----- Original Message -----
From: "Conor Daly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2000 8:50 AM
Subject: Re: [issues] Re: [grrltalk] AOL for Linux
> On Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 01:34:07AM -0500 or so it is rumoured hereabouts,
> GeekGrrl thought...
> > On Sat, 19 Aug 2000, Conor Daly wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 03:17:10PM +0100 or so it is rumoured
hereabouts,
> > > Pandora thought...
> > > > AOL is evil and must be stopped
> > >
> > > Err... Why?
> >
> > This sentiment is oft-expressed in exasperation of the alledged moronic
masses
> > which have invaded the once alledgedly pristine Internet through the
> > wide-spread access offered by AOL.
[snippage]
> I'm all for "let the one-click morons on to the 'net". As you say, it
hasn't
> really resulted in _much_ more rubbish (garbage for the USA denizens that
> is...:-) out there. It mostly requires just a *little* more thought when
> framing search queries. What _we_ need to do is to make sure that, for
*every*
> query typed by an AOL'er, there is returned at least one link to a page
that
> explains how there is more to the internet than AOL.
I agree. IMHO, there's no significant danger in letting 'morons' use the
net. I would consider it a tragedy if only bicycle mechanics ever learned to
ride, or only electrical engineers learned to operate a radio. Truly, I
consider it not a little elitist that so many of us have left the job of
hiding the complexity of computers and networking to companies like MS and
AOL. The Internet becomes the scene of the crime, as it were, if it is the
sole domain of the technically privileged.
The real danger as I see it is in the corporate philosophy that puts a
monetary price on information and then tries to corner the market by denying
access to the stuff that would be free (i.e. beer and speech). So far, this
has only taken the fairly benign shape of AOL crafting an interface that
makes it advantageous for movie advertisers and the like to include an "AOL
keyword" line in their television advertising. The advent of wireless
communication devices and WAP goes further in enforcing the concept of
ownership of content by inserting a mechanism that forces 'content
providers' to get the carriers to allow access to their resources.
The paradigm that underlies the Internet in its current form is the
'end-to-end' connection, in which one device communicates more or less
directly to the information source. WAP forces an intervening point of
contact, in effect a proxy, that creates the capacity for filtering out of
content. It's explained away as a technical necessity (bandwidth
considerations require that data be compressed and transmitted in binary
form, achieved by inserting a gateway between the copper net and the
wireless), but its effect is far more insidious: It creates the potential
for a toll-gate to be constructed. If someone wants people on the wireless
network to view their content, that someone is going to have to pay for the
privilege. This effectively denies access a vast amount of non-commercial
data -- data which, to most of us, is more valuable than the stock quotes,
sports scores and news headlines that the media conglomerates love so much.
So, if you ask me, AOL for Linux is fine, provided that Linux for AOL exists
as well. Information may want to be free, but not everyone wants it to be.
My $0.02 CDN.
--
Dan McGarry
http://www.moodindigo.com/
_______________________________________________
issues mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/issues
