[governance] IGP Alert: "Net Neutrality as Global Principle for Internet Governance"

[Taran Rampersad]

Norbert Bollow wrote:
> Taran Rampersad <cnd at knowprose.com> wrote:
>
>   
>>> For example, with many spam filter systems, email messages containing
>>> Christian religious words have a much higher probability of being
>>> falsely classified as spam.  That is a violation of net neutrality
>>> with regard to freedom of religion.
>>>   
>>>       
>> I could take that a step further and state that I find all Christian
>> email messages that demand I surrender my heathen Buddhist soul to be
>> spam; that their freedom of speech and religious self expression trods
>> on my own personal freedoms just as ringing my doorbell to 'share their
>> word' with me is a disturbance of my peace - an unwelcome intrusion on
>> the sanctity of my privacy so that they can shove their beliefs down my
>> throat.
>>     
>
> I was thinking of situtions where the intended recipient of the
> message has no objections to its religious content but where the
> religious content nevertheless causes the message to be misclassified
> as spam.
>   
Statistically speaking, Christianity is not the majority of the world -
so the majority of the world may consider these to be spam. According to
these statistics (http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
), 66% of the world may not like cybermissionary messages. I question
those statistics - as you should - but it does demonstrate that no one
religion is a majority. Regionally, though, one's results would vary.
> What precisely is your definition of "spam"?  Does it significantly
> differ from "unsolicited bulk email"?
>   
No. When I get emails that are unsolicited marketing messages, I include
them. Religious advocacy is marketing as far as I am concerned. And on a
cultural level, I understand why it exists but I do not think that a lot
of people appreciate implications that their religion and culture are
not good enough. This is dangerous ground. Expression of religious
belief is not something to censor lightly - but then, sending people
messages without solicitation is somewhat dubious. I, for one, do delete
these messages.
> I'm not opposed in principle to filtering any category of "incredibly
> rude email" if a reasonable, practically verifiable definition of
> "incredibly rude" can be found which does not itself violate "net
> neutrality" principles, i.e. the definition should apply equally to
> rude atheists and to rude religious people, and it should apply
> equally to well-meaning but rude grass-rude political activists and to
> rude corporate marketing people, etc...
>   
In some countries, it might be considered incredibly rude to imply
someone's religion isn't good enough. So your example may actually be
better than anticipated - it brings in cultural factors that do weigh in
on network neutrality and even support it. The balance is really the issue.
> I would suggest that it is a good strategy to focus anti-spam
> activities on trying to solve the problem that there is too much
> unsolicited bulk email, even if other categories of rude email also
> exist which can perhaps also be considered "spam".
>   
The common phrase for any unsolicited email is spam - bulk or no. 'Why
are you spamming me?' is a phrase used commonly.

In my mind, separating the two simply reinforces a lack of cultural
awareness. Despite the technological focus on internet governance, I
must offer that the governance itself is about people more than
technology. One cannot solve one problem without solving the other.
Making the problem simpler to solve does not make the real problem go
away. The real problem is the abuse of technology by a minority to
affect the majority.

That said, the UK instituted some good laws related to spam, including
fines for spamming by your definition of bulk email. Those laws have not
stopped spam in the UK, but it may have put a dent in it (all statistics
would be based on projections - thus, they are fallible). On the flip
side, it must be really hard to send any email from Nigeria that would
be read.

The point I am making is that one person's email can be another person's
spam. That subjectivity is the issue. I do agree that individuals should
have more of a say in what they have censored from their eyes - the sad
fact is that the majority of people don't want to understand the problem
and they don't care too much who gets censored or why... unless it is them.

-- 
Taran Rampersad

http://www.knowprose.com
http://www.your2ndplace.com

'Making Your Mark in Second Life: Business, Land, and Money'
http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/9780596514174/

Pictures: http://www.flickr.com/photos/knowprose/

"Criticize by creating." — Michelangelo
"The present is theirs; the future, for which I really worked, is mine." - Nikola Tesla

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance