The Trend Of Killing News Comment Sections Because You 'Just Really Value Conversation' Stupidly Continues

from the mute-button dept

Over the last year, there has been a tidal wave of websites that have decided to close their news comment sections because the companies are no longer willing to invest time and effort into cultivating healthy on-site discussion. While that's any site's prerogative, these announcements have all too often been accompanied by amusing, disingenuous claims that the reason these sites are muting their on-site audience is because they're simply looking to build relationships or just really value conversation. Nothing says "we care about your opinions" like a shiny new muzzle, right?

And judging from this NiemanLab conversation with a lot of the sites that have chosen to shutter comments, most of the websites have no intention of looking back. After all, what's the use of a local, loyal, on-site community when you can just offload all conversation (and that traffic) to Facebook and Twitter, right? Dan Colarusso, executive editor of Reuters, for example, doesn't think comments are important because damnit people -- Reuters isn't looking to argue!
"We’re not the kind of news organization that’s about giving our ‘take’ on something. We’re not looking to start an argument; we’re looking to report the news. We felt that, since so much of the conversation around stories had gravitated toward social, that was the better place for that discourse to happen. We did keep comments on our opinion pieces, because we felt that that is where you are trying to start an argument in the best possible way."
Except comments aren't just about having arguments, they're a legitimate and transparent avenue for readers to publicly correct your errors right below the original article, which is something many of these sites likely grew tired of. Sure, poorly managed comments can devolve into a cesspool of banality, but good commenters almost always offer insights the writer or website may have missed, could have been wrong on, or never even thought of. In short, we want you to comment -- we just want you to comment privately so our errors aren't quite so painfully highlighted. For the sake of conversation, of course.

Last week On The Media was the latest to quietly kill comments on the bottom of its newsletter, informing readers that comments just don't provide the "kind of dialogue" they wanted:
"We value our listeners above all and are always keen to know what you're thinking, to hear your questions and concerns, to get feedback on what you like and dislike. So why shut down the comment section? As we hear more from listeners through Facebook and Twitter and directly through our website, we've concluded that the comment section just isn't the best way to have the kind of dialogue we want with our listeners."
By "kind of dialogue" you mean transparent and public? Over at the last bastion of website interaction known as Twitter, Mike amusingly highlighted the disjointed logic of claiming to value dialogue while dramatically reducing the number of avenues for it, and the website's response doesn't really make sense:
Of course "nobody in our writing or editorial staff wants to take the time to cultivate local on-site community" or "we don't like having our mistakes highlighted publicly right below our articles" don't make for very good explanations when it's time to save a little money and axe ye olde comment section. So what we get instead are these vague bloviations about how this is really about an evolution in conversation, and punting the problem to Facebook is really the best thing for everyone. It's really time for some new, flimsy excuses for why websites can't be bothered to value local, on-site dialogue, because "we killed a major, on-site avenue of conversation for the sake of conversation" still doesn't really sound all that convincing.

Filed Under: comments, news, on the media, value conversation


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. identicon
    John Mayor, 16 Aug 2016 @ 3:48am

    It is all about SPAM/ Spam/ spam

    A GLOBAL DIGITAL HUMAN RIGHTS MANIFESTO: A WORK IN PROGRESS (002ND EDITION, TUESDAY, AUG 16, 2016)
    -----
    If I may!... today, I would like to bring a more concerted focus, on the Corporate Media buzzword... SPAM! As it's not what it appears to be...
    -----
    What?... dear reader!... is YOUR definition of SPAM? To YOU!... dear reader!... and for example-- and as some site owners believe!... are Comment Logs (Clogs!) on Blogs which contain LINKS to yet other sites, facilitating SPAM?... i.e., by mere virtue of the simple fact, that a link has been introduced?
    -----
    Although many sites encourage links, many others do not!... and thereby, such "denying sites", have denied-- and are denying!-- one fundamental means of communicating important information (and in contrast to the view of the said inventor of the Blog, Jorn Barger!)!!
    -----
    LINKING to another site, is a common-- and functional!-- feature, of most websites!... or the ability to link, would be abandoned as a tool of Operating Systems! Linking provides the reader with a clearer understanding of the subject one is trying to convey in a story (and why, Wikipedia-- for example!-- LINKS FOR EVERY ITEM IT DEALS WITH!)!... and!... provides a reader with a heads up on issues!... and regardless of a cited story! And re the latter... it's like someone on a street yelling to a pedestrian, "Watch out for that pole!"... to save the pedestrian from walking into it!; or yelling (or simply saying!) \"Have a good day!"... to bring a smile to some stranger! And if one is broadcasting a message to a pedestrian on the street through a hand-held device (e.g., a megaphone!... or a portable radio!)... i.e., LINKING!... is the message no less a warning!... or comforting!... because the message incorporates an "electronic mediating device"! THAT'S RIDICULOUS! And thus!... LINKING, IS NOT SPAMMING!

    But!... what linking CLEARLY has become for "CERTAIN INTERESTS ('ELITE INTERESTS', conservative websites-- and otherwise!... AND DAMN OUR CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED "DIGITAL HUMAN RIGHTS"!-- MANY OF THESE WILL ADD!)", is a THREAT to the "S-A-N-C-T-I-T-Y" of "SEARCH ENGINE OPTIMIZATION"/ SEO, and other such "DYS-I-C TECHNOMAE (i.e., BAD INFORMATION COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOMAE!)" underpinning "A-N-T-I NET NEUTRALITY" and "A-N-T-I SEARCH NEUTRALITY" "C-Y-B-E-R-O-L-I-G-A-R-C-H-O-S-O-C-I-O-P-S-Y-C-H-O-P-A-T-H-Y"! And!... MOST NOTABLY!... a D-E-S-P-A-R-A-T-E N-E-E-D on the part of these interests, TO DOMINATE THE PRESENT, AND FUTURE COURSE OF THE INTERNET! But!... and for the present time being!... let us continue our reflection on the notion, of "SPAM"!
    -----
    "SPAM (the canned "Shoulder Pork and hAM"/ "SPiced hAM" luncheon meat!... as introduced by Geo. A. Hormel & Co.)", was originally registered as a trademark in 1937... being a conflation of “SPiced hAM (which was the original name)"! The name “SPAM” was chosen from entries in a naming contest at Hormel! The name was suggested by Kenneth Daigneau (who was the brother of a then Hormel Vice president!)! He was given $100 prize for winning the naming contest! So much for the appearance of impartiality!... let alone, ACTUAL IMPARTIALITY!
    -----
    According to the official Hormel trademark guidelines, "SPAM (the food product!)", should be spelled with all capital letters! And a stipulation of the trademark, was that it should always be used as an adjective!... as in “SPAM meat”.
    -----
    Hormel was able to successfully defend their trademark of "SPAM", by limiting it to this capitalized version; and thus, the usage, and spelling (“spam”, and “Spam”!) doesn’t conflict with their trademark! The "principals" of Hormel unsuccessfully defended the variant, "Spam", as an extended use of their trademark!... and resorted, to “SPAM (i.e., the use, in capital letters only!)"!
    -----
    However!... much to the chagrin of Hormel Foods, the term "SPAM" has, today, come to mean-- FOOLISHLY!-- NETWORK ABUSE (i.e., by sundry post-SPAM pejorative accounts of the term!... and, in deference to a 1970s TV spiel that implicated Shoulder Pork and hAM/ SPiced hAM... in a can... as-- somehow!-- FAKE MEAT!)!... and, in particular, "junk E-mail", and massive "junk postings"! And the TV spiel in question, is a Monty Python Flying Circus skit, on SPAM (the meat!)!
    -----
    In this skit, menu items in a restaurant devolve into "SPAM"! And when a waitress in a restaurant repeats the word "SPAM" to two customers (though, to one, specifically!), a group of Vikings in the corner of the restaurant-- eventually!-- begin singing, “SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM... lovely SPAM!... Wonderful SPAM!”...and drowning out the objections to being offered "SPAM" by the waitress, by one of two customers (like "CERTAIN" netizens do, when these shout NO to "SPAM" at-- and about!-- other netizens' Net communications!)!... until the Vikings are finally told to, "...shut up!", by the waitress!
