Netizens-Digest Tuesday, April 22 2003 Volume 01 : Number 509 Netizens Association Discussion List Digest In this issue: Re: [netz] Responsible information providers Re: [netz] Responsible information providers Re: [netz] Responsible information providers Re: [netz] Responsible information providers Re: [netz] Responsible information providers Re: [netz] Responsible information providers Re: [netz] Responsible information providers Re: [netz] Responsible information providers Re[2]: [netz] Responsible information providers ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 11:51:20 -0400 From: Luis De Quesada Subject: Re: [netz] Responsible information providers The democratic nature of netizens and our list I think should not and cannot exclude a posting or part of a posting that expresses ideology, in my opinion that would be censorship. On your point #5, I don't think" restrictions of postings expressing views opposing those we promulgate" for example postings in favor of privatization of the internet will ever be implemented on the list. This list is based on democracy, restrictions are not democratic. To my memory the only posting objected to was a racist remark made by someone, which is unethical, because it is not right to have someone insulted on the list because of his race, origin, religion, etc.etc. Other than racial insults, epithets, name calling, fun making, etc. any other postings I think are welcome. This is just my opinion, I will let Jay and Ronda elaborate further on these things. Luis de Quesada "Howard C. Berkowitz" wrote: > Thought I'd share some early thoughts about some guidelines for > responsibly providing information to netizens. I'm thinking here less > of people on mailing lists and newsgroups than those that create > websites to act as information sources. > > Again, this is the sort of discussion I understand, rather than > ideologically mired discussions between people using different > vocabularies and/or definitions. I think it's a positive step toward > netizenship. > > 1. We recognize that many Internet users have low-speed connections. For > that reason, we emphasize text as our basic form of content. Clearly, > there are times graphics are necessary to explain or illustrate things, > but we will not set up graphics-intensive download as the default > behavior for our site. > > We will explore technical means of adapting the display depending on > the resources of the user. These include access bandwidth and whether the > user pays for connection time. These also include signaling the provider > when the user requires a text-oriented display for compatibility with > assistive devices for physical disabilities. > > 2. To the extent possible, we will make our site accessible to people with > physical disabilities. Some design practices to do this include at least > labeling icons with text, so a text-to-speech converter can help people > with visual disabilities. We will avoid complex multilevel menus requiring > complex movements with a mouse or other pointing device. > > 3. We will be responsible in applying software patches and good system > administration practice to help protect the integrity of our own content, > as well as preventing our systems from being compromised by malicious > hackers who would use us as a platform for launching attacks. > > 4. As online publishers, we take responsibility that content on our site > is not libelous, contains stolen property, violates widely accepted > concerns such as child pornography, or can be used destructively. > We will publish terms of service that identify why such material will > not be permitted. > > 5. If we have created our online publication to promulgate a certain point > of view, we will identify that view and, if we restrict posting opposed > to it, state our policies for refusing posts. > > 6. If we are a provider of access to information sources, we will not restrict > user access to them principally to force them to commercial equivalents > we operate. > > 7. We accept the need to balance interests in our operation. If we benefit > from shared resources, we will be thoughtful of their scarcity and > participate in appropriate regulation. We recognize that the Internet > requires some self-regulation to maintain its technical integrity. > > 8. We will clearly identify our privacy and security policy, with the > understanding that we may be restricted from disclosing certain information > due to laws in the jurisdiction of our operation. We will clearly > identify our policy for disclosing user information policies, and put > both third-party disclosure and unsolicited mailings under double opt-out > controls. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 12:48:58 -0400 From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" Subject: Re: [netz] Responsible information providers At 11:51 AM -0400 4/21/03, Luis De Quesada wrote: >The democratic nature of netizens and our list I think should not and cannot >exclude a posting or part of a posting that expresses ideology, in >my opinion that >would be censorship. Please understand I am not talking about this specific list, but about information providers in general. Think about an environment where there is universal access, so Netizens can go to sites supported by specific organizations and find out their official positions, or get to news and analytic organizations. >On your point #5, I don't think" restrictions of postings >expressing views opposing those we promulgate" for example postings >in favor of >privatization of the internet will ever be implemented on the list. Again, you are speaking of this list. If one of the goals of netizenship is to allow publication of points of view, shouldn't organizations associated with a point of view be able to publish it? In other words, the Democratic National Committee website is to publish their views. They built it for that purpose. Should they be required to carry material from the Republican National Committee? I don't think so. The US First Amendment prevents legislation affecting freedom of publication -- which means that anyone can publish, but not that they are forced to publish views contrary to that of the publisher. