Usenet Death and Freedom of Speech: CONTROVERSY?
PETER VOROBIEFF
In the ZUMABOT case, NO.
Freedom of speech is for humans. The 'bot is not. It won't even pass
Turing test. It is a machine devoid of intelligence, and no constitution
in the world defends the rights of lawnmowers, microwave ovens or
roboposters.
I just wonder if ones who defend the 'bot's right to mailbomb, forge and
spew lies and hatred on USENERD will pass Turing test themselves. Yes,
USENERD is an anarchy. But it is a HUMAN anarchy, and maintaining it
HUMAN is the only way for it to survive.
Accursed are ROBOPOSTERS and ROBOCANCELLERS!
Net for the Netters!
--
---
Thus spake Kalmoth the Vile, Slayer of the Seven Pigs of the North.
DISCLAIMER:
This article doesn't represent anybody's views. In fact, it doesn't
represent any views at all.
Spiros Triantafyllopoulos
>In the ZUMABOT case, NO.
*ing YES!
>Freedom of speech is for humans. The 'bot is not. It won't even pass
>Turing test. It is a machine devoid of intelligence, and no constitution
>in the world defends the rights of lawnmowers, microwave ovens or
>roboposters.
Which is what i've been trying to ascii-hammer into Dave Hayes' head, but
the ascii-nail won't get thru.
>I just wonder if ones who defend the 'bot's right to mailbomb, forge and
>spew lies and hatred on USENERD will pass Turing test themselves. Yes,
>USENERD is an anarchy. But it is a HUMAN anarchy, and maintaining it
>HUMAN is the only way for it to survive.
>represent any views at all.
'Dave Hayes' can past the Turing test all right. 'it' has been shown to argue
quite well with Jay Maynard and the rest of us, using original material.
To further prove that, I did an arche search on hayes and all I got was
modem diagnostic software for Hayes Smartmodems :-)
But, to direct the question to the real Dave Hayes, do you see any difference
between, say, a human and a robo poster? Do blind dialer/advertising machines
(you know the kind with the real enthusiastic voice "Hello, Friend! Please
take the next hour telling us about your self, how many children you have,
beep, you have 1,234 children, press 1 if correct, press 2 if incorrect")
have rights? I don't think so, the Justice system doesn't think so either.
Many states are either outlawing them or restricting their use.
I don't recall any robo-caller owner complaining about Freedom of Speech.
If these things are being regulated I see no reason why Common Carrier
Status to be's (UUNET) should not be regulated in the same way.
Another issue that Dave doesn't seem to want to address is the
encouragement that the Zumabot provides to other, more serious abusers
of the net. If Zuma can get away with what it's doing, there's little
to prevent the KKK (kkk.org? :-)) from getting a UUNET feed and doing
the same as Zuma. Where will they draw the line?
Ten years ago on the net VERY infrequently you'd see the kind of abuse
that passes for normal now. That was the time where people would get flamed
for 'Car for Sale in NJ' ads in rec.autos, distribution usa. Now,
'MAKE MONEY FAST' ads are one a month...
At least we got rid of McElwaine...
Spiros
--
Spiros Triantafyllopoulos c2...@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com
Software Technology, Delco Electronics (317) 451-0815
GM Hughes Electronics, Kokomo, IN 46904 [A Different Kind of Disclaimer]
L. Todd Masco
>
>In the ZUMABOT case, NO.
>
>Freedom of speech is for humans. The 'bot is not. It won't even pass
>Turing test. It is a machine devoid of intelligence, and no constitution
>in the world defends the rights of lawnmowers, microwave ovens or
>roboposters.
And the 'bot spontaneously grew fully armored from USENET, right?
As long as a human put it in action, it's a valid concern. The 'bot's
output *is* the speech of a human. Or are your posts any less legit
if they're put through valspeak first?
--
Todd Masco | "life without caution/ the only worth living
cac...@clinton.com | love for a man/ love for a woman
SysAdmin, Clinton Group, Inc. | love for the facts/ protectless" - A Rich
Dave Hayes
>>Freedom of speech is for humans. The 'bot is not. It won't even pass
>>Turing test. It is a machine devoid of intelligence, and no constitution
>>in the world defends the rights of lawnmowers, microwave ovens or
>>roboposters.
>Which is what i've been trying to ascii-hammer into Dave Hayes' head, but
>the ascii-nail won't get thru.
And my ascii-nail hasn't been getting through either, I suppose. ;-)
>But, to direct the question to the real Dave Hayes, do you see any difference
>between, say, a human and a robo poster?
