ShutUp Software 220
ShutUp Software is a great example of how technology works in seemingly small and unpredictable ways to make enormous and sometimes unforeseen changes.
Generally known as blocking, filtering, disabling, convenience or preference software, it's spreading wildly on the Web, especially as investors and businesspeople flock online. For many of these people, as opposed to yakky and curious geeks and nerds, time is literally money. They don't want to waste a cent listening to the posturers, screamers, and head-bangers who swarm the Net and Web's public threads and talk areas like angry hornets. Hence - my own tem, ShutUp Software, which has enormous implications although, typically they're rarely considered.
Here's how it works: the website Raging Bull (www.ragingbull.com) grew from 5,000 members last July to 95,000 members on New Year's Day, primarily by emphasizing its new "ignore" buttons. Co-founder Bill Martin told the magazine Brill's Content that "ignore" buttons were developed in response to the raucous, foaming-at-the-mouth rhetoric that's long been a trademark of top e-trading sites.
"Jerks would come up," said Martin, and disrupt informative, (and lucrative) exchanges and discussions by posting unfounded rumors, off-topic babble, or personal attacks.
Not anymore. Raging Bull now promotes itself as the "only message board that empowers you to filter out annoying posters and irrelevant information by providing an 'ignore' feature."
Users just instruct Raging Bull to block any posts or posters they don't like. Raging Bull says it has "zero tolerance" for foul language and insults. In addition a partner and an "advocate" respond to complaints, remove inappropriate posts, and in extreme cases revoke membership. Other sites have begun monitoring public postings as well, including Silicon Investor (www.techstocks.com), The Motley Fool (www.fool.com), and Yahoo@Finance (finance.yahoo.com).
AOL provides chat room monitors who moderate speech and are authorized to suspend disruptive, obscene or abusive chatters. The members of the computer conferencing system The WELL devised a "bozo filter" program members can use to screen out flamers, cybercreeps, the anarchic assaults that have always been part of open discussions online.
Slashdot, too, recently began offering users the option of disabling or eliminating subjects by author, topic or section. Although these preferences are offered as a choice or convenience, not a monitoring tool, posters do use them to eliminate opinions they don't like. I lead the list of the damned and the banned by a wide margin: of the more than 80,000 (by unofficial estimate) daily Slashdot readers, 650 have blocked me, compared to the 79 who've blocked Sengan, 78 blocking Cmdr Taco, and the 60 or so ignoring Hemos and Cliff). Rob (Malda) points out that the number of "disabled" authors hasn't grown much since the preferences were offered a few weeks ago. He estimates that 75 per cent of the Slashdot regulars never post. He guesses that about half the site's users probably don't read public comments.
ShutUp Software seems an almost inevitable evolution in the history of the Net and the Web, until now the freest space in the global information spectrum. Flamers are ultimate tyranny of the minority, usually a tiny handful of posters who drive away the vast majority. E-trading sites have no interest in free speech, unless it's about making money. But the new software is a mixed blessing, if ever there was one.
As the Web gets bigger, busier, and more business-driven, the tolerance for posturing, abusive flaming inevitably diminishes.
The Net has always been about empowering users, about choice, and this new kind of software clearly can give people more choices in their daily information lives. Like programming a radio for certain stations, selecting the TV channels you want, or picking the song cuts you'd prefer rather than buying the whole CD, it's legitimate and understandable. I love the choices my MP3 player and TV zapper give me, but I wonder if the people making all this cool new ShutUp Software sometimes lose sight of the difference between choosing and blocking.
In my own view, ShutUp Software, no matter how well-intended, is increasingly also a form of censorship, even if it's self-censorship. I should know; I'm a much-read and much-blocked person. I'm proud to say that I'm blocked by almost all of the major blocking programs, including CyberPatrol, CyberSitter and CyberNanny (for criticizing blocking software and for advocating children's access to the Internet), and Disney's Go.Com (presumably for defending rap and vulgar TV shows like "South Park" and "Beavis & Butt-head,") - though you never know the reason for sure).
It hardly ever bothers me when people disagree with me, or even flame me. But being blocked is a much more visceral, personal experience.
And now I'm blocked by hundreds of Slashdotters as well. The people who've posted messages about this or e-mail me don't cite choice, convenience or time constraints - they simply claim to dislike my writing style or ideas, and want me to know that they're banning them and me, from their own individual experience.
This is everybody's absolute right; nobody should be forced to read me if he or she don't want to. But the ShutUp Software will almost certainly be used in unforeseen, sometimes unintended ways. What can be used against me can - and will -- be used against you.
I can always find an audience for my ranting (in addition to other sites and links, there are those 79,350 Slashdot readers who can somehow survive having my work appear on the site). But angry kids posting messages can be marginalized, even obliterated, in a snap.
Flamers are an enormous problem online. They chill free speech, frighten or drive off weaker, older, less experienced or more benign and thoughtful posters. Often they are abusive. But they are also important, daily reminders that the Net and the Web are free. They keep gasbags in check, and, in my case, have taught me (often inadvertently) a lot about Linux, open source, geekhood, and how to write more knowingly, concisely and informally.
They have the right to be heard, to exist on websites.
Had I blocked or filtered these people because they are hostile, insulting, even sometimes profoundly ignorant, I would have been worse, not better off. So , I argue, will the 650 people who won't even know this column exists, or be aware of the discussion that follows it. That seems to counter the nature of the Net. Convenience and choice are two values, but not the only values. Blocking, filter, disabling and preference software counters the free nature of the Net. Is the new hacker motto, "Information wants to be free if we like it, or if it's convenient?"
I love praise, and I need criticism, and I get a lot of both. Everybody needs both, which is why the freedom to criticize is literally incorporated into the infrastructure of genuinely interactive sites like Slashdot.
I can only speak for myself, but I'm comfortable making this statement here:
I won't ever use an "ignore" button, or set my preferences to screen out anybody else's criticism or ideas. The ideas I least want to read are the ones I most often need to.
I think ShutUp Software is a short-sighted convenience at best. I think it's ill-considered, a way of Balkanizing sites and communities, of exposing people only to the echoes of their own thoughts, of distorting reality and discouraging real communication. One of the most significant things about the Internet is the way that it brings so many different kinds of people and ideas into continuous contact. It's not about only listening to the ideas you agree with.
To consider the alternative, pick up any daily newspaper or turn on any TV news broadcast. Old media have for years screened out raucous, outspoken or obnoxious opinion on the grounds of balance and probity.
The irony is that the people quickest to use ShutUp Software are the ones whose voices will vanish the most quickly from the Web, as sites who wouldn't have dared to try "ignore" buttons a few years ago are rapidly deploying them to sanitize speech in the name of money, safety or time-saving.
One of the most elemental, if not technological, freedoms of any reader is to simply ignore what he or she deems a waste of time. Scroll to the next column or feature; why isn't that choice enough? Why build new software to ban ideas?
Because censorship is the easy, especially when it's made no tougher than the click of a button.
Censorship is the great temptation, particularly when we see something that offends or frightens us. At moments when this impulse occurs to me, I remember the caution of J.M. Coetzee, the great and often - banned South African writer and involuntary scholar of censorship.
"The one who pronounces the ban?.becomes, in effect, the blind one, the one at the center of the ring in the game of blind man's buff."
So, we should be FORCED to read you? (Score:1)
Sorry Katz, but I've gotta disagree on this one with you. What someone wants to see displayed on THEIR screen in THEIR free time is THEIR choice. Make your column available. Make it good. That's all you can do, and should do. No cramming it down anyone's throat, or telling us we should all read your stuff, or even all have to be subjected to the wasted space on the slashdot front page.
Weighing in my shutup software (Score:1)
I block stations I don't like by not selecting them. I filter out information (like adverts) by clicking on the ignore (mute) button. I censor the television networks' right to communicate with me by leaving the television off while I read a good book.
I block out Harlequin romance novels in favor of the latest by Stephenson or Bujold. I gratuitously choose not to engage in macarame tutorials, and I refuse to let those National Enquirers cross my threshold.
Am I censoring others by choosing to involve myself in 'only what I like'? No, I am exercising my freedom to choose. I am exercising my freedom to get away from what I don't like - to keep from being force fed a diet rich in obnoxiousness.
Yes, the Internet is indeed a community. Some of us are assholes. Some of us are just not popular. most of the time it isn't because of the message, but the tone of the message that makes me tune out the message.
Do I care if I'm ignored? Not particularly. My life is not so defined by what other people think of me that I question my existence if my email drops off. In fact, i wish some of it would drop off. So take what I say with or without a grain of salt. Or don't take it at all. And if you don't like it, I'll just ignore you (grin).
