TO: "Frederick Noronha(FN)" Fred, We may just have to agree to disagree. However, your specific comments cry out for some rebuttals:
Fred writes: (i) Free speech doesn't mean saying what we want, whenever we want, in disproportionate amounts, and impose it on others who are then told to use the delete key. Mario replies: In a free society "free speech" on an open forum like Goanet mens exactly what you say it doesn't. The issue is, "Who gets to decide what is inappropriate?" Fred writes: (ii) Online fora are like any real-life meeting halls in some ways. In the online world, many people can 'speak' simultaneously. This does not mean we should clog the communications with a whole lot of postings which simply overwhelm the debate by sheer quantum. This would tantamount to blocking the free speech of others. Mario replies: Claiming that one's free speech is tantamount to blocking the free speech of others is an old circular argument that sounds far more logical than it actually is. The question is, in a free society, who gets to decide who is blocking whom? Fred writes; (iii) Free speech does mean that a wide range of opinions should be allowed to go through (whether the admin agrees with them or not). It does not, to me at least, mean that incessant debate should be continued even when others in the group are complaining of topic-fatigue. Mario replies: We obviously disagree on who should get precedence, the "others" or the posters. Who decides who exactly the "others" are, and whether their claims are valid, when there are hundreds if not thousands of Goanetters, all around the world. Fred writes: (iv) When you post a message, we are indeed *forcing* every Goanetter to download the same, whether (s)he wants it or not. There is no way a Goanet subscriber can read only some posts and not read others. This is particularly true of Goanet-Digest subscribers, who have to download the entire digests and can't delete posts of just one or two posters by reading only the subject-line. Many readers get the Digest version. Besides, the fact that every reader has to *necessarily* download every message put out on this list, also means tat they're being compelled in a way to read something they might rather not want to. If you want the freedom to post anything, go to Usenet newsgroups (http://groups.google.com). You have the freedom to post 9, 90 or 900 messages in an hour -- that's because the posts do not go as email to anyone, but only get downloaded if someone asks for them! Result: Usenet newsgroups are full of spam, junk and other irritating posts. Including hate posts set up by bigots of virtually every religion ... and secular bigots too ;-) A few groups are run on moderated lines, but these will accept every post on Goa within the 'charter' under which it was set up, simply because no one has to then download such posts without a choice! Mario replies: a) There is an alternative for those who don't want to be "forced" to receive posts, isn't there? b) It is the bane of every "elite" person or group in a free society that they have to listen to ideas and opinions that they consider "irritating", "hateful" or generally objectionable. The problem becomes, who gets to decide what is such, when there are hundreds or thousands of members around the world with potentially as many opinions. c) Regarding day-to-day usage I have no idea what you are talking about Goanetters being "forced" to do anything - other than receive the messages on their computers. I do not read a single message that I choose not to. Whether receiving individual posts or digests the subject line is a dead giveaway as to the contents. Everyday, I make judgements based on the subject and the poster as to whether I want to read, scan or ignore, respond or move on. Fred writes: (v) Try telling the NYT, the IHT or the Washington Post in the "land of the free" that they have to carry everything you write -- after all, readers who don't like it can just skip the item on reading the title -- and see if they agree. Mario replies: The NYT, IHT and the Washinton Post are privately owned organizations. If Goanet is "owned" by anyone I will agree that they get to decide whatever is published on this site, and the posters will continue to participate or leave, just as in the "land of the free" I am free to buy the NYT and the Washington Post, or not. I choose not to buy these specific papers because of my perception of what and how they choose to report and how they choose to opine in their editorials. Natural selection prevails. Fred writes: (vi) IMHO, there will be anarchy if everyone insists that they have the *right* to post whatever they please, whenever they please, on whatever topic, and however many times they wish with no regard to the rules that any mailing-list works under and with complete contempt for feedback from the readers. Mario replies: We are back to the circular argument of whose rights are being trampled by whom, and who gets to decide. The subscribers will shake out based on what is decided by those who control the decisions. Fred writes: On the other hand, it would make more sense to tailor our posts to issues and entry-points which would interest a number of others in the group. After all, isn't communication all about that -- getting others interested, rather than saying you're-free-to-use-the-delete-key? Mario replies: When you have hundreds or thousands of potential readers, what makes "sense" to you may not make sense to whole sections of others. I have no aspirations of trying to impress 7,000 people I don't know personally to do anything they don't want to or believe anything they don't want to. All I try to do is speak my mind as communicatively and convincingly as I can on any given topic at any given time. I have no delusions that 7,000 people will be interested in anything I have to say. That is what the delete key was made for, so every individual can make up their own minds as to what they want to read or flush.