I am responding to parts of what Russell Ashdown wrote and continuing my
arguments for why I believe Adam Todd should be prevented from writing
to Link.
Russell, I perceive your approach as reflecting trends which might be
called "absolutism" regarding freedom of speech, and a simplistic
characterisation of standards and limits in a mailing list as
constituting "censorship". These trends, combined with a reluctance
by mailing list owners (which is very understandable) to become involved
in controlling who writes to the list, or in controlling what they
write, means that there can be a vacuum of leadership and proper
standards setting, which results in the degradation and misuse of
mailing lists. I think all these contribute to low expectations of
standards of conduct on lists and on the Net in general - so people
overall expect less of themselves and of each other, and simply tolerate
things which I think they should not tolerate.
I agree that there is an advantage in a totally unmoderated,
uncontrolled mailing list. In such a list, it is possible that the
wildest abuses and the greatest excesses may occur - but this carries
with it the advantage that you know for sure that no-one is being
prevented (by list rules) from saying anything. So you can breath
easily and assume you are getting the straight poop from everyone on the
list, without them fearing exclusion or moderation by the list owner.
But I think that there are other costs with such an approach. Firstly
many people who might otherwise post or read the list do not, because of
the low signal-to-noise ratio. Another cost - the one I am concerned
about regarding Adam Todd's recent repetition of his serious and
un-supported claims about Red Hat - is that such a policy enables the
energy, prominence and credibility of the list to be used to give
unwarranted power to the writings of anyone at all who chooses to post
something to the list.
In my view, the best approach for a list is a clearly stated set of
principles which does not (to the mind of most or all potential
"genuine" list members - however defined) constitute a barrier to
freedom-of-speech within the defined topic areas of the list. Then, if
these standards are enforced, the list can largely or entirely (if the
list has per-message moderation) be protected from misuse - and so can
fully support the discussions it is intended to carry.
I assume that the Link mailing list has a formal or informal policy or
guideline that it is not to be used for repeatedly making
unsubstantiated allegations which have serious repurcussions beyond this
list. This seems to me to be a common-sense assumption, but if I am
wrong, then the fact should be formally admitted by Tony Barry and by
people who think they know what the standards of this list are, or
should be. Just because no such rule is formally stipulated does not
mean that it does not, or should not exist. To formally state every
common-sense rule, by anticipating a great variety of contrary
behaviours, would be tiresome and impractical.
Russell, if it is your understanding that Link has no limits and should
have no limits on how it is used, then please state so explicitly.
If someone posted to Link a hundred times a day, or a thousand, or
posted large volumes of off-topic material, or material which offended
you and others, or posted material which created legal and ethical
problems for the list owner (such as by using the list to publish
material which revealed private information, or which was in contempt of
court, was libellous, gave away passwords, credit card numbers etc.), or
material which instructed people on crime or other things you regard as
anti-social (computer hacking, racist/sexist diatribes etc.) or in which
they continued to do anything at all on a repeated basis against the
wishes of the list owner and/or the majority or entirety of the current
membership (including such atrocities as sentences which go on and on
and on . . . . ) would you then be calling for that person to be
prevented from posting to the list?
I think you would.
If so, then your apparent (to my understanding) position of absolutism
regarding no limits on what can be posted to Link is not in fact the
case. If so, then you do believe (as I do) that Link and any other
decent mailing list should have standards and that people should be
banned from writing to the list if they repeatedly violate those
standards.
If this is the case, then our disagreement is not about whether Link
should have standards and should be able to exclude people, but whether
or not Adam Todd (with his repetition of his Red Hat allegations) has in
fact exceeded the limits which Link should properly have. If you and I
agree that he has, then I think you would agree with me that he should
be prevented from posting to the list. (Maybe give him another go after
a few years - I like to think that people grow wiser over time.)
> I am at a loss to understand the reason for the vitriol being spewed
> from the postings of an individual I had previously held in some
> regard.
I thought I explained myself clearly. Quite a few people who wrote to
me share my concerns.
I also thought I was being rather polite about a person who I perceive
as being primarily focused on disrupting other people's thoughts and
discussions, rather than helping anyone achieve anything of substance.