My point is that you cannot guarantee that no human's free speech will be
infringed, while filtering human and robo posters.
>Another issue that Dave doesn't seem to want to address is the
>encouragement that the Zumabot provides to other, more serious abusers
>of the net.
But I *have* addressed that. IGNORE THEM.
--
Dave Hayes - Institutional Network & Communications - JPL/NASA - Pasadena CA
da...@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov da...@jato.jpl.nasa.gov ...usc!elroy!dxh
A thing is true only when and where it holds true. Something is true in
accordance with its context. No context means no truth...in the sense in
which human thought understands it.
Spiros Triantafyllopoulos
>>Freedom of speech is for humans. The 'bot is not. It won't even pass
>>Turing test. It is a machine devoid of intelligence, and no constitution
>>in the world defends the rights of lawnmowers, microwave ovens or
>>roboposters.
>
>And the 'bot spontaneously grew fully armored from USENET, right?
>
>As long as a human put it in action, it's a valid concern. The 'bot's
> output *is* the speech of a human. Or are your posts any less legit
> if they're put through valspeak first?
Let me see if I get this straight. If the Zumabot mindlessly posts
its 'articles', since they were produced by a human at some point, they
are 'protected'.... Let us apply the analogy further.
In the same logic, posting uudecoded binaries straight out of /usr/bin
is 'protected' since the software in its original form was written by
humans (does yacc qualify?) and the uuencoded binary is a 'translation',
much like the 'bot's translations.
So, do we have to wait for the 'bot to start posting random strings of
characters in order to take action?
Alan Turing must be rolling in his grave big time...
L. Todd Masco
>Let me see if I get this straight. If the Zumabot mindlessly posts
>its 'articles', since they were produced by a human at some point, they
>are 'protected'.... Let us apply the analogy further.
>
>In the same logic, posting uudecoded binaries straight out of /usr/bin
>is 'protected' since the software in its original form was written by
>humans (does yacc qualify?) and the uuencoded binary is a 'translation',
>much like the 'bot's translations.
Right result, wrong logic. It's protected because a human is putting the
posting mechanism into place.
>So, do we have to wait for the 'bot to start posting random strings of
>characters in order to take action?
Not even then. Sorry, I just can't see that content-based filtering of
netnews is ever justified, unless legalities come into play. What
effort should go into is better reading software, to allow people to
personally filter what they don't want to see.
The USENET's just going to get bigger and bigger: taking some sort of
piecemeal approach is not only wrong-headed, but probably futile. One
zumabot is easy, and only if the implementor isn't too clever or
persistent. What about one hundred? Or one thousand?
Spiros Triantafyllopoulos
>>So, do we have to wait for the 'bot to start posting random strings of
>>characters in order to take action?
>
>Not even then. Sorry, I just can't see that content-based filtering of
> netnews is ever justified, unless legalities come into play. What
> effort should go into is better reading software, to allow people to
> personally filter what they don't want to see.
begin 066 reply.uue :-) I am not talking content based! How did Mc
Elwaine get dumped from his school account? By now, since the latest
incarnation of 'Serdar' has run dry I (along with everyone else on the
net) have just about seen all of 'Serdar's' repertoire. To most of
us it is just noise. Kinda like }}}'s, only rounder and with blanks
and punctuation.
To me, the noise is what has pretty much rendered useless several
usenet groups and is slowly beginning to render more groups and
mailing lists useless.
If I am not going to read the crap that is posted from zuma, content
is irrelevant. It's behavior.
>The USENET's just going to get bigger and bigger: taking some sort of
> piecemeal approach is not only wrong-headed, but probably futile. One
> zumabot is easy, and only if the implementor isn't too clever or
> persistent. What about one hundred? Or one thousand?
Nope. My 'piecemeal' approach, as you define it, should prevent REAL problem
sites from getting or maintaining a feed. One zumabot is fine and is
a drop in the bit bucket. How about one hundrend zumas? Or one
thousand?
Add in the KKK, the anti-Semetic crowd, your favorite ethnic/racial/
whatever busters, the hair club for men (hair.com), RONCO (ronco.com),
and a few more of these, and usenet as we know it is history (lemme
see, I mentioned the Nazis, imminent death of the net, oh, GIF at 11).
Ten years back such things did not exist, and we only saw one
abuser per year or two (and I'm counting the guy who asked 'what time
is it?'). Right now we're down to one a week.
Perhaps we should create an entire hierarchy for people like that,
something like 'postonly.*', with postonly.culture.imaginary-genocide,
postonly.culture.makedonija, and the such and let them slug it
out there.
O well.