[ubuntu-uk] UKTeam meeting update

[TheVeech]

On Wed, 2007-04-11 at 09:58 +0100, Alan Pope wrote:
> 
> That kind of implies that there are no "learned rules" or "etiquette"
> on the 
> other systems. This clearly isn't the case. There is etiquette on the 
> mailing list (preference for bottom posting, stripping and quoting 
> correctly) and there would be on Skype (for example) too. If you held
> a 
> meeting on Skype for example and I came online with Jono Bacon Style
> music 
> blearing out in the background you'd disconnect me (either due to the
> content or 
> presentation :) ). 
> 
> Etiquette and "learned rules" are things that people just have to damn
> well 
> learn or they become difficult to tolerate in a community. This has
> nothing 
> to do with mailing lists, forums, irc, skype or any other technology,
> but 
> it's about people. People having respect for other members of their 
> community. 

This is one of those areas where people mean well but tend to get
carried away with their emotions and prejudices.

First off, what are my weaknesses?  I'm British.  I live within British
culture and am heavily influenced by its ideas.  From an early age (up
until my late-teens/early twenties) I've been schooled to value and
respect inequality.  The main media organisation here - the BBC - has as
part of its role being one of the engines of consent, with a damn good
track record, consenting to the British 'way of life' by default, which
is tied in with notions of inequality.

In my everyday life offline, then, I'm exposed to messages of inequality
in a way that my nation has successfully sustained for centuries.
However, online, and in my total exposure to media, I'm exposed - or
have easy access to - different ideas in a way that's unparallelled in
the history of my nation.

I'm pulled in two directions.  But my everyday life is lived offline and
exerts the greater influence over my thinking.  Therefore, inequality
plays a greater part in my life than equality.  IMHO, to properly
understand freedoms, codes and the like, I need to understand the
detailed debate about equality, not just the stuff you find from an
individual school of thought, or in the 'deep and meaningful' mags.

I don't, my culture doesn't prioritise it and my weakness is being
unable to properly address freedom and conduct well enough to be able to
make decisions on other people's content.  I can't be a censor for them
because I haven't got the authority and shouldn't have.  That doesn't
stop me from researching and debating such issues, but it does suggest
that my arguments aren't inevitably comprehensive or watertight.

My limited view is that there's a whole host of issues involved in
censorship and regulation: power, authority, legitimacy, ideology,
Zeitgeist, etc., etc.  That's one of the reasons that in your post you
sound to me like an authoritarian dad who's overtired and has to try to
impose his will upon his charges because he hasn't got whatever
authority he thought he had.  The problems seem to come when a select
few 'decide' to become everyone's official censor!

There's an echo of your sentiments in the debate going on about blogs
and codes that's been instigated by an emotive event that is heavily
influencing the agenda and the conclusions being reached.  It's a pretty
bizarre story, but entirely of its time.

You seem to be calling for some sort of official code.  That in itself
is ideological and against the way some people think of the Net.  What's
also problematic is that codes are wide open to abuse both in formation
and implementation and for your idea to be practical, you'd have to have
sufficient mechanisms in place to safeguard against abuse, as well as
uphold its 'laws'.  I'd be surprised if anyone on this list has the
background, experience and knowledge to adequately undertake that task.

Go back nearly 10 years.  The anti-democratic tendency in British
society then was to quash dissenting voices.  However, one of the most
dissenting voices came from an unusual quarter and went against all the
embarrassing and irrational social pressures at that time.  Rupert
Murdoch, asked if he made any mistakes about the coverage of a British
Princess, merely said that he paid the paparazzi too much!  Shock,
horror!  But no backlash.  Why?  This smashed to pieces the 'rules' of
conduct that were then in play, so there should have been a sufficiently
emotive response.  There were two simple reasons why there wasn't: the
bad logic at the time couldn't sustain a rational argument against this
entirely valid response or cope with it exposing crucial issues.
Secondly, and more importantly, Murdoch was more powerful than the
opposing voices against him (who, incidentally, are supposed to uphold
the freedom of the press).

That's the problem with your ideas about codes: they're subject to key
influences, some of which you might not be aware of.  They're also
likely to put off people who don't particularly like the idea that
someone somewhere can have some official role in so haphazardly
declaring on what they can and cannot say or read probably on the basis
of status rather than legitimacy.

I don't have to put up with that, so whenever I see it, I just ignore
it, just like I ignore anyone who I think is just annoying.  I don't
need them to be legislated against, because I can just take my eyes
elsewhere (the fact that so many people see it as important to have the
final say on even the most mundane matters is a bore that's best left).
For example, I've been threatened on the Net.  So what: what are they
gonna do, stab me with their mouse?!?

But I certainly wouldn't seek to censor what such people say beyond my
own individual choices.  If a forum I was in became dominated by such
trends, I'd just leave for, IMHO, a better one.  We've all got that
choice, but the approach you've been persuaded by would limit (and show
a lack of 'respect' for) my choice.


> It's also about the way in which people are told. People can be
> informed how 
> the community runs, and they can choose to adapt their behaviour to 
> integrate with that community or they can continue to do whatever
> their 
> poor-etiquette manifests as. Guess who is more likely to be listened
> to, 
> respected and accepted? 

Guess as much as you like who you are more likely to listen, respect and
accept, but be careful of declaring for others (usually using terms like
'we' to assume shared 'common sense').  I don't buy this at all and I've
got no doubt that you know full well that people are more complex than
that.

In the debate about blogs, there's some pretty ridiculous things that
have been said about conduct, codes and the like.  It all sounds pretty
commonsensical (always does - ask the neocons in the US), but summat
don't seem right.  The Great Firewall of China isn't just some kneejerk
reaction from a maniac Commie Chinaman Committee.  Someone's thought
about it, considered it, made rational arguments to support its
implementation.  To people of that mindset, it makes complete common
sense.  So why shouldn't we all have one that fits in with our common
sense?  Okay, they're restricting freedoms, but we're upholding values,
right?

If we're going to have a group of people's code, why not use hardware
and software tools to make it more efficient and effective.  We've got
the tech to identify key phrases that we consider in contravention of
our particular code (swear words, like 'Tony Blair', would be a good
start), so let's go!

Or you can just treat me and those around me as the complex set of
molecules we are and trust me to be the judge of my content, open to
debate and counter-argument.  As for you, don't tolerate anything you
don't want to.  No-one's forcing you to.  Debate it, dismiss it, do
whatever you choose, so long as you don't choose to limit my choice.