    -----
    While some have suggested that this hatred for "SPAM" was because "SPAM (as in the Hormel meat product!)" is sometimes satirized as “fake meat (and thus, by analogy, 'SPAM messages' are-- supposedly!-- 'FAKE MESSAGES'!)", this allegation-- while plausible enough on the surface!-- turns out to be not correct!... AT ALL!
    -----
    Exactly where this skit first translated to INTERNET MESSAGES (of varying type... such as chat messages, newsgroups, etc.!), isn’t entirely clear!... as it sort of happened (i.e., the labeling of internet messages as "SPAM"!) all over the Net! And!... in a very short span of years! It is, however, well documented, that "CERTAIN" "SPAM OBJECTING NETIZENS"... and, in each of these just cited "SPAM" categories!... have chosen the word "SPAM (consciously, or unconsciously!... knowingly, or unwittingly!... directly, and/ or indirectly!... by commission, and/ or omission!)", to refer to the 1970's Monty Python sketch! And wherein, "SPAM" is depicted as undesirable by ONE customer!... and yet!... the love of same, is drowning out... through singing by Vikings!... the conversation between the waitress, and the ONE objecting customer! And!... just like some CONSCIONABLE "viking netizens" have done-- and are doing!-- to "Spam OBJECTING NETIZENS (the Spam OBJECTING NETIZENS, having us believe, that 'L-E-G-I-T C-O-N-V-E-R-S-A-T-I-O-N-S' between "T-R-U-E N-E-T-I-Z-E-N-S (i.e., Spam OBJECTING NETIZENS!)', are being "drowned out" by "Spammers"!)! And!... and just like the skit, though "SPAM" was unwanted by ONE customer-- in particular (and... was-- nevertheless!-- popping up as a menu choice by way of the offerings of the waitress!)!-- R-I-G-H-T-F-U-L C-O-M-M-U-N-I-C-A-T-I-O-N-S (e.g., Comment Logs/ Clogs... and including links!), are, NONETHELESS, "popping up" all over the Net, through the offerings of countless "democratic servers", and "viking netizens"/ Comment Loggers/ Cloggers! And!... and just like the canned meat!... the "electronic product" is still edible!-- i.e., "nutritious food"!
    -----
    Some examples of these cited categories of "unsolicited/ unwanted messages" being referred to as SPAM, include:
    -----
    ◾The first ever spam email, on May 3, 1978. Gary Thuerk, a marketer for the Digital Equipment Corporation, blasted out a message to nearly 400 of the 2600 people on ARPAnet (the DARPA-funded “first Internet”-- so-called!). Naturally... he was selling something (computers!... or, more specifically, information about open houses!... where people could check out the computers!). He... as a result... annoyed a lot of people. But... he also had some success with a few recipients!... who were interested, in what he was pushing. And thus... the "electronic version" of SPAM, was born.
    -----
    Here’s the text of that glorious-- first-ever-- message (and as it was... in all caps!):
    _____

    “DIGITAL WILL BE GIVING A PRODUCT PRESENTATION OF THE NEWEST MEMBERS OF THE DECSYSTEM-20 FAMILY; THE DECSYSTEM-2020, 2020T, 2060, AND 2060T. THE DECSYSTEM-20 FAMILY OF COMPUTERS HAS EVOLVED FROM THE TENEX OPERATING SYSTEM AND THE DECSYSTEM-10 COMPUTER ARCHITECTURE. BOTH THE DECSYSTEM-2060T AND 2020T OFFER FULL ARPANET SUPPORT UNDER THE TOPS-20 OPERATING SYSTEM.
    -----
    THE DECSYSTEM-2060 IS AN UPWARD EXTENSION OF THE CURRENT DECSYSTEM 2040 AND 2050 FAMILY. THE DECSYSTEM-2020 IS A NEW LOW END MEMBER OF THE DECSYSTEM-20 FAMILY AND FULLY SOFTWARE COMPATIBLE WITH ALL OF THE OTHER DECSYSTEM-20 MODELS.
    -----
    WE INVITE YOU TO COME SEE THE 2020 AND HEAR ABOUT THE DECSYSTEM-20 FAMILY AT THE TWO PRODUCT PRESENTATIONS WE WILL BE GIVING IN CALIFORNIA THIS MONTH. THE LOCATIONS WILL BE:
    -----
    TUESDAY, MAY 9, 1978 – 2 PM
    -----
    HYATT HOUSE (NEAR THE L.A. AIRPORT)
    -----
    LOS ANGELES, CA
    -----
    THURSDAY, MAY 11, 1978 – 2 PM
    -----
    DUNFEY’S ROYAL COACH
    -----
    SAN MATEO, CA
    -----
    (4 MILES SOUTH OF S.F. AIRPORT AT BAYSHORE, RT 101 AND RT 92)
    -----
    A 2020 WILL BE THERE FOR YOU TO VIEW. ALSO TERMINALS ON-LINE TO OTHER DECSYSTEM-20 SYSTEMS THROUGH THE ARPANET. IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CONTACT THE NEAREST DEC OFFICE FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE EXCITING DECSYSTEM-20 FAMILY.
    _____

    Being on ARPAnet, that first "SPAM MESSAGE" provoked a swift crackdown from the governing authorities!... and inspired much contemplation among the tiny community on the Net, at the time! Richard Stallman is quoted as stating... and I quote him!... “Nobody should be allowed to send a message with a header that long... no matter what it is about.” Well... with all due respect to Richard Stallman... AND I DO RESPECT HIM (AND PRAY FOR HIS SOUL!)!... the CAPS notwithstanding, it is-- virtually!-- a simple message! What appears disconcerting!... TO SOME!... is that it is a "BATCH MESSAGE (i.e., a message sent to a number of people at once!)"!... and... that it smacks of a SALES PITCH! As if to suggest, that BATCH MESSAGES!... and with the hint of a SALES PITCH (like "flyers" in one's physical mailbox!)!... are not to be accepted on the Net! Well!... says who? We've all sent out physical-- and/ or electronic!-- batch messages!... and!... have tried to "pitch" some notion (like mailing out christmas cards!... or valentines greetings!)!... though, some of which, may not have been appreciated, or desired! And... if we've been informed by a recipient-- or two, or three!-- that a given batch message (like a Christmas card!... or valentine's greeting!) is unapprciated!... undesired!... then we have-- responsibly!-- discontinued sending such messages, to the affected party, or parties! But!... that doesn't mean we must be forever banned from sending out batch messages to people (e.g., visa vie, the post office!), if a soul-- or two, or three!-- has/ have expressed some disinterest in our spin/ pitch! And although a SALES PITCH may be delivered to people that the salesperson doesn't know (i.e., may not be familially related to!... or friends with!... the "salesperson"!), a salesperson has EVERY RIGHT to PITCH a product/ service (commercial, or otherwise!)! The problem arises-- however!-- when the salesperson won't receive NO for an answer!... and!... when the product/ service is of little use to anyone (or to the environment!)! And!... when the salesperson could care less to target the right audience (even if the product/ service is deemed sound!)! But!... denying a salesperson the Right-- UNDER RATIONAL CONDITIONS!-- to PITCH one's goods/ services, is to deny a person a DEMOCRATIC RIGHT to various CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS!... and, to deny people, products/ services that (and apart from any proprietary concerns!) may-- indeed!-- be useful to people!... to society!... and, to the environment!
    -----
    ◾A documented case among Usenet users, of March 31, 1993! This case is often-- incorrectly!-- stated to be the first usage of the term "SPAM" as referring to "SPAM messages"! This first Usenet case came when Richard Depew... who had been playing with some moderation software... accidentally ended up posting around 200 duplicate messages in a row, to the news.admin.policy newsgroup! Subsequently, the SAID first person to call this "SPAM", is thought to be Joel Furr, on March 31, 1993! Depew, himself... when he apologized!... referred to his messages, as "SPAM"! Given the time frame-- at least!-- for Joel Furr's use of this expression, and Depew's ready acknowledgement of the tag offered up by Furr, it's safe to conclude that both Furr and Depew were consciously and/ or unconsciously equating the electronic messages sent out as "SPAM messages", with the 1970s Monty Python skit!... and!... the skit's incorporation of Hormel Food's luncheon meat (although, Furr-- specifically!-- had made the initial conscious and/ or unconscious erroneous informal pejorative colloquial/ slang interpolative ascription of Hormel's luncheon meat, as bad, fake, or "popping up" meat!... or a combination of these skit associations!)!