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 12:21:15 -0400 From: Luis De Quesada Subject: Re: [netz] Responsible information providers Hello: I thought you were referring to our list when you mentioned postings. And you may be right that the Democratic or Republican National Committees should only accept their own views on their particular websited, because they paid for it, however bear in mind that at times there has been dissention within both the Democrat and Republican organizations, like "Democrats for Reagan or Bush", or "Republicans for LBJ", etc.. And if there is dissention within I think these dissenting views should be free to post or air, without interference. I can't help but feel uneasy when you mention "restrictions on postings". However since you say you're proposing something else and something outside our list I'll let the Haubens elaborate further on that. Sorry for any misunderstanding on my part. Luis "Howard C. Berkowitz" wrote: > At 11:51 AM -0400 4/21/03, Luis De Quesada wrote: > >The democratic nature of netizens and our list I think should not and cannot > >exclude a posting or part of a posting that expresses ideology, in > >my opinion that > >would be censorship. > > Please understand I am not talking about this specific list, but > about information providers in general. Think about an environment > where there is universal access, so Netizens can go to sites > supported by specific organizations and find out their official > positions, or get to news and analytic organizations. > > >On your point #5, I don't think" restrictions of postings > >expressing views opposing those we promulgate" for example postings > >in favor of > >privatization of the internet will ever be implemented on the list. > > Again, you are speaking of this list. If one of the goals of > netizenship is to allow publication of points of view, shouldn't > organizations associated with a point of view be able to publish it? > In other words, the Democratic National Committee website is to > publish their views. They built it for that purpose. > > Should they be required to carry material from the Republican > National Committee? I don't think so. The US First Amendment > prevents legislation affecting freedom of publication -- which means > that anyone can publish, but not that they are forced to publish > views contrary to that of the publisher. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 13:19:11 -0400 From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" Subject: Re: [netz] Responsible information providers >Hello: I thought you were referring to our list when you mentioned postings. No--I'm trying to start pinning down a reasonable set goals for providing information to Netizens worldwide. > And >you may be right that the Democratic or Republican National >Committees should only >accept their own views on their particular websites, because they >paid for it, >however bear in mind that at times there has been dissention within both the >Democrat and Republican organizations, like "Democrats for Reagan or Bush", or >"Republicans for LBJ", etc.. Of course. And each one of those dissenters should have the right to publish, but they may have to publish at their own cost. >And if there is dissention within I think these >dissenting views should be free to post or air, without interference. I'm a little confused. I don't see any reason why such views can't be posted, but not necessarily on the site or list of someone that has an official structure and an official position. There are many other opportunities for making information available. >I can't help but feel uneasy when you mention "restrictions on >postings". However >since you say you're proposing something else and something outside >our list I'll >let the Haubens elaborate further on that. Sorry for any >misunderstanding on my >part. >Luis Luis, Jay has suggested that the ideal model is where everyone's view is heard directly. I've noticed you often close your posts by saying the Haubens will elaborate. Isn't that, to some extent, making them your representatives? I'd like to know _your_ views. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 14:08:52 -0400 From: Mark Lindeman Subject: Re: [netz] Responsible information providers > > >> [Luis] And >> you may be right that the Democratic or Republican National >> Committees should only >> accept their own views on their particular websites, because they >> paid for it, >> however bear in mind that at times there has been dissention within >> both the >> Democrat and Republican organizations, like "Democrats for Reagan or >> Bush", or >> "Republicans for LBJ", etc.. > > > [HCB] Of course. And each one of those dissenters should have the > right to publish, but they may have to publish at their own cost. > >> [Luis] And if there is dissention within I think these >> dissenting views should be free to post or air, without interference. > > > [HCB] I'm a little confused. I don't see any reason why such views > can't be posted, but not necessarily on the site or list of someone > that has an official structure and an official position. There are > many other opportunities for making information available. Based on Luis's first sentence above, it seems possible that he misunderstands what Howard is saying. Howard didn't say that the DNC and RNC "should only accept their own views"; he said that he didn't think they should be "required" to carry opposing views. I don't know whether it's my place to say that the DNC and RNC "should" post dissenting views, but it would certainly make their sites more interesting! I don't think they should be required to do it -- and that difference between our ethical judgments and our policy preferences is always very important. Now, as I understand Howard's suggestions for "responsible information providers," they aren't binding rules imposed from outside, but they are norms that information providers could voluntarily adopt. The American Association of Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) has a code of ethics. It doesn't require public opinion researchers to do all the things that I personally wish every public opinion researcher should do. But it does impose some important ethical standards, and when someone violates those standards, they are subject to AAPOR censure. For instance, the pollster who claimed that his research demonstrated broad public support for the Republicans' 1994 "Contract with America" was censured when he refused to present any evidence for his claim. I guess that Howard is suggesting a similar code, although I don't know whether he envisages an International Association of Information Providers. The code doesn't require providers to present all views, but it does require that if they restrict the views expressed, they need to state their policies openly. That's a good idea. (By the way, Jay did once remove a member from this list for, as I recall, repeatedly using profanity and ethnic slurs. I thought Jay made absolutely the right decision, but that aside, I admired that he explained what he had done and why and invited comments from the list participants. I've