From: Jon Lebkowsky <jonl@well.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 23:17:19 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Reputations
Message-ID: <2.2.32.19960904115805.006d2790@mail.well.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 08:40 PM 9/3/96 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote:

>And so on. Many of the debates about anonymity seem to ignore reputations,
>filters, kill files. It is almost as if the critics of anonymous speech are
>saying "If there is not accountability for restaurant recommendations,
>we'll all be buried in garbage food." This ignores the _emergent order_ or
>_evolutionary_ nature of actors in the restaurant and restaurant evaluator
>market.

Could be a lack of understanding of the possibility of authentication, which
IMO can be necessary for 'reputation' to be viable.

>Free speech is often messy. 98% of everything I read or hear is crap, to do
>Sturgeon one better. But I use judgement to decide what to read, who to
>listen to, and what to mostly ignore. I use _reputation_ to choose
>restaurants, books, movies, speakers to listen to, etc.
>
>Sometimes I listen to anonymous speech, but mostly I don't. Pseudonyms take
>a while to gather a "positive reputation," and some never do. This is the
>way speech works. "Accountability" is a red herring.

I wouldn't exactly say that...but it's more of a personal responsibility
thing. Our model should be default acceptance of responsibility for words
and deeds, but I see that as a personal issue, not a matter for 'enforcement.'

--
Jon Lebkowsky <jonl@hotwired.com>  FAX (512)444-2693  http://www.well.com/~jonl
Electronic Frontiers Forum, 6PM PDT Thursdays     <http://www.hotwired.com/eff>
"No politician can sit on a hot issue if you make it hot enough."--Saul Alinsky