    -----
    ◾A further “first use” of the word "SPAM" referring to certain electronic messages, comes from MUDs (for... multi-user-dungeons!)! This was a sort of real-time multi-person shared environment; a somewhat primitive version of The Sims Online, or Second Life!... and the like! In it, users could chat and interact with other people, locations, and objects, as well as create objects, and share them with the community! Basically, a really advanced chat room! The name MUD, comes from the fact that it reminded people of certain aspects of Dungeons and Dragons! In any event, "SPAMMING" was used here to refer to a few different things!... including: flooding the computer with random data (and not to be confused with batch communications!); “SPAM the database” by flooding it with new objects; and flooding a chat session with a ton of unwanted text (and... again!... not to be confused with batch communications!)!; and-- to extrapolate further!-- anything that had to do with filling other members' accounts with unwanted (but... to be sure!... HARMFUL!) electronic junk (and... once again!... not to be confused with batch communications!)! One of the earliest DOCUMENTED USES of the word "SPAM" from MUDders, arrived in 1990 (and so... predating the SAID "FIRST USE" tag, given to Joel Furr!)... when they were-- ironically enough-- discussing the origins of the word “SPAM” as referring to electronic junk messages (and so... bringing the "origins issue" of the association of "SPAM MEAT" with electronic junk messages, even farther back than 1990!)! Undocumented sources, say, that the term "SPAM" had been around quite a bit before its use among MUDders (a rational deduction!)... and evidenced, by the content of the documented message!
    -----
    ◾Others say that the term originated on Bitnet’s Relay (a very early chat system in the 1980s!)! Anecdotally!... users would occasionally come on and annoy other users with unwanted text!... including, the actual "SPAM SONG" from the 1970 Monty Python skit! And so... bringing the junk electronic communications association with "SPAM MEAT", to the doorstep of the 1970s Monty Python skit!
    -----
    ◾Another similar chat system (TRS-80) also reported the same phenomenon!... and also called it "SPAM"! Both of these latter two chat system origins, are not documented!... but, numerous former users of these systems have stated, that they remember this term being used commonly among users of these systems! And so... if one is to believe the "anecdotal evidence" provided by the users of the TRS-80 chat system, we have further (and I suggest "rational"!) proofs, for the Monty Python association!
    -----
    ◾In the early days of the internet, "SPAM" was significantly more annoying than it is today! Not just because of the lack of effective filters back then, but because of the extremely slow internet connections! Even sending ASCII Art was considered "SPAM"!... as a picture sent a few times in a row, could take an enormous amount of time to download! And, with-- often!-- no real way for the end user to get around this!... except, to wait it out!... or disconnect! And so!... how is sending ASCII Art... AND COMPOUNDED BY WAY OF THE EARLY PHYSICAL LIMITATIONS OF THE NET!... to be made SYNONYMOUS with D-E-L-I-B-E-R-A-T-E H-A-R-M to our early netizen civilization? Yes!... people were frustrated!... were upset!... but, truth be told, the frustration, and upset, was-- more often, than not!-- misplaced! For!... the ASCII Art wasn't to blame!... wasn't "SPAM"!... it was the L-I-M-I-T-A-T-I-O-N-S that ALL early netizens were forced to face!
    -----
    ◾In the early days of chat rooms, it was a common tactic among chatters to use large blocks of meaningless text to annoy other groups! For instance, Star Trek chatters would invade a Star Wars chat room, and post large amounts of random text!... making it impossible for the Star Wars people to talk! A veritable, NERD-FIGHT! But!... these were outright malicious attacks between dissenting Nerd Groups!... and should not be made SYNONYMOUS with batch communicating (in the sense as aforementioned!)!... nor, made SYNONYMOUS with an attempt to communicate some holiday greeting, or some pitch of a product/ service!
    -----
    ◾Around the same time, the term "SPAM" became popular among Usenet groups!... and also came to be referred to as "EMAIL SPAM"! And which quickly dominated the world of "SPAM"!... and still does, to this day! Early "SPAM BOTS" simply harvested emails from Usenet newsgroup messages, which gave them extremely large email lists to work from!
    -----
    ◾IRC (Internet Relay Chat) was named after Bitnet’s Relay, and-- no doubt!-- the members of which, were also familiar with the then emerging electronic communications buzzwords!
    -----
    ◾The earliest documented "COMMERCIAL SPAM MESSAGE" is often-- incorrectly!-- cited as the 1994 “Green Card Spam incident"! However, the ACTUAL first documented "COMMERCIAL MESSAGE"-- as indicated earlier!-- was for a new model of Digital Equipment Corporation computers!... and was sent-- as stated-- on ARPANET, by Gary Thuerk, in 1978!
    -----
    ◾The famed "Green Card Spam incident", was sent, April 12, 1994, by a husband and wife team of lawyers!... Laurence Canter, and Martha Siegal! They bulk posted (i.e., batch communicated!)... on Usenet newsgroups!... advertisements for immigration law services! The two would eventually defend their actions (post criticisms against same!), citing the Right to Free Speech! They also later wrote a book, titled, “How to Make a Fortune on the Information Superhighway“!... which encouraged, and demonstrated to people how to quickly, and freely reach over 30 million users on the Internet, by "Spamming"! Nevertheless... and despite their unfortunate use of the term "Spamming (and-- no doubt!-- IN REACTION!... due to the label that was imposed on them, and their work, from others!)" within their subsequent publication, their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to make a living, and to express themselves (and in a batch manner!), IS NOT DISALLOWED BY VIRTUE OF THEIR NASCENT NAIVETY ABOUT THE THEN EMERGING COMMERCIAL APPLICATIONS, OF THE NET... AND-- MOST NOTABLY!... THE PHYSICAL LIMITATIONS THAT THE NET, THAT THE NET, AND PERSONAL COMPUTING, WERE HAMSTRUNG BY! And maybe!... hindsight being 20 20!... this sad history of failed Net communications, suggests our need for a new type of email technoma!... one that demarcates between, and accommodates businesses, NGO+NPOs, and bureaucracies! A "tri-email mechanism (if you will!)"!... whereby, businesses, NGO+NPOs and bureaucracies can have their own "slot" for communication!... COUPLED WITH SEVERE PENALTIES-- BOTH CIVIL/ TORTIOUS, AND CRIMINAL!-- FOR DELIBERATELY EMAILING TO THE WRONG WINDOW (AND, UNSOLICITED!)! And... maybe!... a "fourth" email slot, for family, friends-- and otherwise permitted souls!-- to communicate (and!... with the same failsafeguards, as that to be met by members of any, or all, of the previously mentioned three Primary Sectors! (Sectors!... incidentally!... into which the sum communities on planet earth, are grouped!)
    -----
    ◾Before it was called “Spamming (i.e., unsolicited messages in a chat, or forum... or the like!)", the terms used-- generally!-- for these actions, were “flooding”, and “trashing”! And suggesting!... that the early concerns involved MALICIOUS ATTACKS against "community members"!... and not about batch processing, and spin/ pitch (e.g., the "CONTENT" referred to, in the story about Laurence Canter and Martha Siegel!)!
    -----
    ◾Various attempts have been made-- and are being made!-- to release numbers for the origins of "SPAM" by country! However... it remains to be seen how much these stats reflect MALICIOUS ATTACKS, versus attempts by sundry, to "batch communicate" SOUND CONTENT!... and to pitch the some SOUND notion, or product!
    -----
    ◾Of all "EMAIL SPAM", about 73%-- IT'S SAID!-- is attempting to steal the user’s identity in some way (through "phishing")!... including possible bank information, or gaining enough information to open new credit accounts from the user! But!... to include the aforementioned classes of "SPAM" with that associated with the historic reasons for "phishing", is to bend-- to the point of breaking!-- the traditional definition of the notion of "phishing (and... however unfortunate this traditional definition of the notion actually was!)"... and, of what constitutes pejorative description of "SPAM"/ "Spam"!
    -----
    ◾Of the 90 trillion emails sent in 2009 (for example!), 81%-- IT'S SAID!-- is "SPAM"! That amounts to about-- for example!-- 200 billion "SPAM EMAILS" sent every day in 2009! But... again!... there is no clear indication of what this stat means!... and what these "SPAM EMAILS" are composed/ comprised of! And this is no less the case, today!
