[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Self-regulation and speech (was:RE: Re[2]: [dvd-discuss] EFFopposes blacklisting spammers)
At 14.03 -0700 01-10-19, Jeme A Brelin wrote:
>> Moreover, spamming is not an excercise of free-speech. It is an
>> attempt at free advertising. Basically, they are getting something
>> for nothing. They are (generally) trying to sell something, and not
>> have to pay to advertise it.
>No one's claiming that RBL blocks spammer's rights to free speech... at
>least that's not how I read it.
>RBLs block LEGITIMATE SPEECH in an attempt to block spammers.
My ISP was on the MAPS RBL and I can tell you that it is no picknick. So
how did my ISP end up there? Apparently, someone thought the ISPs servers
were not configured "right" (mail relay was possible). As a user you
discover this when your closer acquintances and friends call you and ask if
you're all or have another good explaination for not answering email.
The problem with MAPS RBL and similar systems is the placement of the
filter. When the filter is placed on an ISP level it is very hard to get a
transparent view of what is beeing filtered and why. And who is accountable
for mistakes? Do we have some representativity for the users and controlled
among the people deciding upon the filters?
The Internet is not a network so simple as you can just state "use another
system if you don't like it". MAPS RBL is something that looks far too
close to the end of end to end. You should not build intelligence like that
into the system, then you will destroy the architecture.
My point, eventually, is that I don't trust free speech to self regulation.
Regards
Mikael Pawlo
P.S. I thought this list was about the DVD cases, but the discussion keeps
going on about spam why I join in on it. My apologies if this is off topic
after all. D.S.
_________________________________________________________________________
ICQ:35638414 mailto:mikael@pawlo.com
+46-704-215825 http://www.pawlo.com/