From: "E. Allen Smith" <EALLENSMITH@ocelot.Rutgers.EDU>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 20:25:48 -0800 (PST)
To: abostick@netcom.com
Subject: Re: THE NEW YORKER on the V-Chip
Message-ID: <01IEKJ7UWBPC9AMSTU@mbcl.rutgers.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


From:	IN%"abostick@netcom.com"  "Alan Bostick" 23-JAN-1997 23:09:54.72

>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.

	Personally, I'd view this as a positive development. The puritanical
types will be busily still protesting it, but without so many parents who
(falsely) believe their children will be harmed by exposure to sex, thus
dividing their efforts. Normally one would think that advertisers et al might
give in to a small number... but advertisers particularly suceptible to this
won't be sponsoring anything but G-rated shows anyway. (Of course, I view
the V-chip itself as a bad thing, but if it has an outcome opposite in at
least _some_ ways to the one intended by the neo-puritans, I can see the
silver lining.)

>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.

	An interesting question... although I'd point out that the degree of
social pressure against spamming et al appears to be ineffective. The herd-like
public (referring to the parents with their foolish fears and anyone else
brainwashed into believing the puritans/fundamentalists) can put pressure on
with their buying patterns... as yet such a market system is lacking in mailing
lists (except for putting people on filter lists, which probably exacerbates
the problem). In other words, there is no particular reason for the spammers et
al to desist even if people _are_ receiving their email.
	-Allen