    -----
    ◾Though not called "SPAM"!... at least, when the ensuing mention, emerged!... Telegraphic messages were extremely common in the 19th century... and, in the United States, in particular! Western Union allowed Telegraphic messages on its network to be sent to multiple destinations... and thus, wealthy American residents tended to get numerous messages through Telegrams... presenting unsolicited investment offers (and, the like!)! This wasn’t nearly as much of a problem in Europe!... due to the fact, that telegraphy was regulated by European post offices!
    -----
    ◾"SPAM (i.e., 'electronic messages'!)", was first added to a major English dictionary (in the New Oxford Dictionary of English), in 1998! It defined "SPAM" as “Irrelevant, or inappropriate messages sent on the Internet to a large number of newsgroups, or users.” And so... by 1998, the notion of "SPAM" had shifted from being nigh purely about batch communicating RATIONAL CONTENT, and the length/ size, and repetition of electronic messages, to being about ascribed, "MALICIOUS CONTENT (in reference to the terms, irrelevant, and inappropriate!)"!
    -----
    Well!... W-H-O is to D-E-F-I-N-E what constitutes "I-R-R-E-L-E-V-A-N-T"?... and/ or, "I-N-A-P-P-R-O-P-R-I-A-T-E"?... and W-H-O is to determine whether PERSONAL BATCH COMMUNICATIONS should be subsumed as irrelevant and/ or inappropriate Net communications (AND THEREBY, DENYING INDIVIDUALS THEIR RESPECTIVE DEMOCRATIC, AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO FREELY EXPRESS THEMSELVES IN A RESPONSIBLE BATCH MANNER OF THEIR CHOOSING; TO COMMUNICATE MATTERS THAT MAY GO BEYOND THEIR RESPECTIVE IMMEDIATE PERSONAL CONCERNS (E.G., BATCH COMMUNICATING THE MESSAGE YOU ARE NOW READING!); AND, AT ONCE, AFFORDING ONLY "ELITE INTERESTS" WITHIN BUSINESSES, BUREAUCRACIES, AND EVEN CERTAIN NGO+NPOS, THE SOLE/ EXCLUSIVE RESERVE TO COMMUNICATE IN A BATCH MANNER!... AND, AS THESE PRIMARY SECTORS HAVE DONE, FOR GENERATIONS!)? The question to be asked concerning "SPAM/ Spam (so-called!)", is: Are "ELITE INTERESTS" now using this buzzword to "D-E-L-I-M-I-T" the FREE EXPRESSION of netizens generally, in the G-U-I-S-E of protecting the public good from "U-N-D-E-S-I-R-A-B-L-E C-O-M-M-U-N-I-C-A-T-I-O-N-S (e.g., like the message you are now reading!)"?
    -----
    ◾The general term "spam (with all small letters!)"... today!... has taken another slight shift in meaning! It is now becoming common for people to refer to A-N-Y unsolicited/ unwanted advertisements, messages, or telemarketer calls, as "SPAM"/ "Spam"!... and!... even if-- and when!-- the former two means of communication, may not even be electronically based! A code, for... if we (whoever we is!) don't like your FREE EXPRESSION, we'll label it spam, Spam, or SPAM!... AND E-N-D, YOUR "FREE EXPRESSSION (and in particular, your BATCH COMMUNICATION!)"!
    -----
    The debate over how to deal with "spam" ignores the most important issue: CENSORSHIP ON THE INTERNET IS ALREADY AN ACCEPTED AND PUBLICLY ACKNOWLEDGED POLICY!... A-N-D M-O-S-T P-E-O-P-L-E D-O-N-'-T R-E-A-L-I-Z-E T-H-A-T!
    -----
    Not to long ago, America On Line announced its intention to start charging people a "license fee" to send bulk email to AOL subscribers!
    -----
    The resulting shiver traveling up the spines of mailing list managers, and Internet providers all over the world, quickly morphed into an A-L-L T-O-O R-A-R-E "quasi-collective outcry", that actually forced AOL into a "half-step" backwards! Upon reconsideration, the Internet giant announced it would CONTINUE to offer the "license"!... but, for those who don't want the "license", it would also CONTINUE to treat bulk email as it had up to that point!
    -----
    Whatever sighs of relief one might have discerned, are-- in reflection!-- the sounds of an Internet community THREATENED with a deadly "kick to the head"!... and relieved that it only had to cope with a "boot on its throat"!... AND!... W-I-T-H N-O L-E-G-A-L J-U-S-T-I-F-I-C-A-T-I-O-N F-O-R I-T-S A-C-T-I-O-N-S (and in particular, N-O C-O-N-S-T-U-T-I-O-N-A-L J-U-S-T-I-F-I-C-A-T-I-O-N!)!
    -----
    In fact, the entire debate over the potential harm in AOL's once "plan", overshadows the fact that large commercial providers' response to the problem of "spam" already represents A D-A-N-G-E-R-O-U-S A-N-D P-O-T-E-N-T-I-A-L-L-Y C-R-I-P-P-L-I-N-G A-T-T-A-C-K O-N T-H-E C-U-L-T-U-R-E A-N-D F-U-N-C-T-I-O-N-I-N-G O-F T-H-E I-N-T-E-R-N-E-T A-S A V-E-H-I-C-L-E O-F F-R-E-E S-P-E-E-C-H!
    -----
    Now let's be clear: email is in crisis because of the huge amount of unwanted bulk email we all receive!... and like-- as I've said!-- the physical letters received at our respective front doors!
    -----
    The issue, here, isn't that the large providers have finally RECOGNIZED THE PROBLEM!... and are trying to deal with "IT"! Trying to DEHUMIDIFY the house when it's already FLOODED, shows a lack of vision!... to say the least!
    -----
    The problem is their RESPONSE! And!... at its root (and always a good place to start!)... it comes down to their D-E-F-I-N-I-T-I-O-N (if S-U-C-H, should be ALLOWED the luxury!) of "SPAM"/ Spam"/ "spam"!... AND!... R-E-G-A-R-D-L-E-S-S O-F T-H-E-I-R D-E-F-I-N-I-T-I-O-N!... WHETHER BATCH COMMUNICATION SHOULD BE "CAUGHT" WITHIN T-H-E-I-R "FILTER OF JUSTICE"!
    -----
    Most people have a pretty simple definition of latest "SPAM" variant, "spam": it's bulk email, we don't want!
    -----
    And we then go back to a similar "popular definition" that flows from the "unwanted bulk email" definition: "spam", is bulk email sent without a reasonable expectation that the people receiving it would be interested in it!
    -----
    And that corollary definition developed, because most of the "spam" one receives is sent by people who have simply acquired, or purchased, huge lists of email addresses!... and, with no reasonable expectation-- as I've stated!-- that the people on these respective lists WOULD WANT TO READ WHAT THEY'VE BEEN SENT IN THE WAY OF A "BATCH COMMUNICATION"! It's "shotgun marketing"!... in its crudest form! So!... the recipient's "REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF INTEREST", is a pretty important component!
    -----
    BUT!... the "COMMERCIAL INTERNET" ignores that! INSTEAD!... the LARGE PROVIDERS (groups that we're A-L-L supposed to allow to do their thing!) define "SPAM"/ "Spam"/ "spam" as A-N-Y "unsolicited bulk email": email sent to more than a small handful of people (and S-O-M-E of whom-- of course!-- may not want it!)! And such smaller bulk emailers might do that, because they have no idea of what one might want!... or be interested in! And!... such bulk email distributors, and senders of such bulk emailings, have-- yet!-- to develop a method, of figuring that out!
    -----
    And so... the "COMMERCIAL INTERNET (and, its 'ELITE INTERESTS'!)" has declared a W-A-R against almost all bulk email!... making the terms "SPAM"/ "Spam"/ "spam" useless (i.e., redundant!)!... and making EMAIL CENSORSHIP an "O-B-L-I-G-A-T-O-R-Y P-U-B-L-I-C C-Y-B-E-R V-A-C-C-I-N-A-T-I-O-N P-O-L-I-C-Y"! In other words, do as T-H-E-Y SAY!... BUT!... NOT AS THEY D-O!