Mark Edwards
-----------------------------------
Proof of sanity forged upon request
Side effect: less noise (Score:1)
The most important benefit of allowing slashdot readers to block authors who's material they dislike is the very pleasant side effect of the absence of their whining flames. Some folks feel obliged to spend ten minutes composing a tirade complaining that a feature editorial isn't worth the ten minutes spent reading it, rather than moving on and spending the time reading something they're interested in. This is a waste of the respondents' time, and other readers' time.
Since blocking was implemented, there have been fewer complaints overall, and that's a good thing, IMO.
Ambulance watcher (Score:1)
If Jon was entirely worthless, _all_ (or maybe 50%) Slashdotters would block him. If he was any good he'd be at 80 or so with the other opinionated editors, he'd be in line with Sengan who's ruffled some feathers.
The reason he's blocked by over 650 people in spite of the fact that one has to make an effort to do so _and_ choose to not even take a chance on his ever saying anything useful, is because he _almost_ never says anything useful at all. The 'gasbag' has been ditched, effectively.
If he doesn't like this, he can find other forums or actually try to write something good- or at least pick good subjects and stay out of the way of them, as he managed to do with his decent profile of those two hacker kids. He should pointedly refrain from ever doing any more opinion pieces, because it would appear that almost ten times the slashdotters don't even want to hear his opinion compared with other story posters' ratios.
If he can't take that advice, then he should at least work on learning to find acceptance and humility with the idea that he is not very important and people don't care what he thinks. Hell, there are very few subjects where people care what _I_ think. Jon certainly has not struck a special bargain with the Deity to be rendered more worthy of even minimal attention, so I am both amused and exasperated that this is so hard for him. In all the chasing of mountaintop enlightenment, doesn't he have the faintest notion of what humility means?
Jon's enlightenment has primarily been self-realization. He grew up in a different world than the one facing kids today, one where his entire generation was demonized and canonized alternately- either they were the hope for the future, the Woodstock generation, or they were drug addicts and moral reprobates beyond any imagining.
He, understandably, has a hard time fitting into a 'So what?' world, where some of us younger geeks are very accustomed to it. This is part of his continuing difficulty in holding credibility- he has a hard time coming to terms with the fact that the majority of people care nada for what he thinks, and in fact that he'd have to put a lot of work into simply getting their attention long enough for them to parse what he's saying and make up their minds whether they like it or not. On top of this he doesn't put any work into how he says it- his first and third paragraphs repeat the exact same sentence blindly, suggesting that he does not even bother to proof his writing, or that he feels he does not even owe readers the slightest consideration. It's as if his stream of consciousness is supposed to merit the level of publicity he gets. It does not.
Again: attention is not a right, but Jon _feels_ worthy of it by default- and this clashes jarringly with the more Gen-X experience a lot of slashdotters grew up with, where you have to do a _lot_ more to even be heard, and even then, odds are your efforts will be in vain.
The fact is, someone who lives in the latter world, who has to accept the great uncaringness of most of existence and rejoice in what little bits of it _can_ be grown and cultivated, will probably find Jon's assumption that he has a _right_ to credibility and attention, as annoying.
This is one reason Jon's special status as story poster has historically rankled: this status gives him the special power to gain more attention than the average yob, and he _writes_ as if he is more enlightened and aware than us geeky masses, and the problem is he's not- he's not even smart enough to figure this out, and in spite of his continuing failure to be _more_ worthy than your average slashdotter, he _still_ _gets_ story posting privileges. Because that's CmdrTaco's privilege, it's Rob's site in the final analysis.
Is it any wonder that ten times the usual number block hearing from him at all? If he had the spark of humility in his soul, things would be very different. Nobody would resent a 'kid brother' approach of the eager Linux newbie learning more and posting their experiences. Instead, even when functioning in the areas where he deserves to show the most humility, such as being a Linux amateur, he insists, is determined to, put the whole thing in the light of spiritual development ("It's a test of the human spirit")... an area where he, being a published author and an older man than your usual slashdot reader, feels he has dominance and can assert a spiritual authority. This, even in areas where humility and willingness to learn would be most fitting and even obligatory...
In summary, this article perfectly epitomizes just who Jon Katz is, and throws a vivid light on why there's been so much friction. Jon's not a technical guru, has little to say on social trends, and in fact his complete innocence of the concept of humility suggests that he has little to say spiritually either.
Being the ambulance watcher I am, naturally I am entertained by deconstructing him- I can't help but wonder whether this post will be elevated to high levels or forcibly moderated down to suppressed levels! But either way- _I_ do not have the luxury of ignoring humility. I'm late to post, and few people will read past the spam spouting fellow, and of those who do, few will care that much what I say.
If anybody does care, they can go to my site as listed in the URL link, and read more things I've had to say. I don't have a special hotline to high-bandwidth attention, as Jon has, and in fact I couldn't tell you whether I merit one. In some areas, maybe. In other areas, certainly not.
I'm content in the knowledge that, after a stressful day of web site and brochure-hacking, and being accepted within a small group of co-workers as the ranking authority on web and layout stuff, I've come to slashdot, read yet another Jon Katz expostulation, and uncovered still more of what makes the man tick, and just why he's so incredibly irritating to many Slashdotters. I'm content to know that I've worked harder on this simple reply than Jon did on his feature article- and I feel that I have more respect for Slashdot readers by doing so. Why shouldn't I revise my post and put in paragraph indents and correct typos, if I wish to register on the radar screens of Slashdot? I take the same pains with my web site. Jon doesn't seem willing to take any pains- he behaves as if he is entitled to our attention, on principle, in case he might have an idea of some sort. If it wasn't so fun studying him, it would annoy me too, but in fact it's meta-useful, in that nothing he says is significant, but studying him is very useful for understanding certain semi-pathological social dynamics. Jon, in other circumstances, could be the guy who talks too loud at parties and starts fights. Instead, he's apparently very decent and nice in person and in private- and it is his public persona that cannot stomach humility.
This, though it's far from the point he wants us to listen to, is still an interesting thing to consider, and though I'm not sure CmdrTaco intends for Jon to be a study of irritants in online social constructs, nevertheless he serves as a revealing example.
nbspnbspnbsp! (Score:1)
It's called "censorware" (Score:1)
When a product such as NetNanny or CyberPatrol that purports to block "offensive" content goes around blocking sites that criticize it, that's censorship, not filtering. How is a site that criticizes CyberPatrol deemed "inappropriate"? It has nothing anybody could reasonably consider offensive, it just criticizes a company that happens to be in a position to do something about the criticism. In addition, why is alt.atheism blocked, while alt.judaism and alt.christianity are not?
This is basically why I consider the use of censorware in libraries and schools to be unconstitutional - the government does not have the right to empower a company or companies to decide what speech is and is not accepted according to that company's personal opinions and business strategy. Why should CyberPatrol be given the right to say "nobody shall criticize CyberPatrol from a library or school"?
People will block anyway... (Score:1)
...whether or not there's ShutUp Software out there. For the vast majority of us, we don't LIKE hearing other people's opinions, and generally tune them out whether or not there's software to help us. Out of the 79,350 Slashdot readers who haven't blocked Jon, how many hits does he get when he posts an article? That's probably a better count.
We all know there's stuff out on the internet that's patently offensive, stuff that I wouldn't want my kid to see (if I indeed had a kid). Used judiciously, filtering can help. And as for free speech, well, you can talk all you want, but I don't have to listen.
Personally, I keep my Slashdot settings at -1. I want to hear everything, the good, the bad and the ugly. If someone wants to set it at 0, however, and skip all the AC's who post "first!" every time, more power to them.
In general, I've found that if people are predisposed NOT to listen, then you can't force them. And you shouldn't. The right to tune out speech is just as sacrosanct as the right to speak it.
Thanks for reading this. Or not.
Now I'm confused... (Score:1)
sorry- I didn't pay close enough attention to what you were saying.
The plain truth is... (Score:1)
... I am not a fair man, and don't want to heard both sides. - H.L. Mencken.
Using computers to filter out what we want and don't want to see, is what they are they for. I have mail filters, I have filters on Slashdot, I use search engines.
How are search engines much different from filters? The both do pretty much the same thing.
I think Jon is backing the wrong horse on this one.
Shaun
well said- but... (Score:2)
I have to agree- I am shocked and amazed that katz would be censored by go.com, etc. for merely political views. (I assume that he wasn't posting porno as well in former columns =)
However, Jon, you should not be so dismissive of "flaming" as you call it. It's true that many flames are just bitter or bored people looking for a rise, but it is also easy to dismiss legitimate, civil comments that are unpleasent to read as simple flames. For instance, during the running to the website incident, I published what I felt was a civil criticism of what I felt smacked of self-promotion. This is an unpleasent thing for you to read, I realize, and not a nice thing to say. But I didn't make wild accusations about kickback schemes, and all that other crap that so many other people did. And yet, from a number of responses to my post, many of which were personal, angry, and uncivil, I assume that it was taken to be a flame.