If people who know Adam Todd better than I do wrote to me with
presumably well-informed reports about problems with his character and
conduct which went beyond the specific concern I am raising about him on
Link, then even if I felt these allegations had a ring of truth about
them, I would not repeat them to anyone else or on Link, because I do
not know them to be true myself. So please accept my assertion that I
am in fact being very polite compared to whatever it is I think about
Adam Todd. I have no personal dispute with Adam Todd. My concern is
with protecting Link and the wider world from abuses of Link such as the
one I am referring to, irrespective of who makes the abuses.
Computer security is a vitally important issue. A single weakness can
lead to costs which, if measured financially, run into the billions of
dollars. (I am wary of IT cost extrapolations, but the cost to
individuals and business of having personal data revealed and destroyed,
and having their computers used to launch attacks on other computers,
and having to re-install everything and suffer business and personal
costs while the systems are not functioning, could easily be thousands,
tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars per computer.)
Therefore, everyone has to be wary about computer security. At a time
when millions of Microsoft IIS web servers are being infested with one
or more viruses and millions more users of MS operating systems and
Outlook Express in particular are being ravaged by SirCam (I have
received 85 SirCam emails from 28 computers), then any suggestion about
an as yet unrecognised vulnerability in a prominent piece of software is
going to cause a lot of human attention to be focused and expended. If
the vulnerability is genuine, then this energy will be well spent. But
if the vulnerability is fictitious, then the actions of the person
mentioning it have the direct result of detracting from everyone's
efforts to keep there systems secure.
Furthermore, if any such allegations on Link are given prominence in the
press - beyond the circle of people who have developed an informed
knowledge of the credibility of the person making these allegations -
then there are potentially serious and completely unwarranted costs
being imposed on other people (such as Red Hat and Linux users
generally) as a direct result of Tony Barry and or us Link members
tolerating someone posting such allegations to Link. This is what
happened in April/May last year when The Australian IT section went into
print, and I guess in their web pages, about how a member of the
prominent and respected Link list believes there is an undocumented
vulnerability in Red Hat Linux which could lead to root compromise.
Then, a whole bunch of IT managers and less informed people immediately
think less of Linux in general, and Red Hat in particular, without there
being any proper mechanism for these unfounded allegations being
challenged in the minds of all affected people. Given the even jumpier
state of people regarding computer security now, it is easy for me to
imagine this repetition of the unsubstantiated allegation turning into a
rumour which develops a life of its own all over the world. If so,
then we - the so-called "Link Institute" will have done the world a
serious disservice, by allowing a person who has in the past
demonstrated disregard for proper discussion and who has shown zero
integrity in respect of his Red Hat allegations, to spread his rot all
over the world - because we at Link enabled him, or any other such
individual, to type a few hundred keystrokes into his computer and
launch those characters into prominence using the credibility of the
Link mailing list, which the rest of us have built and maintained.
This could easily happen again - and it would be a disastrous misuse of
Link to give unwarranted credibility and prominence to such allegations,
which to date remain entirely unsupported. This is why I am objecting
to Adam Todd's message:
http://www.anu.edu.au/mail-archives/link/link0108/0207.html
(By the way, the home page for Link is
http://sunsite.anu.edu.au/link/ )
where he repeats this grave allegation which caused so much trouble in
April and May last year.
If Link was my mailing list, Adam Todd would have been ejected last year
for the way he misused this list to project his unfounded allegations -
and for continually refusing to offer any evidence at all that his
allegations had substance.
I am not persuaded by arguments that he or any other ejected person
could simply re-subscribe under another email address. It is
technically possible, of course, and a person who did this would force
the list owner to:
1 - Capitulate and accept a continuation of the misuse, or
2 - Work harder to prevent it - by adopting either an approved
membership arrangement or perhaps a completely message-by-message
moderation arrangement - which is very labour intensive and delays
the flow of discussion (as well as making some people wary about
moderator influence, "censorship" etc.).
But to capitulate to the threat of such actions would be to completely
admit defeat - to say "Because anyone could subscribe under any email
address, and because I as list owner cannot, or couldn't be bothered,
going to more trouble over the list, I accept that this list will have
no standards of conduct whatsoever - so anyone at all can post anything
they like to the list, and I will take no action, other than perhaps
writing to them or trying to influence them in other ways."
