From: Sean Roach <roach_s@alph.swosu.edu>
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 10:56:45 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: THE NEW YORKER on the V-Chip
Message-ID: <199701241856.KAA03653@toad.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 04:57 PM 1/23/97 -0800, Alan Bostick wrote:
>In the Jan. 20, 1997, issue of THE NEW YORKER, the "Comment", written by
>Malcolm Gladwell, makes a powerful arguement about the unintended
>consequences of the V-Chip, the programmable device to be included in
>next-generation television sets sold in the US that supposedly will
>allow parents to control their children's access to sex and violence on
>TV.
>
>Gladwell makes an analogy between V-Chipped TV content and
>air-conditioned cars in the New York City subway system in summertime:
>" . . . we need air-conditioners on subway cars because air-conditioners
>on subway cars have made stations so hot that subway cars need to be
>air-conditioned."  Similarly, he argues, "the V-chip is likely to
>increase the amount of sex and violence on television, not decrease it"
>because when viewers can block offensive programming, there is far less
>pressure on broadcasters and cable operators to avoid offending.
>
>This is just the sort of thing that John Young is given to scanning and
>putting up on his Web site or sending out to people who send him email
>with FUN_nie subject lines.  If I were him, I'd put it up.
>
>And, for the benefit of those people who don't think the V-Chip isn't in
>itself on-topic for cypherpunks, I might point out that Gladwell's
>argument applies equally well to mail filtering with procmail recipes --
>or Sandy's and John's list moderation experiment.  If the noise level on
>the unmoderated list jumps to even higher than we were seeing before
>the moderation began, that would provide observational support to
>Gladwell's argument.

You forgot about one thing, TV is one way.
The V-chip will have dueling results.  On the one hand, advertisers will
only pay for shows that will have a large viewership.  If that means that a
rather objectionable show, which would traditionally draw a large population
of pre-teens, can't be seen by its largest body of fans, it will probably be
cut.
On the other hand, TV execs won't have to worry about objections any longer
and thus can broadcast what they want, assuming that they can find a
decently large group of closet viewers.  (Not a misstype, I meant people who
are in the closet about their preferences, such as the minister with the
playboy channel.)

And TV is mostly one way.
This net is two way, many of the shock posts were put here to draw fire.
If the audience of these shock posts can not be reach to be outraged, the
vile spewer will first raise the stakes, spewing even more garbage and then,
finally, giving up.  Just like the old argument, don't encourage them, just
ignore them.
Plus, a number of reply posts to the garbage will never be written because
thier authors will have never seen the trash that they would have replied to.