Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Censorship Your Rights Online

Censorware and Memetic Warfare 244

Posted by jamie from the ceci-n'est-pas-une-meme dept.
I'm halfway through Susan Blackmore's book "The Meme Machine," and it's rekindled my interest in meme dispersal. In a memetic sense, the battle over filters in the Holland library is just one of implanting the right ideas in enough people's minds by the day of the vote. Here's a look at one of the more annoying memes the opposition is using: a lie about the results of my very own organization. Click for more.

Everyone's familiar with the term "meme" by now, so I don't have to explain that it's the unit of idea transmission. The struggle over Internet filters, or any other conflict where ideas, facts, opinions, and outlooks collide, is memetic in nature: it's memetic warfare.

All's fair in war, supposedly, but I'm someone who has been infected by the meme that we should all fight fair, even - especially - in the war of ideas.

Will the "fight fair" meme become popular in the long run? I hope so. But the way I see it, that will only happen if it is more successful at reproducing than its alternative: "fight dirty." In the long run, it doesn't matter what's right, or what's good, or what benefits us humans the most. The memes just spread because they're good at spreading.

In early 1999, my friend (now Slashdot writer) Michael Sims started a long process to obtain some Web logs from the state of Utah. Internet access for schools and libraries across the state was provided by a single network, and all their Web traffic went through proxies that had the same blocking software running. Their Web logs were a gold mine of data, showing both blocked and unblocked accesses. When users were blocked from something, the logs showed what category it was blocked in.

Our group, the Censorware Project, had been looking for a real-world test case of this software. Michael did a tremendous amount of work to file the papers, get permission to get the logs, have them delivered, gather them, and analyze them. He then wrote a brilliant report (the rest of us helped too).

What this let us do was see how blocking software's errors show up in the real world. We had known for years that the software has many mistakes in its blacklists, in every product we'd studied. But we had no data on how that affected users.

When all the data was crunched, two numbers surprised us. First, the amount of material blocked was quite small: about 0.6%. People were interested in things besides pornography on the internet. Who would have thought.

Second, just looking at the wrong blocks that we were able to find, the proportion was quite high: about one block in every 20 was Constitutionally protected material. That's a minimum - the minimum we were able to confirm. All in all, we identified over 5,000 occasions when people were blocked from reading protected material (totalling 300 unique Web sites).

Most measures of blocking software effectiveness focus on how much pornography it blocks. We weren't able to test that because we couldn't look through the 99.4% of unblocked material - over 53million URLs. Just too much data. But we did learn that, in Utah, 5% of the time, when the software said "you can't look at that," it was just plain wrong.

Ninety-five percent accuracy might sound like a nice high figure to base a good meme around. Who could argue with a number like 95%? But consider what this means for the 300 Web sites in question: each of them was blocked from being read by a great many public institutions in the state of Utah.

And the First Amendment protects publishers, not readers: it's freedom of the press, not freedom to read the press. When you're blocked from reading your favorite author, you might be annoyed, but if the censor were taken to court, the injured party would be the author.

This is exactly what we fought against the Communications Decency Act for. Except, in many ways, censorware is worse. If your site is one of the 5% that's wrongly blocked, you won't know it. Our government will stop people from reading what you have to say even if your site is completely innocent (like the Candy Land website), and nobody will bother to notify you. You won't ever know.

At least with the CDA, you'd have gotten a letter from the prosecutor telling you your site was censored - and nobody, but nobody, would ever have been censored for publishing the Bible.

(Yes, the Bible was one of the banned books we found in Utah, along with the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, etc. That kind of thing makes good memes.)

Michael put a lot of work into our report, and I even contributed a little, so I'm a little protective of that 5% meme. Which is why it was so jarring to open up a press kit distributed by the Family Research Council, last week, and find our work, cited in black and white, as support for the figure: "one in a million."

That's right, the exact same report which found one bad block in every twenty is now being cited as proving that Web sites are misblocked "one time in a million."

Now that's a good meme. "One in a million" sticks with you. It isn't backed up by any of the facts, but despite that handicap - or perhaps partly because of it - it has thrived.

It was first invented by a fellow named David Burt, who read our report not very carefully, and then decided he was going to do a little numerology of his own.

The first thing he did was ignore all the bad blocks we'd found that he thought were perfectly appropriate. For example, we'd found that the homepage of the band "The Offspring" was wrongly blocked - you may remember their songs from the fall of 1998. "I'm just a sucker with no self-esteem," and so on. (You're humming it now. Catchymeme.)

David Burt decided that The Offspring deserved to be blocked, and to illustrate why, quoted nine words from their Web site:

"These songs have ideas PLUS drugs, sex and ass-kicking"

He also decided it was OK to block BaywatchTV.com, BirthControl.com, the Starr Report, the Yahoo category "Society and Culture: Romance," and Glamour magazine. It was OK to block a page on the NASA Web site about a crackdown on hackers, because it "discusses hacking techniques." Both takedown.com and 2600.com should be blocked, he says, for the same reason. A fellow whose homepage includes a link to a PGP FAQ - no code or binaries - should be blocked for containing "cryptographic software."

Did I mention this man is a librarian?