I have been told that Adam Todd's behaviour on the DNS list involved
hundreds of messages, which were generally regarded as being unhelpful,
off-topic or whatever. The list reformed itself with a "no Adam Todd"
rule (I wouldn't have done this, I would simply change the rules for the
current list to prevent anyone doing whatever it was which was the
problem) and I understand that Adam Todd did not in fact cause any
trouble for that new list.
So to capitulate to what I believe is Adam Todd's misuse of Link simply
because of the theoretical possibility that he could rejoin under
another name is ridiculous - especially when there is no evidence that
he has done this in the past.
Rather, the fact that his exclusion from the new DNS list meant (to my
understanding) that he did not repeat the problem behaviour anywhere
else (for instance on Link) is good evidence that his exclusion was a
very good thing for everyone, including for Adam Todd himself.
So I argue that ejecting him from Link because of his repeated violation
of common-sense and decency by making these un-supported Red Hat
allegations would likewise be a very good thing for us all, for the
world beyond Link and also, in my opinion, for Adam Todd himself.
(Do the words "judgmental" spring into some people's minds at
this point? I am allowed to have my opinions for what would be
good
for Adam Todd in terms of what I consider to be his long-term
happiness, which I think depends, in part, on him avoiding making
serious trouble for other people. I am entitled to these
opinions, and to think of such opinions or stating them on Link
as being "judgmental" would be, I believe . . . . judgmental! I
mention these opinions - but don't expect anyone else to share
them, since they involve intensely personal concepts of long-term
happiness being applied from one person to a very different
person - so it is a minefield.)
> To propose to the Link List that any poster be censored is a denial
> of the purpose for which (I think) the Link List exists - not only
> exists, but a denial of the reason that the Link List IS held in such
> high regard by many professionals both in Australia and elsewhere
> in the world. It is a free forum of ideas for professionals and
> others, allowing a free exchange and debate of current issues.
Including freedom for one member, who otherwise would have limited
credibility and visibility, to have his unsubstantiated allegations
given the credence by the press due to the generally high quality of
discussion on Link?
If no-one had reported Adam's Red Hat allegations beyond this list, then
this allegation would be an annoyance only for us. But because he made
the allegations on Link, they were printed in a newspaper and caused
questions to be asked about Red Hat which caused trouble far beyond
Link.
> It is because of the vitriolic posting of Robin Whittle and the
> goading follow-up by Rick Welykochy that I am compelled to post
> this document in defence of Adam Todd's right to post, not
> necessarily in defence of his various postings.
Do you think everyone has a right to post anything at all to any
mailing list they like, or is it just Link and a few others, in your
opinion, which should have no standards at all.
> For all the presumed high ideals brought to bear to excuse the
> censoring of individuals, when it comes to the crunch, it is nothing
> less than suppression of the thoughts of one by another.
This is not the case at all. Adam Todd is able to think what he likes
whether he is allowed to write to Link or not. Anyone can join any
mailing list and Adam Todd can make his own mailing lists which all of
us will be able to join if we meet his requirements.
My point is that IF (and it is my assumption) this list has standards of
conduct which are expected of all members, and that if these standards
involve:
1 - Not repeatedly making grave unsubstantiated allegations with
implications far beyond this list.
and/or
2 - Following direction from the list owner to cease making such
allegations (which I recall was how Tony put a stop to it in
May last year, via direct correspondence with Adam Todd - but
perhaps I am wrong).
then Adam Todd has seriously and repeatedly violated the standards of
this list.
That being the case, and the list's standards being for the purpose of
enhancing list discussion and protecting the wider world, then why
should the list owner tolerate Adam Todd continuing to write to the
list?
Its not a right, but a privilege to be in a mailing list.
Democracy and freedom-of-speech exists in the possibility of there being
any number of mailing lists - not in any one mailing list having no
limits to what is written on it.
I am not suggesting that anyone be banned from all mailing lists - just
that if this list has standards, then it is best that they be enforced.
If this list has no standards, then this should be explicitly
acknowledged.
Its not my list. It is Tony's list and its up to him what standards, if
any, he enforces.
> In presuming to censor, the list has certainly devalued discussion and
> debate and in my view, such a list would not be worth participating
> in.