    -----
    THESE, have "TAGGED" A-N-Y bulk email the moment "someone" complains (AND MAYBE!... FROM A ELITE CORPORATE BOARDROOM!... OR OTHER, "TACTICAL BUNKER"!)! And!... THESE make it S-O-O-O E-A-S-Y to complain!... that people can just push the "COMPLAINT BUTTON (AND WITHOUT KNOWING THE DIGITAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS RAMIFICATIONS OF THEIR 'PUSH'!)"! If there are a number of "complaints"!... and usually three, or four, are good enough!... THESE (AND THEIR AGENTS!) will block the issuer, of that email! THEY (AND THEIR AGENTS!) monitor "emailers" who are sending the SAME EMAIL to more than a handful of people, and "list" "SPAMMERS/ Spammers/ spammers" who have had "CONVENIENT AND TACTICAL" "complaints" lodged against them (like those depicted in Ray Bradbury's book... and eventual film!... Fahrenheit 451!), so those with a "complaint history" can be MORE QUICKLY blocked! And!... this has now extended to the Copying and Pasting by such "TARGETED INDIVIDUALS", of "R-O-G-U-E, B-U-L-K C-O-M-M-E-N-T L-O-G-S/ C-L-O-G-S" on multiple websites, in the way of CLOGS on Blogging stories (and!... even without one's use of a "personal" Email App, and/ or "personal" email address!... e.g., using the email address of an agreeing third party, to enable/ facilitate acceptance of a Clog, in a given site!)!
    -----
    What's M-O-S-T D-A-N-G-E-R-O-U-S, is that THEY keep "records" of the "TARGETED'S" IP address, and the numeric address of the server, the "TARGETED" uses (e.g., through the efforts of groups covertly and overtly "ALGORITHMICALLY EMBEDDED" within websites... such as the group at, http://projecthoneypot.org/!... and bodies such as SPAMHAUS, and STOPFORUMSPAM!)!
    -----
    Project Honey Pot is a web-based "honeypot network", which uses software embedded in web sites (IF YOU CAN IMAGINE CONSCIONABLE WEBSITES ALLOWING THIS!) to collect information about IP addresses used when harvesting e-mail addresses for "SPAM"/ "Spam"/ "spam (but now!... also including those who have avoided 'personal' 'email App/ address deployment'!)", or other similar purposes, such as bulk mailing and "email fraud"! The "project" also solicits the "donation" of unused "MX entries" from domain owners!
    -----
    In 2007 the "Project" began a number of NEW INITIATIVES!... including a "QuickLinks program" that makes it easier for more people to "p-a-r-t-i-c-i-p-a-t-e"!... as well as a system to track "COMMENT LOG/ CLOG SPAM"! The Project has also launched a free new service called http:BL, which leverages the data to allow website administrators to keep "malicious web robots" off their sites! CODE, for!... let's keep any "PRYING EYES" from getting a "HANDLE" of what we're R-E-A-L-L-Y D-O-I-N-G!... AND!... HOW "P-O-L-I-T-I-C-A-L-L-Y A-N-D S-O-C-I-A-L-L-Y S-T-A-N-K-Y, OUR S-T-U-F-F ACTUALLY S-T-I-N-K-S!
    -----
    In addition to collecting information which is made available on a "top 25 list" at periodic intervals, the project organizers also "help" various "l-a-w e-n-f-o-r-c-e-m-e-n-t" agencies combat private and commercial unsolicited "BULK EMAILING O-F-F-E-N-C-E-S"! And!... overall!... work to "help" reduce the amount of "SPAM"/ Spam"/ "spam" being sent and received on the Internet (POOR NETIZENS!)! The information collected is also used in "research and development" of NEWER VERSIONS of the software, to further "I-M-P-R-O-V-E" the efforts of the group as a whole! But!... and in my view!... this is all just CODE, for... THE ELITE WILL CONTROL THE FLOW OF INFORMATION ON THE NET, AND "WE (THESE S-T-A-N-K P-O-W-E-R-S THAT BE!)" WILL PROMULGATE THE INSTIGATION OF CRYS AGAINST "SPAM"/ Spam"/ "spam (AND IF NEED BE!... FROM THEIR VERY BOARDROOMS, AND OTHER TACTICAL BUNKERS!-- BEFORE LUNCH!)", AND WILL PROMOTE THE MANIPULATION OF IP ADDRESSES (AND!... ANYTHING ELSE THESE CAN MANIPULATE!-- TO "WIN THE DAY"! AND!... DAMN ANYONE, THAT GETS IN THEIR WAY!)!
    -----
    Project Honey Pot was founded, and is managed by Unspam Technologies, Inc.... and in addition to "working" with various "law enforcement" agencies (A SAD JEST!... TO SAY THE LEAST!), the group "affiliates" with the "Internet Law Group", and ViaWest!
    -----
    I-- personally!-- have a different rationale for wanting to block (AND NOT JUST MERELY BLOCK!) a website, when a website communicates "HAZARDOUS CONTENT!... i.e., when a website den(ys) my access to ITS COMMENTS CONTENT by stealing (through ITS EMBEDDED SUBVERSIVE CONTENT!) my IP address, and then uses this to BLACKLIST me! Then!... I want to be able to BLACKLIST such a site from ITS USE of the Net!... AND NOT JUST FROM "MY" PC! And if "I" shouldn't be allowed to use such a measure/ technoma, THEN I DEMAND THAT SUCH A MEASURE BE INVOKED BY A DIGITAL HUMAN RIGHTS SUPPORTING GROUP M-A-N-D-A-T-E-D TO DO SO!... AND THAT THE ICON FOR SUCH A GROUP, BE AFFIXED ON MY-- AND EVERYONE ELSE'S!-- RESPECTIVE PC'S TASKBAR!
    -----
    NO WEBSITE OWNER... NOR TECHNOMA IN THE CONTROL OF A SITE OWNER!... SHOULD BE ABLE TO CAPTURE AN IP ADDRESS OF A USER!... LET ALONE, TO USE SAME, TO BLOCK A USER FROM ACCESSING ONE'S SITE! AND USERS SHOULD BE MADE I-M-M-E-D-I-A-T-E-L-Y A-W-A-R-E OF WHO AND/ OR WHAT HAS MADE OFF WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE IP ADDRESS, THROUGH AN A-U-T-O-M-A-T-I-C, A-U-T-H-O-R-I-Z-E-D (I.E., A M-A-N-D-A-T-E-D!) T-R-A-N-S-P-A-R-E-N-T, R-E-A-L T-I-M-E, R-E-M-O-T-E, D-I-G-I-T-A-L H-U-M-A-N R-I-G-H-T-S S-E-C-U-R-I-T-Y I-N-T-E-R-M-E-D-I-A-R-Y "WEBSITE INTERFACE TECHNOMA"! AND!... AFTERUPON A USER'S CONFIRMATION OF WHO, AND/ OR WHAT HAS ABSCONDED WITH ONE'S IP ADDRESS, SUCH A NETIZEN SHOULD BE AFFORDED AN A-U-T-O-M-A-T-I-C, A-U-T-H-O-R-I-Z-E-D (I.E., A M-A-N-D-A-T-E-D!) T-R-A-N-S-P-A-R-E-N-T, R-E-A-L T-I-M-E, R-E-M-O-T-E, D-I-G-I-T-A-L H-U-M-A-N R-I-G-H-T-S S-E-C-U-R-I-T-Y I-N-T-E-R-M-E-D-I-A-R-Y TECHNOMA/ MECHANISM, TO INTERVENE IN THE MITIGATION/ END OF A-N-Y A-N-D A-L-L R-E-A-L AND I-M-M-I-N-E-N-T THREATS TO A USER'S RESPECTIVE SITE ACCESS!... AND RESULTANTLY, TO A NETIZEN'S DIGITAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS! FOR!... TO LEAVE THE ACTUAL INTERVENTION RE A SITE OWNER'S BREACHES IN THE HANDS OF RESPECTIVE NETIZENS WHO ARE POTENTIALLY ILL-EQUIPPED TO TACKLE THE TECHNOMA WITH WHICH USERS MAY BE CONFRONTED, IS TO--BY DEFAULT!-- ENABLE THOSE MORE EQUIPPED, AND SKILLED, TO UNDERMINE THE WEBSITE ACCESS OF NETIZENS!... AND, THEIR RESPECTIVE DIGITAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS! FOR!... SOME OF THE BREACHES AGAINST USERS CURRENTLY IN PLAY, ARE BY WAY OF "P-R-O-F-E-S-S-I-O-N-A-L I-N-T-E-R-N-E-T G-A-T-E-K-E-E-P-E-R-S/ P-L-A-Y-E-R-S", P-O-S-S-E-S-S-I-N-G S-O-P-H-I-S-T-I-C-A-T-E-D, A-N-D I-N-C-O-M-P-R-E-H-E-S-I-B-L-E A-L-G-O-R-I-T-H-M-S!