If you don't like blocking software, be sure that you are not too quick to dismiss comments as flames; that too is the kind of censorship you are talking about.
What's a poor admin to do? (Score:1)
Jon,
You're quite right, blocking tools can be used to screen things one doesn't like, but that one really, really ought to be reading.
The problem isn't the software here. The problem is the closed minded individuals who've decided they don't want to read your column, or my comment, or Rob's Quickies.
Take a look at what's happened to Usenet, Jon. Back when it was 2 articles per day, all was fine. Then it kinda scaled out of control. The result is a medium that some swear by, but most - in my humble experience - just dismiss as unusable.
So what are we to do? I hate to see good, level headed moderation referred to as censorship. Censorship is an attack on free speech. Moderation is a defence against those who would destroy a forum.
Yeah, I know, there are bad moderators. And hell, they probably outnumber the good ones and all. What can you do. But Jon, much as I take your point, I fail to see an alternative. Please don't condemn us all to a network full of flamers and First Comment posters.
Cheers, Dave
--
Katz misses the point, I think. (Score:4)
That is why reader-implemented filtering is a Good Thing. And why administrator-implemented filtering is not always bad (Cancel Moose, for example, was helpful for a while).
Blocking software like Net Nanny, etc., *is* evil, though, if only because of the way it seems to filter out dissenting opinion, not just the things it claims to filter.
The Good and Bad of Filtering (Score:1)
So how does that apply here? Simple: it can lead us to the belief that filtering out bits, while good, is different from filtering out ideas. It also showed me that, not restricting anyone's priviledge to be heard allows a DoS attack on everyone's right to free speech (in the 'Net paradigm). The problem is quite clear: do we decide that we must strive for a perfect world, wherein such an attack wouldn't be made? Or do we decide that we must strive for an imperfect world, but one wherein a DoS of our right to free speech is more difficult to do?
My opinion is this: given that we live in a populated world, we must expect a DoS regardless of intent; thus, we can not assume that everyone's good intentions will protect us. Filtering becomes a necessity, not just of having robustness, but to have even the more basic rights! However, it must be done correctly: and one of the best ways to do this isn't democratic filtering, but meritocratic; the ones most fit to participate in a forum should know the best what doesn't belong, and what does belong despite disagreements.
This, then, is why I don't filter stories on Slashdot, but have filtering set up to +1 or +2 (depending on my mood). There is no meritocratic way to decide something as broad as "appropriateness of something Geek and/or News-related to Slashdot's community" (although, of course, appropriateness to Slashdot itself is decided by CmdrTaco), but there is a way to decide "appropriateness of a particular post in a particular context to Slashdot's community."
Thus, I agree with one point of this article -- to try to view the bigger picture as much as possible at
I don't have infinite time (Score:1)
Now, if I'm looking for feedback to something I've created (and JK clearly falls in this category a lot), I think I do have more of an obligation to listen to responses than I do in simply selecting what's worth reading. However, even then I reserve the right not to let a particular person command most of my attention.
Blocking != Censorship (Score:1)
Humans encounter more information today than they ever have before, and as in the past, the method of dealing with it is to filter it. As a matter of fact, all five of your senses are actively filtering the world around you with every breath that you take.
This is *not* the same as censorship. Censorship is when someone *else* filters for you. When I put up my proxy filter and choose which ads to block out, I am simply filtering a barrage of information which has little use to me in my life, or at least I *think* it has little use to me. Your eyes and ears, your sense of smell all do this on a regular basis. If I'm wrong -- well, that is my loss. However it is my right to choose what I see. And I do, and you do it too.
Some forms of "blocking", like slashdot, come very close to censorship, particularly when the moderators come into play. You could almost percieve it as having a *huge* committee of people who choose what you see -- if you opt for moderated content. But it is important to remember that you are still able to choose whether you want moderated content or not, so in my opinion even this is not censorship. It is much like watching the news on TV. You "vote with your dollar" for someone to filter information for you.
If the persons you select to filter information for you do it in a way that you didn't think they were doing it -- that's censorship. But we all know how moderators here work, so if you opt for it.. well, you picks yer filters, and you installs them.
Deal.
But I don't like Spam! :) (Score:1)
Doesn't the golden rule condone rape?
"But I thought she'd want to, I know that's what *I* wanted her to do..."
Sometimes, what people say can be taken the wrong way. I don't see how my personal choices in what I want to see on the internet has anything to do with the unsolicited e-mail stupid people might send me. In fact, in the spirit of this thread, that's a good reason to filter your e-mail.
"ShutUp Software" -- Web Content Filters and Katz. (Score:4)
I also didn't see this on the main slashdot page, but it's in ultramode.txt, which I parse into lynx when I just want to see headlines (yeah, yeah, not more than every hour).
However, I do love the new moderation feature of slashdot. I also enjoy being able to track my replies. The reason I usually disagree with web content filtering is because it's completely impersonal. Usually, it just matches text strings looking for offensive words or links, or something equally stupid. That may be content filtering, but it isn't accurate.
However, the moderators on slashdot are users, just like I am. They recognize good comments when they see them, and I generally agree with them. It has the net effect of making slashdot back into the small community it used to be, which is what I liked originally.
Also, with the moderation on slashdot, "if you don't like it, turn it off". That is an essential feature, and it's also my answer to people who want to censor television, books, or anything else. Watch what you like, and don't blame other people for your own preferences. If you want to censor yourself, go ahead, as long as it's your choice.
KILL files aren't new (Score:1)
Response (Score:1)
Just one of the things to mull over next time you fire up Gimp to do some photo retouching ;)
Response (Score:5)
It's hard to disagree with that sentiment in principle. The problem is that in practice, I (for instance) have a finite amount of time to spend reading, and an even more limited amount of time to spend reading on the net.
I already use shutup ``wetware'' by not clicking my way to Microsoft advocacy sites, or by not picking up up Bill Gates' new book, or not reading journal articles in my field by authors who are doing work I don't find interesting. I already filter what I read; it's somewhat disingenious to suggest otherwise.
It's absolutely true that I'm missing out useful insights by doing this. But given how short my time each day is I can spend reading, I have no choice but to try to select things that have the highest signal-of-relevance-to-me to noise ratio I can find. I will always miss some very useful signal that way; and, what's worse, I will systematically be missing the same sort of signal all the time -- stuff that I don't find interesting or that I disagree with. But I don't see that I have a choice.
I'd love to read everything I can get my hands on, regardless of relevence or intelligence; but it would be irresponsible, because ultimately I have to sleep and work and eat and spend time with my loved ones. So I don't read Danielle Steele novels, Republican election materials, Bill Gates books, or flamers on usenet. Life's too short.
Does Katz know Dave Hayes? (Score:1)
John Katz is self-censoring as well... (Score:1)
Everybody has to select the 1000 (or whatever number they can manage) items in some way. Smart people use every accesible technology to help select the items, the they -- in average -- are as interesting as possible.
One simple way is to select your sources. I select to read
On Usenet and on mailing lists, I use quite advanced scoring to make smart people and subjects that interest me stand out, so I don't accidentially skip them, and to mark articles by idiots and threads started by well-known trolls and kooks as read, making them easy to skip. This allows me to follow lists and newsgroups, I'd otherwise had to "censor" out because of lack of time.
On
I disagree with the pedagogical ideals that make some American parents attempt to shield their children from the world, rather than spending time with them to learn them how to deal with the world. But that is really a separate issue.
In general, selecting/filtering/censoring your information sources is not even a question. It is a necessity. The only relevant question is how to do it most efficiently.
That's not self-censoring (Score:1)
My only excuse is that Jon Katz used the term "self-censorship" for self-imposed filtering of information, and my point required that I stayed in the terminology of his article.
This is true... (Score:1)
Brian, I think I do get the point.. (Score:1)
Do you ever read Usenet? I spend my time reading some quality posts (and a few posts of less quality), *after* reams of trash has been filtered out. You seem to suggest that it would be a good idea if I didn't have the option to do so - in other words, that I should spend a few more hours a day wasting my time reading flames and posts about topics that I'm not interested in, just so I can get a broader view.
No thanks. I find a new conversation when somebody won't stop ranting about the Tri-Lateral Commission at a party, and I do the same with the radio and the net. It's an old idea, and giving it a name in StudlyCaps isn't going to make it more dangerous.
