[ubuntu-uk] UKTeam meeting update

[Robin Menneer]

On 4/11/07, TheVeech <theveech at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
>
> --
> ubuntu-uk at lists.ubuntu.com
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk
> https://wiki.kubuntu.org/UKTeam/
>

The British masses started to shout successfully for themselves after living
in the trenches in the 14-18 war, and more so after the 39-45 war.  Let's
not put the clock back.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-uk/attachments/20070411/d53da440/attachment-0001.htm