Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!nstn.ns.ca!news.cs.indiana.edu!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!decwrl!limbo!taylor
From: thom@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu (Thom Gillespie)
Newsgroups: comp.society
Subject: Questions about censorship in comp.society
Message-ID: <1794@limbo.Intuitive.Com>
Date: 23 Feb 91 00:13:26 GMT
Sender: taylor@limbo.Intuitive.Com
Lines: 232
Approved: taylor@Limbo.Intuitive.Com

I apologize in advance for the length of this posting but it does concern 
two issues which can't be dealt with in discrete screenfuls: 
	the relationship of war, technology, and society, and 
	censorship in the discussion group comp.society.

SOME BACKGROUND

After the war began there was a posting which wondered how computer
weapons designers felt about their contribution to the war effort.  A
variety of responses came back ranging from "I'm proud to have designed
the Patriot" to "Are designers responsible for the blood which is shed?"
I suggested that the entire war was controlled by computers, not just
the 'smart' bombs, but the entire news media, data base management,
decision support, war games simulations, etc -- this is a 'computer'
war.  By way of example I offered the Israeli, country arrest of the
Palestinians.  I wondered what database management systems were in place
to track suspected Palestinians, etc.  It seemed obvious to me that
names were not being kept on scratch paper.  The mistake I made was
assuming that the Palestinian lockup was standard knowledge since I read
it on the Activ-L listserv, heard it on the National Public Radio
program "Fresh Air", and read it in the New York Times and San Francisco
Chronicle -- this looked like public knowledge to me.  This was when I
was first asked to re-write my posting to comp.society.  I was stunned
by this request.  Dave Taylor wrote me a civil reply questioning where
this information came from and I told him.  He suggested I rewrite my
posting to 'make it stronger.'  I declined and asked that it be posted
as written, which he did -- 4 days after I submitted it.

I then submitted a posting asking whether weapons designers have a
responsibility to ask them selves if what they are doing every moment of
their lives is worth doing in the end, particularly if what they are
doing is designing devices to destroy life.  After this posting
comp.society fell mute but my mail box went nuts.  All sort of messages
were sent suggesting that I can't suggest this sort of consideration
because "I eat meat", "If I'm against war weapons designers I'm also
against researchers who are designing weapons to fight the Aides virus
because Aides is a form of life", and "Being a vegetarian also destroys
life."

My next posting to comp.society was a summation of my strange mail - -
with no names or identifiers -- and a wondering why the believers of
these points of view didn't post their observations to the net so we
could consider them.  After all, this discussion evolved from discussion
on comp.society about the relationship of war, society, and technology.

Again a long delay, and then a note from Dave that he was sorry but he
was getting too much mail and the discussion no longer had anything to
do with comp.society, My messages were purely political and anti-war.

I accused him of censoring information demanded to have a discussion of
censorship in comp.society. I received the following reply:

*** Dave's reply to Thom ***
*Thom,
*	I'm sorry, but you have the wrong model of what comp.society/The
*Computers and Society Digest is; I'm not a facilitator obliged to accept
*and forward any postings that are submitted, but instead, it's an online
*magazine, and I'm the editor.  As a result, I am not interested in having
*a discussion of censorship in this context as I don't believe it will
*add to the topic of technology and society, which is, after all, the 
*point of the group and the reason people read it.  Further, I don't believe
*that it *is* censorship.  If you submit an article to a journal and they
*decline to publish it because it isn't their editorial topic, are they 
*therefore censoring you?
*
*	Just like more traditional media, Usenet readers (and, by extension,
*BITNET digest subscribers) are free to read and participate in as many 
*different forums as they can, and, just like more traditional media, if
*you fundamentally don't agree with the editorial decisions of a particular
*journal, you can unsubscribe.  Frankly, though, I'd hate to lose you as
*you bring a valuable insight and voice to the discussions we have.
*
*	However, I have received a number of strongly worded complaints
*about the tone of the current anti-military-employment discussion, and
*the related war debate, and I concur with them that much of what is 
*being debated simply isn't in the purview of the group.
*
*	Comp.society would be open for a discussion of the additional 
*problems that electronic media add to the already thorny issue of censorship.  
*We'd be most interested in discussion about the technological implications 
*of Desert Storm (and the Iraqi defense/offense).  We'd also be very 
*interested in analysis of the media coverage of the war, especially as it
*ties in with the reality and fantasy of high-speed "you are there" 
*communications and reporting.
*
*	But debate on the appropriateness of the war is really best left 
*for another group and another venue.  
*
*	I mean, clearly, I *care* a lot about what's going on.  I also
*don't blindly swallow the jingoistic crap that is floating about this
*country, with the popular revisionist historical perspective (Hussein
*has *always* been bad, the press trumpets, for example).  In fact, I
*share my concerns and talk about my perspective as a journalist and
*professional writer and analyst with others in an online forum.  Except
*it's not comp.society, but the Communications Research and Theory
*Network (CRTNet), a group where analysis of communications and the
*ramification on support of the war is appropriate.
*
*	And if I wanted to talk about the war itself online, I would
*no doubt participate in alt.desert-storm, or some politics group.  I
*do not.  Instead, I share my concerns, discuss my feelings, and air 
*my political views with my friends and in small gatherings of like,
*and sometimes unlike, minded folk.
*
*	I don't, however, use comp.society as a forum for political
*views, political debate, and issues not related to the impact of 
*computers and technology on society.
*
*	Keeping the readership in mind is more than simply being
*willing to post any article that shows up in my mailbox, Thom.  I take
*this responsibility quite seriously, and I would hope that I manage 
*to run one of the best newsgroups on the net.  I know that we have 
*readers throughout the world, including people at the Congressional
*Office of Technology Assessment, the National Science Foundation, and
*many other government offices throughout the US and the world.  One
*reason for this, I strongly believe, is that we keep a level of 
*rational discourse, without delving into hyperbole and diatribe.
*
*	I again encourage you to respond to this, to let me know how
*you view what I'm saying and such; and I further strongly support
*your continued participation in comp.society.  Just stick with
*topics that are relevant for the readership of the group, and remember
*that there *are* other forums and media if it doesn't quite fit.
*
*					Sincerely,
*
*						-- Dave Taylor
****