Automated filtering can become censorship (Score:1)
The idea that if you use filtering algorithms, rather than human selected filtering, you can end up with censorship.
Someone can be pissy and hornery and insulting and still be right. Algorithms can miss this. Adults have a better chance admitting it.
While preferences-sort of things help, and a cadre of moderators can assist, and even filtering out someone your really do just want to ignore, there will always be the danger that the filtered material will get better while you're not looking.
--
Re:Automated filtering can become censorship (Score:1)
I'm not afraid of automation, I'm afraid of devices that think they know more/better than I do.
That's one of the reasons MSWindows bugs me so much.
Automation becomes censorship when the automaton is deciding for you, not implementing your decisions.
--
Less and less relevant, Katz (Score:1)
Sheesh.
It's people like this that really hurt the fight against REAL censorship. "Viewer discretion" will never be stopped, thank goodness -- no matter how often you and others call it censorship.
I defended Katz back when; I thought it was silly to fight him posting. I still think it's silly, although now I see why the others fought. Katz is an empty talker, nothing more.
-Billy
It's not about Katz... (Score:1)
On the other hand, there are some people who NEVER have something intelligent to say. They swear, they brag, they invent stories, and they insult. So I ignore them. This is, however, my choice. I am not interested in an Internet where Disney makes that choice for me. In this regard I couldn't agree with you more.
In fact, this is all that Slashdot is doing. It is trying to use dynamic HTML to recreate UseNet. Personally I don't think that CmdrTaco has a prayer in this endeavor. After all, it would take a whole lot of horsepower to simulate emacs for 80,000 posters. It is certainly getting better, but it isn't anywhere near reading UseNet with a good news reader.
Of course, people who don't use a powerful (read complicated) news reader doesn't understand how it makes UseNet readable. It is like explaining colors to blind people.
It's not your opinion Jon (Score:1)
>...posters do use them to eliminate opinions they don't like.
>I lead the list of the damned and the banned by a wide margin.
If I may summarise for many of the anti-Katz
This in combination with our value for our time causes many of us to consider you and your stuff as part of the noise rather than the signal. So...we treat your noise just as we treat the noise in our designs, we apply a filter. It's not personal Jon.
Only the weak of mind and knowledge filter dissenting opinions. The strong and literate will gladly engage in a debate/argument/discussion with someone that disagrees, if for no other reasons than simply to learn for themselves or to teach others. Quite often the strong will filter the noise, but they will also be willing to lift the earmuffs/blinders every so often just to make sure that they aren't missing anything.
Nonsense. (Score:1)
This is just the sort of poor thinking and lack of personal responsibility that I was lamenting. Read your own words!
"if you use them, you don't have freedom of choice at all"
Again!
"if you use them, you don't have freedom of choice at all"
There's a very big "IF" right there for all to see. IF you don't trust the product, why use it? Duh! Watch your kids yourself. IF you cannot trust your kids on the 'net, don't leave them alone on the 'net. Duh! None of these things are really that hard to understand. All you have to do is think about it. Apply some effort to achieving a solution rather than whining to the gov or someone else about the problem.
>because they block their critics! That surely is censorship
Not if they do it, and you know that they do it and you still choose to use their product. Even if you don't know that they do it, you should have enough mental capacity to figure out that they might just be motivated to do such a thing so you should uh...let's see, check the logs for records of blocked content, whoa, that's hard to do, time consuming. How about turning off the filter occasionally just to get a whiff of reality every now and then?
If only everyone would... (Score:2)
I choose not to watch Springer. That is not censorship, that is my personal choice. If I could program my tv or remote so that it would automatically skip over what ever channel Springer is on, I would. Again that is my choice.
If OTOH, you decide that I can't watch Spinger, that is a different situation entirely. This is where we start getting into trouble with the thick skin idea. I don't have a problem with skipping by boring, stupid, or otherwise useless information flow, but when someone else decides that not only will they skip over something, that I will as well, then we will start having problems.
I just had a major league "discussion" with a co-worker about his efforts to shut down the Marilyn Manson concert that was recently in town. I tried to make it clear that it was fine with me if he chose not to attend the show or to keep his kids away, but he has no responsibility nor authority to make that decision for me or my children. The poor sap just couldn't comprehend the idea.
This article is a good example (Score:1)
seems clear to me (Score:1)
Nothing better to say (Score:1)
I think what's more to the point is that as commerce sites start to personalize more and more you'll only be offered choices that correspond to their profile of you. It's like never getting to see the vegetarian menu because you usually get a burger. That *will* serve to unknowingly restrict your choices. A filter *you* turned on? I don't see the problem. But then again, I've never been published in Wired. (Did you know he was published in Wired?)
David Brin had a snippet about this in Earth... (Score:1)
Don't touch that ignore button! (Score:1)
--
Scott Miga
Katz (Score:1)
write a hardware review once in a while, Jon, and I think your popularity will improve.
Australia to "Shut Up" all citizens (Score:1)
You can read more about this here [efa.org.au].
Danny.
Being forced to pay to read spam is wrong (Score:1)
Consider the especially repulsive example of e-mail spam. Whenever someone tries to tell me that e-mail filters are censorship, I refer them to Paul Vixie's excellent writeup [vix.com] of the issue. Free speech only covers your right to say something. It does not give anyone the right to force me to read what they are saying and have me pay an ISP for the privilege!
I really wish Katz had drawn a line somewhere in between Web filtering software and e-mail filtering. The former is imposed upon users who don't wish to use it and have no control over how it is used. The latter is embraced by users as a sad necessity of modern life, and typically these users have full control over how to filter their mail. Much as in the case of open source software, user control makes all the difference in the world.
Killfiles (Score:2)
Killfiles, or their more powerful score file cousins, can be great. There are some people who just never have anything useful to say. And when you receive hundreds or thousands of pieces of mail a day, you don't read every one anyway. Scoring simply helps to narrow them down in a useful, SELF-DEFINED way. I would do the exact same thing mentally. It is a perfect use of the power of computers -- to free up my mind for better things.
Now, the netnanny stuff is different. There, people don't specifically decide to ban things. Rather, others ban them for people. This, I agree, is bad. But please don't lump them all together as one.
It's a tool (Score:5)
I use these tools as a means of dealing with information overload. Take ACs for instance. Yes, perhaps that one anonymous coward in a hundred has something sensible to say, but the signal to noise ratio of AC comments makes it too expensive time-wise for me to look at it. Hopefully, a moderator will pick it up and put it in the plus-scores.
This is no different than the way we read a newspaper (by skipping most of it) and judge books by their covers or publisher blurbs. In an ideal world, we'd be immortal and have the time not to have to rely on such crude ways of sorting. But in the real world, time is limited, and this type of software can be used as a tool for using that limited time more efficiently.
Blocking in software vs. ignoring in meatware (Score:1)
Because, if the volume of stuff on some forum is sufficiently high, a little technological assistance in separating wheat from chaff might make the difference between continuing to read a forum - including, perhaps, some stuff with which you disagree - and simply giving up, which still means you don't see the stuff that you would have blocked, but also means you see stuff that you wouldn't have blocked.
If somebody wishes to choose to use meatware to do all their filtering, more power to them; I will not always make that choice. I don't consider everything worth reading, and am willing to take the risk of not seeing something worth reading if it's in a thread filled with, say, fact-free opining - or, for that matter, if it's discussing a topic in which I have no interest.
I sympathize with your comments about software that blocks at the source, as that's Person A keeping Person B from seeing something; I don't sympathize with your comments about blocking at the reader, as that's just Person A choosing to have something they don't want to read not even offered to them, rather than dismissing it after a quick glance (if there's enough stuff to read, the fact that you only have to glance quickly at one item to realize you're not interested doesn't necessarily mean glancing at all the items won't take a significant amount of your time).
Two reasons for using personal content filters (Score:1)
I do, however, filter on topic. I read Slashdot in order to get the latest technical news; I really don't want to be bothered by the latest round of Microsoft bashing. The mechanism is really much like choosing which Usenet groups, or mailing lists to subscribe to. Your view point (carried to an extreme, I admit) suggests that we should subscribe to every newsgroup and mailing list to make sure that we aren't "filtering" anyone elses viewpoint.
I will continue to choose which topics I see on this web site, for the same reasons I pick and choose which web sites I view. I don't think this makes me a narrow-minded person...
self censorship vs. filtering (Score:2)
While reading articles or postings I am going to skip some. If there is an automated feature to save me time in the selection, I might use it. Sure, some people are going to take this type of filtering to extreme lengths. But that is their choice to make. If certain
Please do not confuse filtering choices with censorship. There is absolutely no comparison.
