Another uptopian "ivory tower" dream concept about the web. Let's be clear about this: the world described in this article never existed in the first place. I'm aware my opinion offends some people, especially web advocates. But I lived through the "magic" of the BBS world and deal with the modern web regularly. It is a _disservice_ to claim the web is something other than what it really is. Let's be honest about the web's flaws and deal with them, not fantasize in some utopian fake world*.
Frankly, many utopian advocates are leftover hippies from the 1960s and 1970s. I remember them well from my college days, and how "free and open communication" was the mantra. It was nonsense then and is now, as I will describe below.
Anyone could cheaply print up handbills and stand on a busy street corner and give them out, or distribute them door to door in a city neighborhood. Big potential audience there, too.
But the reality is that almost all the recipients will toss said leaflet in the trash. On the web, very, very few of the so-called "billions" will bother to read it and even fewer will care.
A heck of a lot of the web is pure wasted noise. Any serious researcher will have to skip past quack-cures, sexual come-ons, and a variety of commercial ventures, some legitimate, many bogus. Sites with the most reliable and detailed information often require a fee. People are impatient and don't want to waste time sifting through noise.
This is that "open communiation" mantra I mentioned above. Here's the reality of group communication:
If it is unmoderated, those with the loudest or most oratorial voice will dominate the discussion. Just because someone is a great orator doesn't make them intelligent or bless their ideas as valid; but it is easy for a group to go into a trance by a smooth polished speaker. Obviously a loud bully speaker will dominate too. In any event, unmoderated groups do not have free communication. The Internet is no different. Bullies and "loud" drown out worthwhile speakers. "Bad money drives out good money".
A big problem of the web is that it is totally unmoderated. Anyone can put up a website and claim anything they damn well want; but that does not make their website any good. There are lots and lots of such websites. In contrast, in the traditional world, anyone could write a book, but publishers act as a filter and usually the worst quacks are not accepted. A second filter is the distribution channel. This is not foolproof -- there are plenty of garbage books and articles -- but some filtering does take place.
If the group is moderated, there is a much better chance for decent communication. The moderators will control the bullies and smooth out outlandish claims. Unfortunately, most web communiation is not moderators. Further, there are no controls on moderators, they could subtly or overtly impart their prejudices. Lastly, moderated groups have limitations. In college, the bell would ring and it was time go to the next class.
People forget that the web is not free. It is made up of servers and high speed telephone lines between the servers. All of this must be maintained by people. (Please don't give me nonsense about "volunteers"). This costs money which must come from somewhere.
AFAIK, anyone who sets up their own web page now must pay some fees to register the domain, get server space, etc. They of course have their own server costs. So, I'm not sure how a new fee schedule will curtail that.
As to a "hierarchy", that exists now.
As a web user, I'd like to be able to go to a site without worry about viruses. I recently tried to visit a legitimate non-profit recreation group site and the virus alarm went off. Obviously that site is clueless. I find it very offensive that I must spend my time and money on virus and sabotage protection that is a result from the "openness" we supposedly so desperately want.
As a web user, if I buy something over the Internet, I'd like a reasonable assurance that the company at the other end is a legitimate company and isn't just fishing to steal my credit card number.
As an Internet user, I'd like not to be bombarded with spam emails, and semi-spam emails. I visited PC Expo in NYC years ago and they still innundate me with emails despite repeated requests to cease. Unlike traditional junk mail, email costs me money.
You may think your non-profit organization's cause is the most important thing in the world. I'm sorry, but not only do I not agree, I'm not the least bit interested in hearing about it nor subsidizing your web page or floods of email. When you ask for "openness" what you really want is me to open my front door so you can march in my home uninvited, sit down and push for your organization.
I respect intellectual property rights, and I object to those who exploit the web download protected materials for free redistribution without paying for them.
In conclusion, I have not seen any substantive argument against "the new system of fees". If anyone has studied them and has a differing opinion on their impact, please share your thoughts with us.
[public replies, please]*In the mid 1950s it was clear automobiles were dangerous, yet most automakers denied this and fought against safety features like seatbelts and the like. It took more than 15 years to finally get needed stuff installed in cars. Finally, lives were saved. I see the utiopians on the web as no different than the major auto companies.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have often times wondered why people like Tim Berners-Lee (credited as the 'inventor' of the World Wide Web) did not think far enough ahead in the middle-late 1980's to slap some very firm controls on how _his_ product could be permissibly used by people in generations to follow. Oh, I know all the reasons for not doing so which were given, but I have to wonder if now, 15-20 years after the fact, if it is a case of wising up too late in the game. That is, unless Tim B-L is really okay with the unreal twists and turns which have taken place on the web in the past, all the abuses and misuses we see as a routine thing of late. Was it really his intention to provide an air of 'legitimacy' to the cretins who publish all sorts of scams and spams and then hide in obscurity behind web sites which -- while traceable by folks who have the time and energy to examine them -- for most of us are essentially impossible to track down? Somehow I think -- and I do not mean this in an unkind way -- he shared in the naive notions that so many of the early computer pioneers; that people were basically good and decent and all that.I do not wish to get into an "I warned you" or an "I told you so" posture, but I can still recall, with some bitterness I might add, the day in 1993 or 1994 when I first began attempting to clamp some _serious_ controls on this Digest in terms of editorial control on the content, the layout, etc, and how a few of the earlier readers gasped and acted so incredulous. They wanted a moderator, all right, but other than a bit of moderation, I was to keep my mouth shut and not disturb the status quo. When I changed my title (I like to say 'gave myself a promotion') from "Moderator" to "Editor" and published some rules on what would, and what would not be acceptable, the shit really hit the fan blade, as the expression goes. I would like to think I was not as naive back in the 1980-90's as many netizens were, but some have said I was even more so. Lisa Hancock is correct, IMO. PAT]