    -----
    However!... if a holder of an IP address poses an I-L-L-E-G-A-L software/ hardware threat to a site, then the most appropriate security measure for a website owner, is to invoke an A-U-T-O-M-A-T-I-C, A-U-T-H-O-R-I-Z-E-D (I.E., A M-A-N-D-A-T-E-D!) T-R-A-N-S-P-A-R-E-N-T, R-E-A-L T-I-M-E, R-E-M-O-T-E, D-I-G-I-T-A-L H-U-M-A-N R-I-G-H-T-S S-E-C-U-R-I-T-Y I-N-T-E-R-M-E-D-I-A-R-Y MECHANISM, TO INTERVENE IN THE MITIGATION/ CESSATION OF A-N-Y A-N-D A-L-L R-E-A-L A-N-D I-M-M-I-N-E-N-T T-H-R-E-A-T-S TO ONE'S RESPECTIVE "USER- ACCESSED" SITE!... AND!... TO ONE'S DIGITAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS! AND OWNERS SHOULD BE MADE I-M-M-E-D-I-A-T-E-L-Y A-W-A-R-E OF WHO AND/ OR WHAT HAS I-L-L-E-G-A-L-L-Y POSED A SOFTWARE/ HARDWARE THREAT TO ONE'S SITE, THROUGH THE APPROPRIATE REMOTE DIGITAL HUMAN RIGHTS INTERMEDIARY'S WEBSITE INTERFACE TECHNOMA! FOR!... TO LEAVE THE INTERVENTION RE USER-BASED BREACHES IN THE HANDS OF RESPECTIVE SITE OWNERS, RATHER THAN AN A-U-T-H-O-R-I-Z-E-D D-I-G-I-T-A-L H-U-M-A-N R-I-G-H-T-S I-N-T-E-R-M-E-D-I-A-R-Y, IS TO INVITE THE POTENTIAL A-R-B-I-T-R-A-R-Y D-E-N-I-A-L OF WEBSITE ACCESS TO USERS!... AND THEREBY, TO POTENTIAL VIOLATIONS OF THE DIGITAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS OF WEBSITE USERS!
    -----
    AND SO!... EVERY STATE OF THE ART (S.O.T.A.) SECURITY MEASURE AVAILABLE MUST BE INVOKED, THAT WOULD PREVENT A USER'S IP ADDRESS FROM BEING STOLEN!... AND IN ORDER TO UPHOLD A USER'S FREE ACCESS TO PUBLIC SITES, AND TO PROTECT THE DIGITAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS AFFORDED NETIZENS! AND!... CONVERSELY!... EVERY SOTA SECURITY MEASURE AVAILABLE MUST BE INVOKED, THAT WOULD PROTECT AN OWNER'S SITE FROM A USER'S I-L-L-E-G-A-L R-E-A-L A-N-D I-M-M-I-N-E-N-T T-H-R-E-A-T-S TO OWNERS' SITE OPERATIONS! AND!... IF THERE IS TO BE A-N-Y A-U-T-H-O-R-I-Z-E-D (I.E., M-A-N-D-A-T-E-D!) T-R-A-N-S-P-A-R-E-N-T, R-E-A-L T-I-M-E WEBSITE OWNER CONTROLLED, AND SITE-USER CONTROLLED O-F-F-T-H-E-S-H-E-L-F, S-T-A-N-D-A-L-O-N-E TECHNOMAE/ MECHANISMS TO INTERVENE IN THE MITIGATION/ END OF R-E-A-L A-N-D I-M-M-I-N-E-N-T T-H-R-E-A-T-S ON EITHER SIDE OF THE PROVERBIAL FENCE, THEN LET BOTH OWNERS AND USERS BE U-T-T-E-R-L-Y A-W-A-R-E OF THEIR RESPECTIVE (M-A-N-D-A-T-E-D) M-U-T-U-A-L O-B-L-I-G-A-T-I-O-N TO IMPLEMENT ONLY A-U-T-H-O-R-I-Z-E-D/ M-A-N-D-A-T-E-D TECHNOMAE/ MECHANISMS!... OR, SUCH SUFFER THE CIVIL AND/ OR CRIMINAL REPERCUSSIONS/ CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR USE OF A-N-Y A-N-D A-L-L U-N-A-U-T-H-O-R-I-Z-E-D TECHNOMAE/ MECHANISMS (AND!... REPERCUSSIONS/ CONSEQUENCES, BY WAY OF THE TASKBAR ICON-- AND AUTHORITY!-- AS AFOREMENTIONED!)!
    -----
    And therefore!... the technoma, and practice, discussed at Goog result, "IP address blocking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"... poses a FUNDAMENTAL THREAT to a user's Right to Access a given site!... to RESPONSIBLE AND CONSCIONABLE FREE EXPRESSION on a given site (HOWEVER POLITICALLY, AND/ OR SOCIALLY "PROBLEMATIC"!)!... and, thereby, to a user's Digital Human Rights! And thus!... the information at Goog result, "Block a specific IP address from accessing your website - Media"... should not only be disallowed on the Net!... the site itself, should be S-H-U-T D-O-W-N!-- AND, EVERY SITE LIKE IT! For!... the threat possed at this just mentioned site, and similar sites, is as much of a threat to the day-to-day FREE EXPRESSION of netizens, as any Government-based commissions and/ or omissions (directly, and/ or indirectly evidenced!)!
    -----
    In fact!... my recent "CYBEREPHIPHANY", and "CYBEREURIKA MOMENT", re a method for RESPONSIBLY RANKING Search Engine search results, is as follows...
    -----
    IT IS MY POSITION, THAT ALL SEARCH RESULTS (REGARDLESS OF THE SEARCH ENGINE BEING USED!) SHOULD BE "M-A-N-D-A-T-E-D" TO BE "WEIGHTED" IN FAVOUR OF RESULTS THAT ALLOW FOR PUBLIC COMMENTARY (AND THUS, REQUIRING A COMMENTS SECTION TO BE PRESENT WITHIN SITES, IN ORDER FOR A WEBSITE TO BE GIVEN "PREFERENTIAL RANKING" WITHIN A-N-Y SEARCH ENGINE!)! AND THUSLY!... ELIMINATING THE CURRENT PRACTICE OF SEARCH ENGINES, AND/ OR "CERTAIN" THIRD-PARTY "ELITE INTERESTS", FROM INDIVIDUALLY, OR JOINTLY, "M-A-N-I-P-U-L-A-T-I-N-G" "POLITICALLY CHARGED", OR "LEANING" COMMENTARY AWAY FROM "TOP BILLING (THROUGH 'SEARCH ENGINE OPTIMIZATION'/ SEO ALGORITHMS!... AND/ OR OTHER 'A-N-T-I SEARCH NEUTRALITY' AND 'A-N-T-I NET NEUTRALITY' ALGORITHMS!)"!... AND!... SIMPLY BECAUSE, SEARCH ENGINES, AND/ OR "CERTAIN" THIRD-PARTY INTERESTS FEEL, THAT THESE ARE DIRECTLY AND/ OR INDIRECTLY ADVERSELY "POLITICALLY/ SOCIALLY IMPACTED (BY COMMISSION, AND/ OR OMISSION!... DIRECTLY AND/ OR INDIRECTLY EVIDENCED!)" BY THE OTHERWISE A-L-L-O-W-E-D "POSITIONAL RANKING" OF SUCH "POLITICALLY CHARGED", OR "LEANING" COMMENTARY! AND THUSLY!... NO "NEUTRAL WEBSITE (I.E., ONE HAVING N-O COMMENTS SECTION!)" SHOULD BE ALLOWED AT THE TOP OF SEARCH RESULTS RANKINGS! UNLESS!... N-O C-O-M-M-E-N-T-S HAVE BEEN EXPRESSED WITHIN THE SUM NUMBER OF THE "THEN" "COMMENTS FACILITATING SITES" LISTED WITHIN A SEARCH ENGINE'S SEARCH RESULTS (RESPECTIVE OF A GIVEN SEARCH EXPRESSION USED!)!... OR!... THE SITE DOES NOT LEND ITSELF TO PUBLIC COMMENTARY (I.E., THE NATURE OF THE WEBSITE, "LOGICALLY PRECLUDES" FACILITATING PUBLIC DISCUSSION!)! THIS WILL THEN MEAN, THAT F-R-E-E D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T-I-C E-X-P-R-E-S-S-I-O-N WILL "HOLD SWAY" OVER ANY AND ALL OTHER "RANKING CONSIDERATIONS", RE THE RANKING OF SEARCH ENGINE SEARCH RESULTS! THE NEXT STEP, WOULD BE TO ADDRESS THE DIGITAL HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS INHERE WITHIN THE VERY DESIGN (OR FAILED DESIGN!) OF THE COMMENTS SECTION WITHIN RESPECTIVE WEBSITES!... AND, IN ADDITION, TO PUTTING A STOP TO IP ADDRESS THEFT, AND MANIPULATION!