(Overall, this was a good article.)
I disagree (Score:1)
In online communities, when the signal cannot be found due to the noise, the community disappears. This is bad. I don't want my favorite newsgroups or other online discussion sites to be like alt.2600.
Online filtering ("shut-up software"), used properly, is the equivalent of fast-forwarding through commercials.
Of course, just as I don't trust companies to fast-forward through commercials for me, I don't trust companies to do my filtering for me. That, however, is my decision, and other people have the right to decide to filter what they see according to the standards of others (ie, the standards of the companies that sell filtering software.)
I do choose to trust the
Flawed logic. (Score:1)
The problem with calling it 'ShutUp Software' is that while yes, it hurts someone to not read a specific critical article/posting/website, it hurts much MORE to never read ANY critical article/posting or website. So really, NOT filtering out the complete trash is an even more insidious form of censorship: You find that you only have time to listen to the quick-written first-posted flames (and there are tons of them) and by the time you've found the well-thought out critiques, you have to get back to work.
Suddenly it's all in a new perspective. It's like blaring loud music at a conference. If for some reason you can't (First amendment! I've got my rights dammit!) stop them, would not a viable solution be to filter it out? (there's a number of options. Easiest is a low-power FM broadcast and cheap radio headsets)
And suddenly the signal level is boosted above the noise and everyone wins. And anyone who decides the conference is boring is perfectly free to take off the headset and listen to the music instead.
It's not a matter of convienience, it's a matter of usability. /. was nearly unusable for comments before moderation. I for one hardly ever read them, since it took too long to find anything worth reading. This also means that I never bothered to write, knowing my voice would be lost among the flamers and 'first post' kiddiez.
No, the only concern of filtering is false-positives. If I chose never to listen to someone again, so be it. I for one only do that for people who resort to personal attacks and profanity. If someone disagrees with me and has reasonable arguments, they not only do not get filtered, often I put them in my highlights.
Much better to spend time debating with a critique then a flame.
--Dan
RE: I agree, the issue is one of displacement. (Score:1)
Everybody repeat after me: "The first ammendment only applies to the government."
It does NOT mean you can write some drivel and force any newspaper to publish it. It does not give you free national airtime to voice your opinions. It only means that should you be able to be published/buy that airtime that the government cannot stop you.
The idea is simple. (Score:1)
Typically I enjoy Katz' articles, but I found this one to have a rather "whiny" tone. Perhaps he should feel proud that so many people dislike his opinions enough to filter them out.
At any rate, it is my right to filter out whatever I want. The only difference between doing what the
--
Kyle R. Rose, MIT LCS
Katz seems to be getting bitter... (Score:1)
And now I'm blocked by hundreds of Slashdotters as well. The people who've
posted messages about this or e-mail me don't cite choice, convenience or time
constraints - they simply claim to dislike my writing style or ideas, and want me
to know that they're banning them and me, from their own individual
experience.
This is everybody's absolute right; nobody should be forced to read me if he or
she don't want to. But the ShutUp Software will almost certainly be used in
unforeseen, sometimes unintended ways. What can be used against me can -
and will -- be used against you.
I can always find an audience for my ranting (in addition to other sites and links,
there are those 79,350 Slashdot readers who can somehow survive having my
work appear on the site). But angry kids posting messages can be marginalized,
even obliterated, in a snap.
--- snip ---
Read: "Well, fine. If you losers don't want to listen, I'll take my writing someplace else, and then you'll all be screwed!"
Really.
To be fair, he's probably just blowing off steam.
I normally have Katz filtered -- the SexBots article was kind of the last straw for me. (I say, yeah! Robot sex slaves! Heralding a new age of sociosexual dysfunctionality, totally disconnected from real human social experience! We'll never have to relate quasi-functionally with another human being again and we can Get It On any time we like with no responsibility or compassion!)
It's kind of sad. Despite his content (or lack thereof), he's a pretty good writer, and is at least capable of using the language properly. Sometimes he has actually written something cool. I'm just not willing to gamble my time away on that anymore.
If a Katz posts in the forest and nobody... (Score:1)
That's not self-censoring (Score:1)
Think of self-censorship as self-editing. I don't think anyone's accused Katz of that.
Disney Sensors? (Score:1)
Draw the line somewhere (Score:2)
I really disagree with this... (Score:1)
To consider the alternative, pick up any daily newspaper or turn on any TV news broadcast. Old media have for years screened out raucous, outspoken or obnoxious opinion on the grounds of balance and probity.
Two VERY wrong things here:
1) Currently the raucous, the outspoken and the obnoxious are EXACTLY what gets reported and preferental treatment in many cases. See Fred Phelps the rabid gay-basher, Jack Kevorkian the quasi-legal murderer (opinion), Newt Gingrich (nuf said), talk radio, snuff television, yet-another-"Real-life"-television-show, MTV, and on and on and on. If you believe what is reported as news, every important event in life is a murder, rape, other violent crime, politics, corruption, business event, advertisement, or animal lust. Not much mention of what 'normal' people do.
2) Most of the television may be toned down where every third word isn't a swear word and it gets a PG-13 rating, but in return we get lots and lots of mind-numbing, inane, ignorant, badly done television shows, IMHO.
Now yes, it is my right to change the channel. But imagine I have 200 channels (not unreal at this point), and only 10 of them ever have any useful/interesting/good programming (also not unreal). Do I HAVE to surf the rest of them to get to the 10 I like? Why can't I just have the 10, and dump the rest.
Is that censorship? I don't think so.
Filters are about what WE want to listen to/watch/pay attention to. There is no reason that we MUST be forced to get a soundbite of an already proven waste of info (No Fred Phelps Channel for me, thank you), just to get to the information that might be interesting. If so, then some of the interesting and useful info (to me) gets lost in the noise.
The only caveat here is "Who makes the filters". If you completely allow someone else to filter out your world, then you have the possibilites of abuse. But the people who allow other people to think for them will ALWAYS allow others to think for them, whether is it through filters, the 'legitimate' media, or peer pressure.
We who can think, prefer to turn down the white noise, when we can.
"ShutUp" software predates the web. (Score:1)
as opposed to Usenet which (traditionally) has no user interface at all...
i'm gonna play "dittohead" for one of the few times in my life.
"yeah, what she said"
joe
The Twin Problems of Free Speech (Score:1)
While I may not be interested in JonKatz' writing on any given topic, leaving his "headlines" on my Slashdot front page doesn't cost me much in terms of time or energy. There's a small chance that seeing his synopsis will intrigue me and allow me to learn something new about myself or the world around me. If I filter, I lose that.
So what if I don't filter, at all? Well, then, in theory, I would have to read about First Comment, how JonKatz sucks, how Slashdot is going to crap. None of this provides any value to me.
Were it up to me, I would keep the Slashdot front page unfiltered. Allowing everything which the editorial board of Slashdot considers appropriate to be displayed on there. That would be a favor tothe community, even if they don't appreciate it right away.
I'd keep the ability to filter responses to those articles.. since they are not subject to any review prior to posting.
ShutUp Software (Score:1)
It creates a nice sense of evenness and fairness; Despite the fact that CmdrTaco runs the site, I still have the power to remove him from the front page if I want, the same as I have to power to filter out a hoard of other things, be they by article type, comment rating, or any of the other options. I see it more as CmdrTaco (and anyone else who runs a site like his) empowering his readers, instead of the tradition media where you get even *less* choice.
Saying that, I don't use the filtering myself. I may not like someone's style of writing, or even the things which they write about, but at the end of the day it's still worth checking out what they've written, since without you checking and perhaps commenting on what they've said, then they're never going to get any better at it, and they'll keep making the same mistakes over and over. Not to mention the fact that if you filter out a bunch of stuff, you might miss something important, or at least something which appeals to you or touches you personally in some way. Sure, it might not be much, but if you ask me, it's better to keep about an open mind about an article (or anything else), rather than just assuming it'll all be guff before you even click the link.
I'm gonna have to say KILL! (Score:1)
Katz doesn't like filters because they block critics that would otherwise provide valuable feedback. Filters do sometimes do that. Very, very rarely do they do that. 99%(warning: number pulled forth from ass) of the time the critics aren't even critics, they're off topic flamers, or trolls, or that particularly lame breed of online idiot that like to pollute forums with their inane unreadable chatter and think they're being artistic.
Without any kind of filter system, an online forum will have a very short lifespan. At some point in the development of any forum, the signal to noise ratio drops rapidly, usually becuase of a flamewar, but sometimes just one person can post enough off topic or hostile information to drive away the core of the group. Once the noise starts going up, the signal starts to drop. Then the flamers get distracted by other bright shiny things, and leave. At that point a lot of groups simply cease to exist. A lot of mailing lists die this way, when the administrators of the list decide that it's not worth it to continue working on them if there's nobody around to discuss anything. A lot of mailing lists are simply forgotten, running along on forgotten servers in the corners of university computer labs and corporate IT shops.
