cr> 5Feb96 Tidbits


Richard Moore

Date: Fri, 2 Feb 1996
Sender: •••@••.•••
Subject: Regulation - is it even technically feasible?

While the issues of cyber-rights are critical to all of us, a question has
persisted in my mind on this topic of regulation.  Given the almost
borderless nature of the internet, how will regulation be technically
possible?  Is it more a case of the policy hoping that people will be
law-abiding?  Has anyone looked into this?

Date: Fri, 2 Feb 1996
Sender: •••@••.••• (Marilyn Davis)
Subject: Re: Hyper-Democracy Debate

Mark Stahlmann wrote:

> I'll be the guest for an online IRC moderated discussion regarding the
> broader implications of electronic democracy as part of the series
> sponsored by the Reinventing America game on Wednesday (tommorrow the 31st)
> night at 9PM EDT.

How did it go Mark?  Personally, I don't think that chat events are
the best vehicle for electronic democracy but I'd like to hear what
was accomplished, if you thought it was worth the trouble, if
participants felt heard, ...


Marilyn Davis, Ph.D.-------------- * ---- eVote - online voting software

Date: Fri, 2 Feb 1996
Sender: Off the Edge <•••@••.•••>
Subject: The Commercial Alternative

        A relative sent me a local ISP newspaper advertisement that uses a
slant I had not seen before. The ad claims the company offers "uncensored"
total internet access. It takes a justifiable stab at the fees several large
commercial online services charge but adding also that "they censor what you
can see and do". This company claims that "you have the right to unregulated
and uncensored information and entertainment".

        So will we see more of this form of advertising? Can a provider
charge me *more* if they think they can provide me access to anything?
Should I be paying *less* if I don't care if I can't reach that web site?
Exactly how much more a month is the uncensored part of the Net worth
anyway? Please let me know so I can tell if I am being overcharged.
To ensure added security to this message, print, add water, stir and drink.

Date: Sat, 3 Feb 1996
Sender: •••@••.••• (Patrick M Brennan)
Subject: Abortion and the Internet

I'm sorry to seem so dense, but if Rep. Hyde says that he doesn't mean
to restrict discussion of abortion on-line, then why did he insert
language into the telecomm bill which, on its face, restricts
discussion of abortion on-line?  Common sense seems to indicate that
the best way not to do some thing -- are you ready? -- is not to do
that thing.  I'd really appreciate a good explanation of this.


Date: 04 Feb 96
From: <name withheld>
Subject: Cheers For Dildo Article!

I just wanted to briefly express my gratitude over your article we received
yesterday.  It was not only very insightful and starkingly *true*, it was
surprisingly FUNNY!

A rare gem amidst the usual on the Cyber-Rights list.  I just wanted to tell you
that I never stopped laughing throughout the entire article, and I appreciated
the humor intertwined with truth (as horrible as it may be) in such a
discouraging time as this.

Thanks again,

Date: Sun, 4 Feb 1996
From: Bob Keller <•••@••.•••>
To: Multiple recipients of list <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Telecommunications Act of 1996

The full text of the Telecom Act, as submitted to The President, is at:

-- Bob Keller (KY3R)

Date: Sun, 4 Feb 1996
Sender: Gary Weston <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: cr> Donna Hoffman:  Net is Mainstream and Votes!

I have to confess at the outset that I have a problem with numbers coming
from a Pew funded study, but  even if the numbers cited are reasonably
accurate, there are a couple of assertions that demand a little more

You say that the net is mainstream, and you cite the fact that 1/3 or
those on the net have incomes of less than $30k.  If the majority of
those are students, then the numbers are meaningless because they are not
full time workers.

In any case, given that the median household income in the US is about
$30k, the net is overwhelmingly made up of higher income workers and
business people.  When 2/3 of a group make more than median income, they
can't very well be considered representative.

And I have to tell you that my personal experience on the net has been
that the vast majority of the folks who actually post to newlists or the
usenet on political or social subjects are either libertarian or right
wing.  Whoever considers that the net is made up of liberal elites must
also be responsible for the lie that the mainstream media have a liberal

Now there may be a lot of folk who only lurk, and they may be "liberal
elites", but I'll need something better than a Pew sponsored survey to
convince me of that.


 Posted by Richard K. Moore (•••@••.•••) Wexford, Ireland
 Materials may be reposted in their entirety for non-commercial use.