    -----
    For example, how is the nonsense at, https://help.disqus.com/customer/portal/articles/466223-who-deleted-or-removed-my-comment-, allowed to go on anywhere in the free western world?... let alone, in North America!
    -----
    No Blog Hosting Service should be allowed to ban a netizen across multiple sites because "I-T" "feels" that a netizen is issuing "SPAM"/ "Spam"/ "spam"! First of all, we're talking about SEPARATE WEBSITES here!... and second, it's been traditionally up to a site (although, this is deemed a F-U-N-D-A-M-E-N-T-A-L V-I-O-L-A-T-I-O-N of Digital Human Rights!) to make a "judgement call" re a user's continued use of a given site! It's not for a Blog Hosting Service... and based on one or two "complaints" offered up (or not!) re "spam"!... to then deny access to ALL SITES that that Blog Hosting Service services! And with regard to Disqus-- specifically!-- its site information indicates that it's NOT INVOLVED in the issues involving CONTENT!... and, that such issues must be addressed by a Site's "Moderator", and "Site Community"! But!... even such a determination by "Site Moderators", and "Site Communities", is the "slippery slope" to entrenching "CYBER GATED COMMUNITIES"!... AND THEREFORE, SUCH AN EVIL SHOULD NOT BE TOLERATED ANYWHERE ON THE NET! And one additional NASTY REVELATION re Disqus!... AND A C-L-E-A-R I-N-D-I-C-A-T-I-O-N that attempts are being made to eliminate A-N-Y F-O-R-M of Net BATCH COMMUNICATION (although, in this instance, it's merely repeating a message at different sites!)!... is a notice I've received at various sites afterupon "Sending" a comment, that the sent message was "flagged" as a "Duplicate message"! In other words, despite being on an entirely different site!... and, in most instances, never having used the site before!... and!... Disqus is S-A-I-D to be "UNINVOLVED" with the CONTENT on a site!... Disqus is AUTOMATICALLY flagging content that has appeared on another Disqus operated site! And although I have-- for now!-- technically overcome this A-P-P-A-L-L-Y-I-N-G B-R-E-A-C-H of Digital Human Rights (and!... as well!... their denial of the ability to Copy and Paste larger segments of prepared text!)!... their very ability to even invoke such Digital Human Rights denying technoma, indicates a S-H-O-C-K-I-N-G L-A-C-K on the part of our N-E-T G-A-T-E-K-E-E-P-E-R-S (both L-E-G-I-T-I-M-A-T-E, and I-L-L-I-G-I-T-I-M-A-T-E!) to "C-H-E-C-K" this "I-N-T-E-R-N-E-T S-C-O-U-R-G-E/ B-L-I-G-H-T"! And so!... if someone is anxious to "spread the word" regarding a deemed NECESSARY MESSAGE for the PUBLIC GOOD, Disqus (and other such Blog Hosting Services!) will "E-N-S-U-R-E" that that message will be limited to an "originating site"! WELL!... NOT ON MY WATCH!
    -----
    Many "INTERNET GATEKEEPERS" have come out over the years claiming that allowing ANONYMITY to flourish on the Net, is a threat to "c-u-s-t-o-m-e-r s-e-c-u-r-i-t-y"!... and should be stopped at all costs! And so, some sites have set up sophisticated hurdles for would-be participants, so that the CLIQUE "CYBER GATED CUSTOMER COMMUNITY CLIENTELE" of the site, can communicate amongst themselves!... minus those annoying/ pesky "ANONYMOUS LIBERAL CYBER GATECRASHERS"!
    -----
    But!... lo!... and behold!... these very same S-E-L-F_A-P-P-O-I-N-T-E-D and hypocritical "INTERNET GATEKEEPERS" have been instrumental in allowing local TV, Radio, and Newspapers to disappear from communities!... and, thereby, allowing corporate, political, and "pseudo-social special interests" to run local communities as these see fit (I.E., I-N T-H-E B-O-O-T-H!... I-N T-H-E B-A-C-K!... I-N T-H-E C-O-R-N-E-R!... I-N T-H-E D-A-R-K!)! And without local TV, Radio, or Newspapers looking over the shoulders of corporate, political, and "pseudo-social special interests", there's no telling what these interests are up to! And... for all we know!... such could be up to theft, rape, child abuse!... and even murder! And how would we know otherwise?... who's holding them to account?
    -----
    And so... what's to be done? How are we to hold corporate, political, and "pseudo-social special interests" to account, when all local corporate media coverage is absent from local communities? While!... all the while!... corporate, political, and "pseudo-social special interests"-- AND THEIR SUPPORTERS!-- would compel netizens to sign up, sign on, sign in, log in, log on, register, become a member, secure an account, give one's name, give one's physical address, give one's email, and otherwise receive their "BEASTLY MARK", in order tO "SHARE" in their "GATED COMMUNICATION"! A-B-S-O-L-U-T-E-L-Y D-I-S-G-U-S-T-I-N-G!
    -----
    The answer, is... obviously!... TO REMOVE CORPORATE, POLITICAL, AND PSEUDO-SOCIAL SPECIAL INTEREST CONTROL OVER INFORMATION COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY WORLDWIDE! AND!... TO MANDATE THAT ICT (HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE!) BE MADE W-H-O-L-L-Y D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T-I-C!... AND!... THAT N-O I-N-T-E-R-E-S-T WILL BE ALLOWED TO BREACH THE DEMOCRATIC DIGITAL HUMAN RIGHTS OF NETIZENS (DIRECTLY AND/ OR INDIRECTLY!... BY COMMISSION AND/ OR OMISSION!)!
    -----
    These efforts re "SPAM"/ "Spam"/ spam, and IP manipulation, are supported by a mini "industry" of "spam detection companies"!... the "CORPORATE INTERNET'S" version, of the "VIGILANTE (something akin to the Conservative 'TEAPARTY MOVEMENT'!)"!... who conduct similar "monitoring" tactics as the LARGE PLAYERS invoke!... and publish "BLACKLISTS" of suspected "SPAMMERS"/ "Spammers"/ "spammers", and hosts of "SPAMMERS"/ "Spammers"/ spammers"!
    -----
    So... to return to AOL!... to have your email that's been sent to a subscriber of these "providers" blocked, you don't even have to send bulk email!... all you need do, is to SHARE A SERVER with people who've been "LISTED"!... and almost all of us, share servers! How conveniently UNDEMOCRATIC!... AND A-N-T-I SOCIAL!
    -----
    Bringing the D-A-N-G-E-R of all this into relief!... some companies take "short-cuts" that effectively stop communications!-- "SPAM"/ "Spam"/ "spam", or not! AOL routinely blocked, hindered, or delayed emails with the SAME CONTENT sent to more than a threshold number of AOL subscribers! Many Internet workers thought the "threshold" was about 50, to 100! AOL wasn't saying! But the interference happened!... and it made no difference if these people had signed on to the email list, or not!
    -----
    In general... short-cut, or not!... if you were a subscriber of a major commercial provider, there was a good possibility you didn't receive all of the legitimate email that was sent to you!... including messages from a list to which you've subscribed! And the same is true today!... and on sundry platforms!
