Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!crdgw1!rpi!jonathan From: jonathan@pawl.rpi.edu (Jonathan Fisher) Newsgroups: comp.society.futures Subject: Re: Databases and comm channels: future trends? Message-ID: <5^&^A6^@rpi.edu> Date: 12 Nov 90 19:17:35 GMT References: Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY Lines: 92 Nntp-Posting-Host: pawl24.pawl.rpi.edu In article janssen@parc.xerox.com (Bill Janssen) writes: > ------------------------------ > > Date: 04 Nov 90 11:53:27 EST > From: Dave King <71270.450@compuserve.com> > Subject: Prodigy Censors Users > > Apparently, Prodigy is evicting users who are voicing their opposition to a new > Prodigy policy which will implement charges for EMAIL messages within the > Prodigy service. In 1991 Prodigy will implement a policy which charges users > 25 cents for every EMAIL message they send after the first 30 every month. > Prodigy users who have been vocal in their displeasure, and who have used the > facilities of Prodigy to attempt to recruit others to their cause, have found > themselves booted from the service. According to a story by Evelyn Richards, a > Washington Post staff writer: > > ... This week [Prodigy] unplugged about a dozen outspoken dissidents whom it > says were pestering innocent users with the electronic equivalent of junk mail. > But what Prodigy sees as a way to stop needless harassment seems to others as a > blatant example of censorship. That's because the people bumped from the > Prodigy system included the most active critics of a planned price increase for > Prodigy's electronic mail service. > > Using electronic mail on the network, the dissidents had urged other > subscribers to join the revolt by boycotting the advertisers that buy time on > Prodigy's network. "Prodigy is arguing they don't want people harassing their > users," said Gary Arlen, editor of Interactivity Report, a Bethesda newsletter > that follows the on-line industry. I think that's a stretch. It's a way to > keep their advertisers pleased." > > The incident is the latest to spotlight the difficulties society faces as it > struggles to adapt old laws and customs to emerging electronic networks. ... > Some people say on-line services should protect the right of all expression, as > a phone system does, while Prodigy argues it is more similar to a newspaper, > which is free to publish what it chooses. > > Prodigy's troubles began two months ago when it announced that households would > be able to send their first 30 electronic mail messages free but would get > charged 25 cents for each additional message. A core of angry subscribers > first protested by posting notices to Prodigy's on-line bulletin boards, the > computer equivalent of neighborhood kiosks. Prodigy said it posted thousands > of such complaints for others to read - but it didn't publish them all. > > When the writers urged a boycott of Prodigy advertisers - firms selling > products on the network - Prodigy's editors returned the messages to the > senders. "We're not going to post something designed to destroy our business," > said Geoffrey Moore, Prodigy's director of market programs and communications. > Moore likened the decision to a newspaper rejecting a letter to the editor, or > rejecting an advertisement that criticizes the newspaper's largest advertisers. > > This week Prodigy decided enough is enough and refused to post any more > messages about the rate increase. But what especially angered officials was > when the dissidents innundated other users with electronic chain letters urging > them to join the protest and boycott. Moore said users complained, so Prodigy > bumped the offenders. > > And now the protestors say that's unfair. "We're not being abusive. We're not > being vulgar. All we're doing is making our (opinions) known," said Larry > Wienner, 22, a Prodigy user from Randallstown, Md. Wienner said the bumped > dissidents are so hooked on Prodigy that they may try to re-subscribe under > assumed names. > My thoughts on Prodigy: They have the right to bump off any person from their service who violates their rules. They want a "family service," which immediately cuts out a lot of "adult" talk. If you don't like their oppression, then drop the service (which is what I did). From my experience with the service, it has a lot of great things going for it, but it is incredibly slow and **way** more oppressive than any similiar service that I've seen. They want to make money, and if people start dropping the service, they may think twice about changing their policies. But this brings up a bigger question: Censorship of electronic communications. Right now, whoever owns the equipment makes the rules. But isn't this the way it has always been? The owner of the newspaper gets to print whatever he/she wants. They don't have to print your article or letter if they don't want to. I would guess that since electronic communication is so much faster, many would say that it is closer to "speech" than "press." But, there is nothing stopping you from setting up your own BBS and having people call in. So, is rejecting your article from a "public" network censorship? I don't think so. Yes, it feels like it, but it isn't. Prodigy is oppressive, but it doesn't "censor" you in the way we currently think about censorship with relation to the press (actually I think the government is really the only one that can censor in this definition). A more cloudy question involves e-mail. Do the owners have a right to look at your "private" e-mail? I'll offer this question up for debate here. -- Jonathan Fisher jonathan@pawl.rpi.edu ITS Student Consultant or Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute userganu@rpitsmts.bitnet GO VIKINGS! Central Division Champs => NFC Champs => Superbowl XXV Champs