seen lists and forums where no one was quite sure what the list owners / moderators were or weren't filtering out.) Mark ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 13:53:23 -0400 From: Luis De Quesada Subject: Re: [netz] Responsible information providers Hello: Well since the Haubens are the ones who initiated this entire thing, I think they do represent the very essence of netizens. I don't want to speak for them. I do not regard them as "bosses" or anything like that. But I do respect their opinions and think they have an important voice in matters concerning netizens and in its destiny. As far as my views in what you're saying about what netizens might find in other venues, you do have valid points. The Haubens are not my representatives, we coincide in our line of thinking,as far as being against privitizing the internet, or its infrastructure or whatever's left of it, but I have a difference of opinions with them on a number of issues and that's no problem with us, we remain the best of friends. By the same token I've noticed Mark, Larry and Dan coincide with your views and I am not going to call you their representative, or vice versa, your views just coincide most of the time, am I correct? Luis "Howard C. Berkowitz" wrote: > >Hello: I thought you were referring to our list when you mentioned postings. > > No--I'm trying to start pinning down a reasonable set goals for > providing information to Netizens worldwide. > > > And > >you may be right that the Democratic or Republican National > >Committees should only > >accept their own views on their particular websites, because they > >paid for it, > >however bear in mind that at times there has been dissention within both the > >Democrat and Republican organizations, like "Democrats for Reagan or Bush", or > >"Republicans for LBJ", etc.. > > Of course. And each one of those dissenters should have the right to > publish, but they may have to publish at their own cost. > > >And if there is dissention within I think these > >dissenting views should be free to post or air, without interference. > > I'm a little confused. I don't see any reason why such views can't be > posted, but not necessarily on the site or list of someone that has > an official structure and an official position. There are many other > opportunities for making information available. > > >I can't help but feel uneasy when you mention "restrictions on > >postings". However > >since you say you're proposing something else and something outside > >our list I'll > >let the Haubens elaborate further on that. Sorry for any > >misunderstanding on my > >part. > >Luis > > Luis, > > Jay has suggested that the ideal model is where everyone's view is > heard directly. I've noticed you often close your posts by saying > the Haubens will elaborate. Isn't that, to some extent, making them > your representatives? I'd like to know _your_ views. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 15:13:25 -0400 From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" Subject: Re: [netz] Responsible information providers >Hello: Well since the Haubens are the ones who initiated this entire thing, I >think they do represent the very essence of netizens. I don't want >to speak for >them. I do not regard them as "bosses" or anything like that. But I do respect >their opinions and think they have an important voice in matters concerning >netizens and in its destiny. As far as my views in what you're >saying about what >netizens might find in other venues, you do have valid points. The >Haubens are not >my representatives, we coincide in our line of thinking,as far as >being against >privitizing the internet, or its infrastructure or whatever's left >of it, but I >have a difference of opinions with them on a number of issues and >that's no problem >with us, we remain the best of friends. By the same token I've >noticed Mark, Larry >and Dan coincide with your views and I am not going to call you their >representative, or vice versa, your views just coincide most of the time, am I >correct? >Luis True. But I've never ended one of my posts saying that Mark, Larry or Dan will elaborate. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 14:50:09 -0400 From: Luis De Quesada Subject: Re: [netz] Responsible information providers Hello: Yes I know, but then Mark, Larry or Dan didn't create netizens and neither did we. The Haubens created the entire thing and I always want to hear what they have to say about an issue affecting netizens whether I agree with it or not. Also when I don't have an answer that's educated enough, I always say, well lets see what the experts have to say on it. And perhaps contrary to "popular opinion" they are experts. Luis "Howard C. Berkowitz" wrote: > >Hello: Well since the Haubens are the ones who initiated this entire thing, I > >think they do represent the very essence of netizens. I don't want > >to speak for > >them. I do not regard them as "bosses" or anything like that. But I do respect > >their opinions and think they have an important voice in matters concerning > >netizens and in its destiny. As far as my views in what you're > >saying about what > >netizens might find in other venues, you do have valid points. The > >Haubens are not > >my representatives, we coincide in our line of thinking,as far as > >being against > >privitizing the internet, or its infrastructure or whatever's left > >of it, but I > >have a difference of opinions with them on a number of issues and > >that's no problem > >with us, we remain the best of friends. By the same token I've > >noticed Mark, Larry > >and Dan coincide with your views and I am not going to call you their > >representative, or vice versa, your views just coincide most of the time, am I > >correct? > >Luis > > True. But I've never ended one of my posts saying that Mark, Larry or > Dan will elaborate. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 00:52:52 +0200 From: Dan Duris Subject: Re[2]: [netz] Responsible information providers I welcome your efforts to set guidelines. Actually, I really liked what I saw. I think that's a good base for further ideas. BTW: Maybe also W3C standards should be introduced to guidelines about websites. I think today there are not so many pages that validates and that's a problem. We have to make sites that validates since they don't require a user to have a special browser. Accessibility part in your email is great, too. I completely agree on that. dan - -------------------------- email: dusoft@staznosti.sk ICQ: 17932727 *- put knot yore trust inn spel chequers -* ------------------------------ End of Netizens-Digest V1 #509 ******************************