 'cause I called  you a f------ 
statist.  <G>>

Me, I'd like to be able to tell my "TV-Guide search engine" to:

1.   Look for this particular show or movie.
2.   Look for this particular star, director, or other participant..
3.   Follow a subject thread, say on the news.
4.   etc.

Maybe even a more complex (artificially intelligent) agent that "knows" me 
well enough to anticipate my desires.


> lead to a balkanization that diminishes the common
>culture. I think it was good the way network TV was limited to the lowest
>common denominator, but with variety. People who wanted something with a
>little more flavor than WonderBread [tm] were able to find it, but they
>did have to look, which often involved *meeting other people* with common
>interests, and they still tuned in to Ed Sullivan to see what the Joneses
>were watching. Give people 1024 bits' worth of channels to choose from,
>classified by arbitrary criteria involving no human contact, and you get
>something entirely different. I'm not sure what's happening now, but I
>don't think I like it. 

You're entitled to NOT like it.  But I'm equally entitled to use modern 
technology to sift through 60+ cable channels, or 300+ DSS-type channels.