I wrote a reply which Dave summarized here in return mail to me which was also
not posted , it includes his response.

>Thoms reply...
> Dave, you aren't my editor, I already have one of those, you are my
> censor and this is at the heart of computers in society.
	...
> I'd like this discussed in public in complete context -- we are definitely
> talking about computers and society at this point.

*Okay, here's the deal, Thom;
*
*	You submit an article that talks about what we've been going
*	back and forth on, in any vein you'd like, for distribution, and 
*	I'll post it and follow up with my own views and perspective.
*
*Further than that, I still contend that a discussion of the politics
*of the war, per se, is inappropriate for comp.society.  I send back
*about 30% to 40% of the articles that are submitted, and many of those
*are because of inappropriate content or topics.  Clearly, it's a 
*judgement call on my part, but I believe that some sort of editorial
*direction is required for the group to function as it does, and so...
*
*As you note, clearly, there's a lot that's war-related that is right
*on topic with computers and society, including the whole issue of
*"right employment" (a topic that's come up before in this forum).  But,
*again, it's a fine line between talking about that and talking about the
*larger question of whether war is an appropriate way to solve problems
*that should be resolved diplomatically, which is *not* a topic for a 
*group talking about computers and society.
*Anyway, I'll take this discussion public with you if you'd like.  It
*will be quite useful, and probably enlightening, for me to read the
*feelings and views of those people who will respond to our discussion,
*giving us both a further perspective on the situation.
*
*				Happy Presidents Day.  *wry grin*
*
*							-- Dave
*
*ps: just to point out something that should be obvious, I certainly 
*    harbor no animosity towards you, Thom, and whatever ends up 
*    happening with this discussion, I would still be interested in
*    getting together with you some time to talk about the world at
*    large, and the bits we co-inhabit...
****

I replied that I never thought that he, Dave, harbored any animosity 
toward me and I appreciated the chance to reply on the net.

While Dave feels "...We'd be most interested in discussion about the
technological implications.."  (who is this 'We'?), the name of this
group is comp.society -- it extends to society as well as technology.  I
feel that every thing discussed had to do with computers and society,
the purview of this discussion group.  He chose to label my postings as
political which is not how I viewed them.

I choose to write to this group because it is concerned with technology
and society -- the technology by itself bores me but the applications of
this technology to human ends interests me to no end since it seems to
threatens life on the planet -- the war being a great example.  I do not
buy Dave's view that "...  debate on the appropriateness of the war is
really best left for another group and another venue."  I am not
schizophrenic enough to talk about the technology apart from the impact
on life.  It is an impact which few technologists are willing to
acknowledge, -- passing pointers can can kill.  What other discussion
group is there to discuss computers and society if not comp.society?
You can only subdivide discussion so far and then they becomes
meaningless, mechanical, algorithmic, rhetorical, abstract -- and blood
free.  I think that there is a relationship between what people do at
their desks and the bodies on the ground in Iraq.

But, equally as disturbing to me was the fact that I had an "editor" on
the net.  I always thought there were moderators, people who lead and
gently directed discussion.  From my perspective I can see that Dave is
using the editor/print metaphor to either direct his activities on the
net or apologize for his actions.  If he used the more closely related
metaphor of the radio/tv moderator then Dave might have included his
thoughts on the direction the discussion was taking or he would have
allowed the net to 'self-correct' -- flames and other prompts, which I
find normal.  It also should be pointed out that there is 'very little'
discussion on this conference, nothing that would suggest that the
traffic was out of hand and needed an iron ruler.  I think Dave's
suggestion that he censors "about 30% to 40% of the articles that are
submitted" is way out of line.  Which brings me to my next point which
is directed at news.admin folks.

Does a Usenet moderator "own" a discussion group for life?  What
mechanisms are in place for changing moderators - I'm not suggesting
ousting Dave, I find him reluctantly moderate and a gentle correspondent
-- but I am wondering if franchising a person for life on Usenet makes
sense considering the importance of Internet discussion in current
events -- Tiennamen Sq.  & the Gulf.  Do any discussion groups have
elections?  It was suggested by Dave and by another fellow from
New.groups that I unsubscribe if I don't agree with the moderator, but I
like comp.society.  This is where I want to read and what I want to
discuss:  computers in society.  I don't want to be anywhere else.

I'd appreciate it if this discussion happened on comp.society and not in 
my mailbox.

Thanks Dave.

Thom Gillespie


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com