On Sun, 3 Jan 1993 22:51:00 EDT Peter Graham, Rutgers U., (908) 932-2741 said:
>1) I'm with Murph Sewall on not seeing the usefulness of anonymous posts, and
>would be glad to see a justification for it--with a view toward building a
>body of opinion that says it is not conventionally acceptable and that it is
>OK to construct lists that prevent it.
I don't see how one could possibly construct some code that would
know for sure if the posting in anonymous or not. You could cut out
postings from "known" places, but that could change daily, as could the
ids ... and what if user ANN@xxx wanted to send mail and all AN*@xxx
ids were filtered? Seems silly and wasteful, to me.
>I can think of one special case, and Murph's example of an HIV discussion is
>an example; so for example is the Uncle Ezra counseling service at Cornell.
>The special case I have in mind is where *all* postings are anonymous because
>that is integral to the purpose of the group, as in these examples. Can
>people give good cases for why unsigned or anonymous postings should otherwise
>be allowed, and can parallel cases in the non-electronic environment be
>cited to bolster their case?
I have two problems with this. First, there are MANY uses for
anonymous postings. Almost *ANY* discussion of a sensitive nature, with
HIV being just one case, could rightfully be included. HIV is only one
matter ... how about Sexual Abuse? What about anyone with a
non-religious fundamentalist approved life style? Get the point?
Second, I don't think your wanting to be analogous to a situation
that is non-electronic is valid simply because the network works in a
manner that is quite different to real life. For example, most people
attending a meeting (like Alcoholics Anonymous or any other share type
group) are in the room with those people, and the door is closed,
usually, to the public - no cameras, so to speak. A list, on the other
hand, may be open to the public, as are its archives, and EVERYONE is
identified by a userid. Even if you use conceal, the archives will
still have your userid in it. So, posting anonymously actually fills
the void that makes the list *MOST LIKE* real life.
>2) As an example of the kind of list where anonymous postings could be
>damaging and inflammable: tune in to the various soc.cultural....yugoslavia
>/serbia/bosnia/ etc. lists. People there are saying quite unpleasant and
>damaging things to each other even with names attached. The kind of dialogue,
>if one can call it that, that goes on there, if introduced into other groups
>without accountability, would be destructive to the group I believe.
You said it yourself: people will post from their own userids not
caring about how stupid they are (they don't, of course, see themselves
as stupid), but, you are right that an anonymous service could encourage
more hatred in a group such as this.
At any rate, clearly, there is a need for anonymous posts, and,
unless Eric is willing to incorporate (and maintain) some sort of
official list and take responsibility if/when conflicts arise as to
which places get listed or not, etc, *AND* some sort of valid standard
can be set and adhered to by all such servers/sites, I don't see the
point to trying to limit it. I think list owners, for the most part, do
a damn good job of keeping their lists together and I don't, as yet, see
a need to change this. Credit to all of us!
>--Peter Graham, Rutgers University Libraries
> moderator, ExLibris
** ------------------------------------------------------------------ **
** Geert K. Marien : [log in to unmask] (Bitnet: GKMQC@CUNYVM) **
** ListOwner: AIRLINE, RAILROAD, STAMPS, The INDIA List **
** (All contents are my own opinions - unless otherwise stated) **
** ------------------------------------------------------------------ **
|
