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

[Taran Rampersad]

Norbert Bollow wrote:
> Taran Rampersad <cnd at knowprose.com> wrote:
>
>   
>> 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.
>>     
>
> Whether the "majority of the world" would consider a given email to
> be spam should be considered totally irrelevant if the only thing
> that triggers the spam filter is religious content which the actual
> addressee of the email message has no objection to.
>
> For example, I'm hosting a mailing list with a couple thousand
> subscribers who have explicitly requested to receive write-up of
> the sermons of a certain pastor which are emailed out every three
> weeks.
>
> Since I'm not emailing this stuff to arbitrary people, but only to
> people who have explicitly requested to be subscribers of that
> mailing list, these mailings clearly are not spam regardless of
> what all the non-subscribers of that mailing list (clearly the
> majority of the world) would think if I'd spam them (which I've never
> done, and don't intend to ever do.)
>
> However since there has been a lot of religious "Nigerian" spam and
> a lot of sex-related spam, there is now a significant degree of
> discrimination in the email system against totally-legitimate
> communications of pastors, especially those pastors who consider it a
> main goal of their ministry to try to help postitutes and drug addicts.
>
>   
>>> 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.
>>     
>
> IMO it's equally objectionable if the majority (non-Christians) makes
> choices which result in making it needlessly difficult for a minority
> (Christians) to communicate with each other about topics that they
> consider important.
>   
You miss the point. If we can safely assume that people are happy with
their own religions, we can safely assume that religious messages from
other religions could be considered spam. If, however, there is an
assumption that people want to be 'saved' from their present religion, I
suspect there is a deeper problem than technology under discussion here.

The truth is somewhere between the two extremes posited. I'd rather take
the vantage that I should not offend people with my own religion, but I
realize that I may not be alone in that.

I, among others, do not want happy-clappy-religious-messages, thank you
very much. If you wish to remove Christian keywords from spam
directories, I'd suggest finding some way to legitimize taking these
words out of spam recognition.

Also bear in mind that at this time, less than 20% of the world is on
the internet. As more people get on the internet, more and more of such
preferences will probably be found in spam dictionaries. Some may say
that this is a travesty on Free Speech, but then when one's Free Speech
offends or annoys others, the mute button of technology is quite easy to
click. Do I, personally, agree with it? Yes and no. I don't want to be
inundated with messages in much the same way I don't like people ringing
my doorbell so that they can save my heretic (their perspective) soul.

The issue you bring up with the Christian keyword example demonstrates
the use of technology to protect cultural identity and religious belief,
in my eyes. The argument against that would seem to be cultural
conquest, and I find that repugnant. Perhaps you would like to use
another example?
> If a way can be found for changing the overall email system so that
> unsolicited bulk email will no longer occur in significant quantities
> (without side-effects that significant reduce the overall usefulness
> of the email system or its "net neutrality" properties), that will IMO
> be from everyone's perspective at the very least be a significant
> reduction of the spam problem, regardless of what definition of "spam"
> they use.
>   
This is always the same approach, and it is not a bad approach. I
believe 'following the money' would be the most efficient way of
handling most bulk spam, but that will require local laws to reflect an
internet governance mechanism. This is a catch-22. Breaking that loop
will require more user buy-in, but the users don't seem to care as long
as what shows up in their mailbox is manageable.

For my messages, I filter them through Postini, then have Seamonkey
(email) rules that delete messages based on criteria that I have taught
it. I now get about 5 spam messages a day, at most. As an individual,
this is quite manageable. To internet service providers, it is a cost
that they factor into their pricing. The sad truth, in my opinion, is
that WSIS was too late and ineffective for the email issue (amongst
others) and that there won't be significant democratic buy in from
stakeholders (read: users) until something really bad happens. It has
become like the internal combustion engine: Embedded in culture with
structures built around it that will collapse should the problem
actually be solved.
> However, when trying to address the spam problem, by any definition of
> "spam", care should be taken to avoid as much as possible side-effects
> of discrimination against the ability of any company or cultural group
> to use the internet in ways not involving spam.
>   
Again, if someone's Freedom of Speech annoys people, they have the right
to use the mute button. If it is applied to a culture, one could say
that it is a travesty - but then we border on the question of democracy
of theology.

Those that wish the most religious sensitivity should provide it.

-- 
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