By giving people the option to filter, however, the group can often survive the tribulations which tear apart other groups. It does two things: It provides the users the ability to block out flaming, and it can reduce flaming by giving those prone to whipping out the flamethrower the abiltiy to filter out those who annoy them. That way, the signal to noise ratio can remain at a higher level, and the group will continue to be useful to its memebers.
Katz doesn't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, and that's fine. He will have to put up with a lot of abuse, but if his skin is thick enough to tolerate that, more power to him. For most people, however, the killfile can make otherwise useless discussion groups into useful sources of information. It is a tool, perhaps not for everyone, but for those who need it, it can help increase communication levels, which is ultamately good.
If only everyone would... (Score:1)
Anything that individuals or private organizations choose to do for or to themselves is just that, freedom of choice.
The problem is that these products don't let you know what they block. So if you use them, you don't have freedom of choice at all - you place yourself in a situation where you must trust someone else to know what you want to block.
But, more importantly, you have no way of knowing whether they block material they shouldn't - because they block their critics! That surely is censorship, and I doubt it's what people who simply want to keep their children away from pornography thought they were choosing.
whine, whine, whine... (Score:1)
Leave it to Katz to come out against personal empowerment and freedom of choice.
I sometimes wonder if JonKatz actually writes more than one version of each article, because people continually seem to see things in them that directly contradict what I'm reading.
This is from what I read:
I think that makes it perfectly clear that he is not "against personal empowerment".
What he does seem to be against is software that blocks things it shouldn't - software which actually takes away freedom from the individual.
Nonsense. (Score:1)
This is just the sort of poor thinking and lack of personal responsibility that I was lamenting.
Poor thinking I'm willing to concede; that was terribly written. But "lack of personal responsibility" is an absurd claim.
I don't want to use this software. I am more than happy to look at the Internet without having someone else tell me whether or not it's "safe". If I see something I don't like, I click the "back" button, or move on to the next message.
All I'm trying to say is that those who do want to use filtering software should be able to see for themselves that it actually does what its publishers say it does, and nothing more.
IF you don't trust the product, why use it? Duh! Watch your kids yourself. IF you cannot trust your kids on the 'net, don't leave them alone on the 'net. Duh! None of these things are really that hard to understand. All you have to do is think about it.
Indeed I have thought about it, and that is how I have come to the conclusion this software isn't worth using, and I would never choose to use it.
But there are places like public libraries using this kind of software. There was a story here on Slashdot recently about the US Constitution (or perhaps it was the declaration of independence) being blocked in Utah. If filtering software is to be worth using, people must be able to find out exactly what the software is filtering out, not by happening to stumble across a page which is blocked, but by having that information open for all to see. As it is now, the software cannot be trusted.
I would like there to be worthwhile filtering software available - not because I want to use it, but because I want others to use it instead of trying to force the government to censor the Internet. Here in Australia censorship is a serious problem because we don't have the same protection of freedom of speech as the US Constitution provides. (Only political speech is protected here.) Decent filtering software would eliminate the need for government censorship. But today's filtering software just isn't good enough, because it isn't open, which makes it susceptible to abuse.
Apply some effort to achieving a solution rather than whining to the gov or someone else about the problem.
That's funny, I didn't mention the government once in the comment you replied to. Where did you get that from? It's because of the worthlessness of filtering software that censorship by the government is a threat.
Even if you don't know that they do it, you should have enough mental capacity to figure out that they might just be motivated to do such a thing so you should uh...let's see, check the logs for records of blocked content, whoa, that's hard to do, time consuming. How about turning off the filter occasionally just to get a whiff of reality every now and then?
I shouldn't have to check the logs of blocked content. I should be able to see exactly what they're blocking and why.
whine, whine, whine... (Score:1)
Every consumer has the duty to inform themselves about the products they're using.
I agree totally, and that is why I find it so abhorrent that the publishers of filtering software try to prevent consumers from keeping themselves informed.
Blocking CmdrTaco? (Score:2)
I can't believe it... how could you read Slashdot without CmdrTaco's posts? They're easily the majority of all the new articles I see every day.
If only everyone would... (Score:2)
But you are free to use the products or not! If you don't want to be censored, by all means, don't use a product that filters!
You're missing the point. If I say something unflattering about their products, noone who uses those products will see it. It's not about what I can see, because I don't use this software. The problem is they claim to be making the net "safe" for children, but what they don't tell you is that they also try to keep you away from information that might hurt their commercial interests.
Noone is forcing you to use such a product.
This is a separate issue; I live in a country where the minister for communications is talking about forcing ISPs to block "illegal or obscene" content which comes from overseas. So what you say may not be true for much longer, if the government gets its way.
Difference between types of filtering (Score:1)
Good filters are those you as a user have chosen yourself -- you know what you are filtering and you know what you are filtering. Most filters, like killfiles, scoring threshold on
In contrast, NetNanny and the like function on the premise that "they" (PTA or whoever) know better than you do yourself what you should see. For all practical purposes you have relegated the responsibilities of a part of your own life to another party -- and one who does not have the same goals for your well-being as you do yourself. This could become especially distressing if such filters become mandatory for all public access points to the net; if you have the means, you can choose what ideas to be exposed to, if you do not (and have to rely on libraries or schools for net access), you will only get a selection deemed appropriate by somebody else. This is when it gets scary.
Brian, I think I do get the point.. (Score:1)
Now I'm confused... (Score:1)
As to the self-promotion issue, that criticism wasn't flaming. It was criticism. Flaming is "Katz Sucks." My book excerpt was one of my finer hours, as far as I'm concerned. This is a small book..it will never make money for me or the publisher. I wanted to show that the Web could be used to by pass the big-publisher marketing structures. It did..but don't confuse that with making money.
I was very proud of that and very grateful to Slashdot for helping me. Many writers are now using the Web to reach their audiences and get their ideas out because of that excerpt. I'd do it again in a second. If that came across as self-promotion, I'm sorry. I don't self-promote. I won't even take money for speeches or go on TV.
But I do believe writers who are being extinguished by greedy publishers ought to know the Net gives them an alternative. I'm sorry you see that so cynically, but I con't consider you to be flaming me at all.
The point of this column is that preference software is threatening to eliminate flaming completely. Hope that's clearer.
This is true... (Score:1)
Actually, I'm in a pretty good mood.. (Score:1)
Your choice, Fakir. (Score:1)
The issue is really whether the web will be sanitized by new software that we may not have thought about. We all have to make our own choices, and mine is to skip over what I don't want to read. I choose not to block people because they flame, disagree with or don't like me. It's just my choice.
Self Defense (Score:1)
But what's happening on sites all over the Web is that flamers, obnoxious posters or what some people would consider "jerks" -- of whom there are platoons here on
I don't argue that people shouldn't use software to protect or defend themselves. I just argue that the nature of the Web is about to change as people wipe out obnoxious voices with the click of a buttom. I think that will be a loss.
It's not about Katz... (Score:1)
Good case in point... (Score:1)
As to reading critiques, I wonder how you could possibly read this column and think that I wouldn't (I can't read all of them, as a lot of people e-mail me, and blessedly, have a more benign view of my writing style.) But this point is, you have the right to criticize my writing style --er..thisis sort of my point..and I have the obligation to try and read and consider it. Past the hostility towards me, I'm struggling to figure out where we disagree here.
Hey, PinheadX (Score:1)
Hey Pinhead...not in this world..Now which part of open source do you like the best?
Censorship and Choice (Score:1)
There's something neat about being censored by Disney. And I have to say, I completely marvel at the innate exclusivity of people on an open source site. This is for anthropologists to ponder, I think.
blow it out your filter (Score:1)
Brian, I think I do get the point.. (Score:2)
Who do you think should be watching and listening to the flamers, then? Why do you seem to suggest that others should wade through what you yourself deem as weightless fluff?
Either you read the flamers, or you don't read the flamers. What others choose to read or filter is, well, none of your business.
You need to hit Usenet more often, IMHO. When you're familiar with the likes of Dave Hayes (and the rest of the "Freedom Knights"), John Grubor, the Hell Flame Wars group, the Meowers, the alt.fan.karl-malden.nose bunch, Bill Palmer, Steve Boursy, Rahul Dhesi, and *dozens* of other posters with varying degrees of kookiness, you'll begin to have a much better idea of what kill files and score files are meant to address. Some of these people are fine until you get them going on their pet Crusade; others are just so far out-there that our most sophisticated devices have yet to be able to pick up on their signals.