    -----
    You'd never know it, unless you noticed something wrong: they don't tell you that they've HIJACKED your email! The people who send it to you, won't be informed! They don't tell the provider either! That I know!... from personal experience! We find out if someone tells us that recipients of their email are mysteriously not receiving it! Then we inquire with the provider of that recipient!... and... to remove the "block"!... we must engage in a "Kafkaesque process" that consumes time, and energy-- and, which must often be repeated, periodically!
    -----
    While blocking and destroying your email is clearly an attack on the First Amendment in America, the timing and political import shouldn't be lost on ANYONE! Just at the time when CARING MOVEMENTS are starting to use the Internet effectively, such are faced with measures that could drive these voices into silence!
    -----
    All of the major, successful Internet campaigns run by progressive activists (from impeachment, to health care, to anti-war, to "Katrina-like events"!) use UNSOLICITED EMAIL! HOW COULD IT BE DONE OTHERWISE? How in the world do you communicate with people to get them information they don't have, IF YOU ONLY EMAIL TO PEOPLE WHO HAVE TOLD YOU THEY WANT IT! ONE COULD NEVER BUILD A CAMPAIGN!... LET ALONE, EXPAND IT!
    -----
    Our traditional tools have always included leaflets in the mail!... flyers handed out!... public speeches, and phone calls! And now!... we have this powerful tool!... the Internet! We've been able to use historic tools, because... for a century!... we have fought tooth, and nail, to protect and expand our CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT (AND AROUND THE WORLD!) TO PROTECT "F-R-E-E" SPEECH!
    -----
    Sure!... and once again!... unwanted email can be a pain! And the same... again!... is true of bulk postal mail, and leaflets!... and also!... with live events shoved in one's face during a rally!... and when street organizers INSIST in promoting a message that such feel "should require" minutes of one's valuable time, to listen to!
    -----
    But few of us would ask the post office to stop any of our mail, or ask the police to arrest a street organizer (save, for an instance of OVERT ABUSE!)! Most THINKING SOULS understand... that in the end!... these "inconvenient incursions" benefit us all!... and!... sometimes!... give us information, WE NEED! And THINKING SOULS understand, that REPRESSION of these activities, would create FAR GREATER PROBLEMS, than the ones such "democratic activities"-- supposedly!-- represent!
    -----
    And!... there's NO DOUBT, that our "social need" to communicate will become even greater!... because our movements (and due to the unique benefits of the Net!) are continuously expanding, and we're emailing to many more people, than ever before! This, though!... then!... as a consequence-- AND UNFORTUNATELY!-- means greater "ELITE MONITORING"!... higher numbers of UNPROVOKED BLOCKING (whether of emails, or Comments Sections in websites!... if sites even facilitate the latter!), and further "campaigns of complaints"!
    -----
    What's most painfully ironic about this COMMERCIAL RESPONSE to "SPAM"/ Spam"/ "spam", is that it punishes CARING MOVEMENTS for something "SOMEONE ELSE" is doing! CARING MOVEMENTS don't email to large lists these know NOTHING about! Such can't afford it!... and... these don't organize in that way! CARING MOVEMENT bulk email is sent to carefully developed lists!... usually shared!... organization to organization!... and based on recipients' demonstrated interest, in the issue/ s that the CARING have emailed them about!
    -----
    That's not "SPAM"/ Spam"/ "spam"!... by any reasonable definition of the PERVERSE EXPRESSIONS! Although!... and oddly enough!... IT DOES APPLY TO OUR "COMMERCIAL BULK EMAIL PROVIDERS"! How quaint!
    -----
    So!... what's the answer to "SPAM"/ "Spam"/ "spam" to be? Allowing our "ELITE INTERESTS"... with the aid of those THESE have managed to con into "BARRICADING THE CYBER GATES" of the "CYBER CITY"!... to P-R-O-T-E-C-T U-S! I don't think so! And I don't think CONSCIONABLE and RESPONSIBLE netizens would want such I-N-T-E-R-E-S-T-S to run the "CYBER SHOW"! After all!... THE NET DOESN'T BELONG TO "T-H-E-M"!
    -----
    The "COMMERCIAL INTERNET" is not going to come up with the R-I-G-H-T S-O-L-U-T-I-O-N-S unless the people who use the Internet C-O-M-P-E-L it to do so! And the first step in empowering the "P-E-O-P-L-E", is for our CONSCIONABLE and RESPONSIBLE CARING MOVEMENTS to enter into the debate over Digital Human Rights!... and to C-O-M-P-E-L the debate, beyond the limited terms, "SPAM"/ "Spam"/ "spam"! And!... make the C-O-N-S-T-I-T-U-T-I-O-N-A-L P-R-O-T-E-C-T-I-O-N of our GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS, and ORGANIZING, as high of a priority on our SOCIAL AND POLITICAL AGENDAS, A-S A-N-Y B-E-I-N-G B-R-O-U-G-H-T T-O O-U-R A-T-T-E-N-T-I-O-N B-Y E-L-I-T-E I-N-T-E-R-E-S-T-S!
    -----
    To sum up... what we need, is a unique Icon on our respective taskbars, that... when tapped!... WILL SUMMON A GLOBAL COALITION OF CYBER ADVOCACY INTERESTS (THE LIKES OF WHICH, HAVE NEVER BEEN AMASSED ON PLANET EARTH TILL NOW!)!... THAT WILL EFFICIENTLY, AND EFFECTIVELY END THE SCURRILOUS SCOURGE OF "ELISTIST PRICKISM", AND WILL BRING THE WHOLE OF THE NET INTO "GLOBAL CONSTITUTIONALLY COMPLIANT" DIGITAL HUMAN RIGHTS HARMONY! P-E-R-I-O-D!
    -----
    Please!... no emails!
    -----
    P.S.: Some trivia concerning "SPAM (i.e., the luncheon meat!)", "Spam", and "spam (i.e., electronic communications!)", follows...
    -----
    ◾Other "backronyms" like "Spam" associated with "SPAM", are: “Something Posing As Meat”; “Specially Processed Artificial Meat”; “Stuff, Pork and Ham”; “Spare Parts Animal Meat”; and “Special Product of Austin Minnesota”!
    -----
    ◾"Backronyms" associated with "INTERNET SPAM/ Spam/ spam" include: “stupid pointless annoying messages”, and “shit posing as mail”! But the ULTIMATE LIST of such "backronyms"-- I'm sure!-- is longer than netizens have time to read!... and-- probably-- a tad more convoluted!
    -----
    ◾When the US offered the UK citizens affected by WWII, SPAM... while the UK struggled to rebuild their agricultural base!... the British citizens assumed it was an acronym!... and they "backronymed" it to, “Specially Processed American Meats”!
    -----
    ◾"SPAM" is a precooked meat product originally made of ham!... but-- now!-- is made from a variety of available meats! And, similar to "Spam"!... that was once composed of a clearly defined (though unfortunate!) notion of electronic communication!... but!... now!... is composed of a variety of available definitions, by ELITE INTERESTS, AND PSEUDO-SOCIAL SPAM OBJECTING NETIZENS!
    -----
    ◾Austin, Minnesota, is known as “SPAM town, USA” (and hence the previously cited "backronym"..."Special Product of Austin Minnesota"!)!... and not for INTERNET SPAM!... but, for the fact, that the town produces all of the food product sold in North America, South America, and Australia! "SPAM" sold in the UK, is produced in Denmark!... by the company, "Tulip"!... with which, Hormel has "farmed out" its product... and production!
    -----
    ◾Billions of cans of "SPAM", have been sold!
    -----
    ◾In the United States, Hawaii, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, eat the most "SPAM" per capita!... with an average of about 16 tins per person, per year!
    -----
    ◾Hawaii, Guam, and CNMI, all have McDonald’s restaurants that serve SPAM! Burger Kings in Hawaii also serve SPAM!... since 2007!... to better compete with the McDonalds there! And just like Internet Cafes!... which become the breeding ground, for the electronic counterpart!
    -----
    ◾Due to the extreme popularity of "SPAM" in Hawaii, Hawaiians have nicknamed "SPAM", “The Hawaiian Steak”! And no!... I don't know whether Barack Obama!... or his family!... like SPAM (i.e., the meat!)!

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Copying Is Not Theft
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.