That sounds rather extreme. Are you saying that any list which requires
minimum standards of conduct from its members automatically becomes
worthless for you? If so, fine. But many other people are happier in
a list where at least some standards are upheld. How would you feel
about being a member of a list in which a person posted personal
information about you or others, or who repeatedly misrepresented your
views and statements, or who used the list for purposes such as contempt
of court, or who posted a thousand messages a day? I think you *do*
expect some standards be upheld in a mailing list - and so you should
not criticise me for expecting Link to have some standards as well.
> "Censorship is secret recommendation through public prohibition".
I don't think there's anything secret about expecting a list member to
abide by list guidelines - provided the guidelines are formally stated
or widely understood and clearly acknowledged if called into question,
and if those standards are consistently upheld in a way which gives
everyone confidence that they are being used for their proper purpose
and not according to any personal bias etc.
> To those of you who believe that this is none of your business,
> since it does not affect you, I will remind you of the Roman slogan
> 'Hodie mihi, cras tibi' ('Me today, you tommorrow'). Who is the next
> one to be censored? You?
Yes, the Domino Theory! (Patent still pending 1964, Lyndon Johnston,
Bob Menzies and the Democratic Labour Party.) Today my efforts get rid
of Adam. Tomorrow, you. The next day all people who I don't approve
of. It is a reducto-ad-adbsurdum line of argument, I think.
But you or other list members would only be ejected in the future if I
was advocating tighter and tighter standards for this list or if you too
used this list as a platform for making repeated unsubstantiated
allegations which have negative repurcussions far beyond this list.
There are all sorts of standards a mailing list might adopt. For
instance, it might be a requirement that all Link members, through their
on-list activities do not cause the reputation of Link to be called into
question in the wider world. Its an admirable aim in some respects, but
it would be a minefield and would probably lead to self-censorship in
order to fit in with any number of narrow viewpoints beyond Link. I
would argue strongly against any such standard for Link.
I could argue that a list member who consistently degraded or frustrated
discussion (however judged - say by the list owner or a secret ballot of
members) should be ejected. There's a lot to be said for this too - and
it would be entirely appropriate for some mailing lists. However I
would argue against that on Link, because I think that for our
membership it is better that members ignore such people rather than
members be banned on these grounds. (But again, if the person wrote a
dozen messages of tripe to every one in the real discussion, there would
probably need to be some limits set, because newcomers to the list
simply cannot tolerate such abuses.) Mailing lists with less tech- and
list-savvy memberships cannot be expected to tolerate miscreants like
this - but to a larger extent, I think the average Link member can.
My argument for ejecting Adam Todd is based purely on his repeated use
of Link to launch damaging and unsubstantiated allegations which have
serious negative consequences well beyond Link.
> "I may disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death
> your right to say it." Lets get on with the debate and allow ALL to
> be heard.
In the words of a long-time Linker who has worked harder and done more
to protect freedom of speech than I or most of us have:
> I see no conflict between freedom of speech and list moderation
> policies. Destructive people can destroy lists and therefore deny
> others the freedom to speak. Freedom of speech is not absolute,
> as in shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre.
>
> Moderation policy is nothing more than netiquette - rules that list
> members agree to abide by in order to facilitate the objectives of
> the list and orderly discussion.
>
> As you say, those who refuse to comply with list rules are free to
> take their speech elsewhere, preferably an empty theatre ;-).
The question is:
Does this list have any standards at all about on-list conduct of
members?
If there are standards, then they should be enforced.
I don't trust Adam Todd to abide by promises - because I understand he
promised last year not to raise these allegations on Link again. (Maybe
I am wrong about this - any such arrangements were between Tony Barry
and Adam Todd, as far as I know.)
Not to have standards and to fail to enforce them would be to capitulate
to any individual at all who feels like damaging the list, by disrupting
discussion or - in the case I am objecting to, using the credibility
created by all other active list members as a public launch pad to
project his disturbances beyond this list.
Just as computer managers have a responsibility to prevent their
computers from being used to launch attacks against other computers, I
think that any list such as Link which values principles of freedom and
not encumbering others, would have standards which prevent someone from
using the list as a platform for serious, repeated, totally
unsubstantiated allegations which place unfair burdens on people well
beyond this list.
- Robin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.1 : Fri Aug 31 2001 - 03:10:03 EST