Interestingly enough, I don't have anything or anyone filtered here on Slashdot; and I rarely filter anyone in Usenet, unless they've been posting the same viewpoints so frequently for so long that I've grown weary of them.
filters save the filterless (Score:1)
Those people who have Katz filtered? They are the few people who knew they hated Katz, but read his articles and spammed us all with hate-posts anyway, because they couldn't control themselves. By filtering out Katz, they have saved the rest of us an awful lot of annoyance, and allowed those who are interested in debating the questions Jon raises a clearer channel.
If they have no control over their actions, I'm glad that there is at least a voluntary straitjacket they can climb into.
----------------------
No such "right to be heard" (Score:1)
I think kill filters are great. They enable me to filter out not only people I find annoying, but -- to take Usenet as an example -- to filter out uninteresting subtopics in high-traffic newsgroups. I use filters to eliminate much of the spam I would otherwise receive via email. Filters help me concentrate on my interests and get more value for my time on the net.
I understand Jon's concern that filters could make it easy to ignore, say, a pressing social issue. But people do that anyway, and you're not going to win any converts by holding someone down and forcing them to listen to you.
It is worth noting that despite the fact that I find most of Jon's writing to be the kind of tediously trendy, poorly reasoned, pop-culture fluff I have come to associate with rags like Wired, I haven't filtered him out, and I occasionally read his articles just in case he accidentally had something worthwhile to say. I am even resisting the temptation to filter him out just for having the audacity to tell me that I shouldn't.
I do, however, reserve the right to change my mind about that.
The Reversal--A Speak Up Feature (Score:1)
I mean, look at it this way-- over the past year, slashdot authors have grown from around five or six authors, to seventeen. Lets say in the next year, it continues up to perhaps 25-30? I'm afraid there are too many editors, and too little page space and
Jon, by their inherent nature, online communities, by their inherent nature, whether it is a chat room,
Something to think about.
Who benefits and how? (Score:1)
Noteworthy points: attention economics (with all the sites I frequent on a daily basis, I've pretty much screwed myself out of a normal social life as it is. filtering options are helpful in this regard), filtering dissenting opinions/personalities (I feel sorry for the 1% readership who filter all of Jon's stuff. Personally, I don't use the filters - I don't use any of the user.pl stuff - cookies disabled, I read the default pages and filter by score. The idiots who don't wanna hear a specific *PERSON* damage themselves... and in the process increase my benefits by making me that much more aware than them WITHOUT ME HAVING TO READ ANYTHING EXTRA!! HAHAHA!).
I like having the choices (to use or not to use filters).
And like some of the other commenters, I'm against having someone else filter for me (this may seem counter-intuitive on the surface, since I'm basically allowing the slashdot team select some of my reading materials for me... but I'm not really allowing them to *select* my reading material, rather I'm selecting for myself from the offerings they present).
Netnanny, Cybercop, etc. had a place when it was to keep porn out of the middle school computer lab, but it went too far when it blocked ideas and their authors. The sad part of this is that the blame cannot be properly focused on any one place. Some of the fault belongs to the software makers, some of it belongs to the porn-advocates who deliberately blur the lines between porn and free speech -- 'backdoor bimbos' and 'cum faced coeds' are porn, not free speech. But it seems some of the free speech advocates insist on making a million fictitious 'examples' of the dangers of censorship which ultimately protect sites such as these. And, on the flipside, because sites such as these gain free speech protection (through this commando blur tactic), censorwares then extend their censorship as a countermeasure to include the sites that advocate... and so on and so forth.
I cherish my right to chose what I read/ignore as much as I cherish yours to speak/write. If you're going to flame filtering software (which makes it easier for me to ignore), then you also need to flame spellcheck, grammarcheck, and voice recognition software (which makes it easier for you to write stuff that I might want to ignore).
All in all, Jon's article raised good points. He explored many of the facets and stimulated some thoughtful replies. But, as I've tried to illustrate in my reply, his own point of view (people who filter him with software are evil) permeated.
Sort not Filter (Score:1)
The biggest problem seems to be sorting the relevant bits of a discussion from the sidebars, flames, and other assorted junk that seems to accumulate. What would seem to be in order is a system that can sort this based on content. All the content would still be there, but you could get the most relevant stuff easily, and browse through the other stuff when you want background information or to find something that isn't in what your "core" interests might be.
I do this with my mail, as would a lot of people. Mail is sorted based on where it comes from or which of my addresses it's coming to, allowing me to quickly get to the relevant stuff. When I'm at work, I don't need to read the GNOME lists. So they get filed seperately, and I can refer to them when I need to.
This is important, because I generally don't have time to read everything that drops into my mailbox. I can scan the subjects occassionally, and remove what's not relevant. I make that choice based on time and interest, and that choice is essential, because I have limited time (and patience). But I also can go through everything that is of high priority to me (work stuff mainly).
Now what we need is a decent content rating system that I can set up to work on more than just email headers. Something that can determine by content that I'd really like to know about the latest gnome core package release, but have little interest in helping a clueless user work out where their power button is. Such a system would rank the messages for me, but would not block them (OK, it would block spam if possible, but when in doubt would err towards me seeing it)
Colin Scott
Final Year Computer Systems Engineering Student
ShutUp software as check of maturity (Score:1)
Consequently, this feature is in effect test of one's maturity.
I am glad fewer people use it on
AtW,
http://www.investigatio.com [investigatio.com]
You're right and wrong, Jon (Score:1)
ValuPak (Score:2)
Junk mail is junk. Let the filtering begin.
A Quality filter, not an Opinion filter. (Score:1)
I have to disagree with this. The moderation system that Rob has set up does not rate the opinion, it rates the quality of the statement. The purpose is not to quash statements because the moderator disagrees with the opinion, but to reward posters who have put some time into both thinking through their position, and into composing a thoughtful post. It's a noise filter -- it causes the good comments, those worth considering, to float to the top, while the mindless flames sink to the bottom.
Furthermore, I would hope that Rob's moderators would have the guts and the decency to give good ratings to thoughtful posts even if they disagree with the opinion expressed. Even if that's not the case, Rob doesn't select his moderators based on what their opinions are. He selects them based their ability to discriminate between which posts are "signal" and which are "noise".
He also chooses a fairly large number of moderators, enough that all opinions are represented, and in roughly equals numbers to their percentages in the Slashdot population. This helps to ensure that, on the average, the moderators' ratings don't favor one opinion over the other.
--JT
I agree, to a degree... (Score:1)
WHAT BULLSHIT (Score:1)
Dogma: putting choice in the hands of users is ALWAYS good. an ignore button is choice. the ability to share ignore lists (and I'm sure that'll come in due time, adn I'm sure Katz will hate it, probably because he'll be on some of them) is choice too. repeat after me: choice is good.
Filters are a good thing (Score:3)
One thing the web shows again and again is the importance of editors. I think they will become more, not less, important in the future. We can't read everything, and it's good to have ways to choose what's important. Sometimes it will be a real person (or people), sometimes it will be a team of moderators and/or user preferences, like Slashdot.
More choice is good. So are more ways to find the things we actually want to take the time to read.
Not "Shut Up" software, its ear plugs (Score:1)
A lot of your argument hangs on the idea that this software makes the target "shut up", but it has no such effect -- "ear plug" is a better description of how killfiles et al actually work.
-clay
Selective blocking is not censorship (Score:1)
I work at a University and this whole idea comes about quite often. People have become very angry with me after I politely decline to listen to their opinions, these complete strangers, claiming that I must listen to them because they could say something profound at any moment.
No one has the right to force me to listen to their opinion. I will not be held hostage to other people's rants, insightful or not. I will choose to listen, or not listen. I am intelligent enough to make my own decisions on my own, after doing my own research, on my own accord. And that will obviously involve reading works by people with varied opinions, but I choose too read it.
I personally have found your writing to be unappealing because of your self-references, and informal writing style, but that does not mean that other people must to listen to my thoughts on your writing. They have a choice. I expect much from professional writers. Others may not.
Having read your article, and seen some of the responses, I wonder how many more people will selectively block you using their personalized Slashdot page.
Self Defense (Score:1)
If the site grew so rapidly in users because of the selective blocking feature, is it really a loss not to read posts that you choose to ignore? (and choose to ignore for good reasons?) How much of a loss is it not to read "You're a jerk" for the 10th time that day? The site seemed to have grown because the content improved due to the use of selective blocking. Thats hardly a loss.
We've been ignoring fools long before the web, and for good reasons too.
