Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!uc!cs.umn.edu!dmshq!com50!craig
From: craig@com50.c2s.mn.org (Craig Wilson)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Let's get moving gang!!!
Keywords: Implementation, Network Novelties
Message-ID: <1990Sep3.125708.7844@com50.c2s.mn.org>
Date: 3 Sep 90 12:57:08 GMT
References: <7686@helios.TAMU.EDU> <737@primerd.PRIME.COM> <1990Aug28.195810.22359@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <739@primerd.PRIME.COM> <1990Aug29.173134.9202@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <1990Sep2.201229.24182@bellcore-2.bellcore.com>
Organization: Com Squared Systems, Inc.
Lines: 68

In article <1990Sep2.201229.24182@bellcore-2.bellcore.com> karn@envy.bellcore.com (Phil Karn) writes:
>
>There's only one problem with this commercial: Hitler came to power in
>Germany through the democratic process (although he certainly bent the
>rules).  And he certainly had the support of the majority of the German
>people.

With respect to bending the rules, look at what happens every four years
in the major political parties.  The delegate selection rules, among
other, get changed to make it easier for whoever has the most clout
within the party.  Once the rules are changed and the delegate selection
process is completed, the candidate in favor usually end up being
nominated for president.  From then on, it is a race between campaign
marketing agencies.

I believe that the rules for both major parties for 1992 have already
been changed.

>
   ... democracy and the Judicial Branch ...
>
>This is what the First Amendment is all about, and *this* is where
>computer networks have their enormous potential. No longer is the
>average person limited to seeing the views of a few select newspaper
>editors or superstar TV anchors. Anyone who can write coherently
>can sit down at a computer keyboard, express his views and have them
>seen in a day or two by many thousands of people all over the country
>and the world, without censorship of any kind.
>Phil

And the result we get is..... the Usenet!  Only much bigger.

I recently read a statistic that said that only about 1/3 of the
population under 35 in the U.S. regularly reads a newspaper.  And 
newspapers are easy to read compared to an electronic network.  They 
also are a lot less expensive.  These two items, amount of work and
cost, cut your population significantly.  And, of course, there is still
the problem of noise.  Noise in general and noise in the form of flames
and garbage directed at particular persons because of what they have
written.  The noise factor will also reduce your population because,
just as we have seen on the Usenet, many will not post or respond
when they feel that their message will just be lost in the flood, or
they have a fear of the response.  Others post just to provoke
flames and angry responses.

So, these and other factors have reduced the population to a small
minority of those in the general population.  The question then becomes,
"How important is the network, and how much protection should it be
given?"

When the electronic networks become cheap and easy to participate in,
with adequate noise filters, the population will flock to them.  Or
should I say "have flocked to them", since television meets those
criteria if you consider passive viewing as participation.

Now, for some semi-random questions:

Are the electronic networks closer to television than newspapers?

What happens to the computer systems at newspapers and television
stations when a law enforcement agency wants the information a reporter
may have have acquired in the course of investigating a story?  Do they
confiscate just the reporter's notes?  Or do they take the whole system?

How long did it take (is it taking) for the law to come up to speed with
respect to television?

/craig