Internet Censorship for Children (Score:1)
You must be some kind of idiot. I'm being charitable; many other people would surely brand you as an evil man.
Most educated adults in the Western world are probably libertarians to some degree but very few would advocate total freedom to do as one wants. The usual term for that kind of society is 'anarchy'. Anarchy is undesirable because unfortunately total freedom to do as one wishes denies the freedom of others. Therefore society must define in law what constitutes a reasonable exercise of freedom, in order to protect us all from those who would exercise their will at our expense. Some forms of censorship are used benignly for such a purpose. To brand all censorship as bad is to deny the validity of the above line of reasoning.
I apologise to other readers for stating the obvious but you, Jon, seem to have missed this vital point.
I agreed with the main thread of your argument perhaps because I have yet to encounter any material on the Internet which offends me personally to such a degree that I cannot bear to see it.
However my children (aged 4 and 5) are not so thick-skinned as I, and moreover there are some things I would not wish them to see even if it was so alien to them that they could not understand it. This is my inalienable moral right as a parent, to protect my children from whatever I deem harmful to them. No-one can take that right away from me, not you, not society, not the government, no-one. I would defend this right with my last breath.
I therefore reserve the right to restrict my children's access to the Internet. Much of the pornography on the net is in my view certainly unsuitable for children of that age. I am not talking about nudity per se, but I do have a responsibility to ensure that they are not exposed to pictures of oral sex, vaginal or anal penetration or sadomasochism. If they are to be allowed to roam the internet without constant supervision then blocking software is vitally necessary.
You have frequently criticised the use of this type of software and have even specifically advocated access to the internet for children without any restrictions. To the best of my knowledge you have never qualified this argument with exceptions relating to the age or maturity of the children or to the type of material. From my point of view that makes you (and anyone else who thinks the same as you) either a naive fool, an irresponsible lunatic or an evil pervert.
I've never complained about your style of writing and I've never blocked your posts (or indeed anyone else's). I've even sympathised with you for all the verbal kickings you've had for no apparent reason other than the fact that some adolescent onanists think it's fashionable to flame Jon Katz just for a laugh.
But I don't think I'll bother to read your articles in future because your constant repetition of this stupid and offensive message about uncensored access for children only taints everything else you have to say with a complete lack of credibility. Whether or not I use Slashdot's filtering features to achieve this is beside the point.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Response (Score:1)
Moron Filters (Score:1)
I do not know much about Mr. Katz but from this article I find him to be articulate and seemingly intelligent so he won't be removed from my sight just yet but if I find that he becomes a fountain of useless and wrong information, he might hit the moron filter pretty quick. I only have a limited amount of time in each day, 24 hours to be exact, and I must make decisions on how I am to spend those hours. Two of them are for sleep and that is final, so I only have 22 or so (depending on if it is finals week) to catch up with school work, play Quake II, check my email, read Slashdot, and go offline long enough to order a pizza. I cannot be slowed down by people I know to be morons. There is a reason we all called them "twit" filters in the old days of the local BBS.
Sometimes you get a feel for what people are going to say even before they say it and you know that if they hold true to previous patterns all you are going to do is kick yourself in the ass because you listened to them or read their stuff. If I were a writer, I would expect that not everyone agrees with my point of view, that they do not have time to be bothered by me or to have my opinions imposed upon them. So, in closing, filter me all you want, I expect that I will find an audience for my own rantings just by going off prozac and talking to the other people that live in my head.
all or nothing or happy some (Score:2)
It's just not a plausible idea to even consider happily having an open mind for _everything_.
So given that, we have to filter out the information, we have to block out voices in the nebulous cloud out there, we have to risk not hearing ideas which may benefit us in an effort to hear as much as possible without being unproductive in life's pursuits.
I think the issues isn't specified well. I think that the issue is not whether or not to filter or block, but who gets to control that filter--i.e. is it within our power as individuals to control the filters we apply to society's information media, or do we relinquish that control, that freedom, to some "Shutup Software" program or agency.
Theoretically, if one is consistent in one's messages, he/she will be blocked by those who are opposed to those messages anyways. The existance of "Shutup Software" neither helps nor hinders this plight, imo--so long as it is in the hands of the individual, and not some blocking thing like AOL's stuff. But the nature of the AOL service is to protect those AOLers from the dangers of the free-thinking world.
And that's good. Some folks don't have the backgrounds many
On the one hand, I think this is a charged issue. On the other, who cares--it's one of those things. Social forces, whether we band together and make bumper stickers or not, are propelling society in unusual directions. If we want to avoid this, we should all live in our own little bubbles and never interact. The freedom of the individual and the freedom of the individual within an increasingly complex and growing society is not the same thing. Some communities don't want porn palaces in their neighborhoods. Maybe they would benefit from this. Maybe not. It's their choice. Maybe they'll decide something different later on. Maybe the "community" will abuse the freedoms of the individual....
Hmmm.... I know there was a point in there somewhere.... Ack.... Lost my track.
Hold your individual freedom to filter. And retain your individual freedom to not filter. Your freedom is your ability to say yes, no or ignore the question altogether.
John, you're missing a point, if not THE point. (Score:3)
It's my opinion that there's a different reason for the preference setting software you're seeing. Information overload. At present, I have subscriptions to 8 different trade rags covering the IT industry and the TQM industry that this business runs in. No, I have nothing to do with the latter, except the network I administrate is used to get the work done. (Imagine that!) I'm on four email lists, only because I refuse to be on more. I keep tabs on 18 newsgroups ranging from NetWare to MS Office to StarOffice to Linux Mandrake. And all this is just my business-oriented electronic information stream. Add to that my personal interests in Freemasonry, heraldry, LDAP, the C++ self-course I'm taking, Wicca, social justice and the church school committee, and I'm just about tapped out. Oh yeah, I'm married and have a five year old daughter.
So why am I boring you with this? Perhaps it's because I want you to know that I don't limit the information I see because I want to restrict someone's freedom, nor is it because I can't stand trolls. I can't, but I choose to ignore them where I must. But given the choice of removing them from the signal-to-noise ratio, I will, because I have to exert some level of control over the sheer mass of information that dumps on me every day.
Now if my emploment required me to transact business across the wire, you bet I'd take any chance to screen out the losers who clog the works with useless posts designed to demonstrate their "opinion". And as for the vague threat you mentioned... that what's used against you can be used against me... it already is. My posts are scored, and if they fall below someone else's threshold, they won't see me. Can it be done elsewhere, other than /.? Yep, and they do it there too. Frankly, the mainstream media screens out the voices of those whose opinions are either mixed, or centered. They want the extremes, and they present every issue as polarized. It's wrong, but that's the way it is.
BTW, John, as a critique, I have to say I don't like your writing style. You come off as a surly, cynical individual who's sure that the "powers that be" are always one jack-booted step from crushing our heads. While you may not be wrong, consider this: If you are wrong, your style turns off potential readers. If you're right, They are coming to get you first.
The coming attention economy (Score:3)
'Shutup software' (nice neologism, Jon) is a side effect of the new attention economy. Now so long ago, Wired had a short article about how attention is (or will be shortly) the economic element in shortest supply. (Sorry if that's a crappy summary; I'm not an economist.)
Given that, it seems like 'shutup software' is a natural outgrowth. Anything that lets me use (or appears to let me use) my small amount of attention more efficiently is a Good Thing.
Personally, I'd like to seem some kill|score-filing 'ware that offered some level of randomness. That is, scoring rules that would be applied with some probability, rather that all the time. Anybody know of anything like that?
john.
Censorship and Choice are ambiguous words (Score:2)
I think your choice of words and examples are very confusing and ambiguous. In the same paragraph, you talk about AOL removing posts, which would be "censorship" in my view, and the WELL's bozo filters, which from my (possibly incorrect) understanding are user-defined and thus "choice"
As others have said, there's the ability to speak, what Jon's calling "censorship", and the ability to listen, what he calls "choice".
I would classify these more as "mechanism" and "policy". I wouldn't want any filters on the mechanism of posting. I should be able to enter my comment on /. no matter what the blip Katz, Taco or anyone else has to say. But if someone thinks I'm an blathering idiot, they should have the ability to implement the policy of a filter of not having to hear me anymore.
In that sense, the examples of Raging Bull (of post removal) and AOL are mechanism filters and not those I agree with and the WELL and Usenet killfiles as policy filters and I use those.
I also turn off the filters every once in a while to see what I'm "missing". Sometimes I find things that I should filter back in, most of the time I don't. But having the ability to see things unfiltered is necessary.
An aside: It would be nice to have the feedback that I'm being killfiled and why and have the choice to change my behavior or not. (Since sometimes I am a blithering idiot...)