After trimming out all the fat from our list, he got it down from over 300 sites to just 64. Of course, this was the list of unique sites. If he'd had all our numbers, he would have known that his changes affected our 5% figure by about 0.1% - this because the large majority of blocked sites are blocked few times.

There's some other nonsense he tried, like saying that we were deceitful to ignore blocked banner ads because they were surely all pornographic. In fact, four of the five top blocked ad sites were perfectly ordinary, and counting ads would have made our numbers more impressive, not less.

But his main meme was the number. Armed with his new figure "64", he performed a division by the largest number in our report, which was 54,000,000. Kind of like dividing apples by hydrogen. Of the 54,000,000 URLs, only 29% were page views; only 0.56% of those were blocked; and the previously-mentioned 5% of those were blocked incorrectly. From there he switched from blocks to unique blocks, cutting the actual figure of 5,000 down to his list of 64.

Then, dividing 64 by the original 54,000,000, he got 1 in 1.18... well, for the meme's sake he got one in a million.

Publishing this in April of 1999, David Burt ignored our corrections. Despite our offering all the raw data on CD-ROM, for the cost of the media, he just accused us of lying.

You can't say anything to that, without getting into a yes-you-are no-we're-not. We'd put out two press releases about this already. We told him to order the CD-ROMs and check for himself. Then we moved on.

But his meme began to spread. In June, the company that made the blocking software pulled the same trick, reported the results to Sen. John McCain - and then issued a press release about it. Our group was now cited as supporting their software by proving its accuracy. Since the numbers were so big anyway, they just used the 300 figure and called it an "accuracy rate of 99.9994%."

A group I've never heard of, the American Decency Association, now points to our study and says: "Filters Work!" They source is another group I've never heard of, the Michigan Decency Action Council. Word gets around.

So when I opened up the report "Internet Filtering and Blocking Technology," published by the Family Research Council and distributed at their Holland presentations, I was not surprised when I found the same meme on pages 9 and 14. (I was surprised to see them divide 64 into 54,000,000 and get 6 parts per million. But as long as they've blown the numbers so badly, a little botched division doesn't make any difference.)

I talked to two of the FRC techies about this and tried to explain what was wrong with the numbers. I got some mild interest. Will the FRC correct and reprint this report? Of course not. Admitting that DavidBurt fudges numbers might be a bad tactical move. The concluding two sections of the report have 31 footnotes, 28 of which reference no one but Mr.Burt.

I choose to be an optimist about the marketplace of ideas. I believe that truthful memes will proliferate in the long run, because enough people's brains select for truth.

But in the meantime, it's frustrating when my team takes below-the-belt punches from the guys who don't care about what's true.

I don't expect everyone reading this to share my memeplex on this issue. I know from reading the comments that many Slashdot readers think censorware in libraries is a good thing, and that's fine. In fact, I'll bet many of you are grinding your teeth that I keep using the word "meme" so damn much. That's fine too.

All I ask is that, when your memes start arguing with my memes, you make them fight fair. It's only right.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Censorware and Memetic Warfare More

Censorware and Memetic Warfare

Comments Filter:

  • That's marketing for you (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    People realise it but don't really whant to say it clearly: marketing is transforming the world into a cynical place.

    Each time you see an ad, it almost always stretches the truth.

    Same goes for the fore-mentionned articles about filtering internet, with the added bonus that the gain is not only economic, it is political.

    Furthermore, this debate is included in the ongoing debate about how a few specific individuals are more apt than others to correctly spell out what the internet can and cannot be. Clearly to accept filtering is to accept that internet can and should be controled by a handfull of individuals that are not elected and that do not poll anybody to make decisions (not even recommandations!) about internet content.

    Last but not least, filtering programs use the same marketing schemes as the media in general: Don't trust internet. Internet is dangerous. Let us be your entrance to internet and let us tell you what's fit and what's not. Trust us, we derive no economic gain from sheltering you from "bad things".

    Having been fooled more than once by cheap marketing, I cannot help thinking this is just another ploy to steer people away from internet democracy.

    Obi Wan Celeri

  • 120 days of stupid (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Well, there are plenty of books about Sado-Masochism in the library: Anne Rice novels, anything about the Marquis de Sade, blah, blah. So you're just stupid. But you're also just knee-jerk: the difference between not carrying JUGGS and filtering the Internet is obvious even to a half-wit:

    • JUGGS magazine must actively be purchased and archived, with specific library resources devoted to its inclusion in the catalog. Buying it may mean choosing not to carry Scientific American. Not carrying JUGGS does not mean that Scientific American issues with controversial articles on abortion must also be unavailable.
    • Censoring internet access requires ACTIVE censorship, as opposed to the passive act of not buying JUGGS. Access to questionable internet sites does not take resources away from legitimate sites, or consume any specific, countable resources at all (unless wild-ass guessing is your idea of evidence for sound policy). Censoring sites equivalent to JUGGS also has the effect of restricting access to legitimate social and scientific publications regarding issues which touch on sexuality (e.g. AOL's censorship of the word "breast" blocking access to breast cancer sites), thereby impeding the mission of the library.
    Now put away your National Geographics with the naked aborigines and learn to read, fuckwit.
  • Umm, Jamie is not a she. He's a he.

    And the fight he's in with FRC and other pro-filtering groups in Holland is a fight you ought to be interested in.

    Basically these groups don't believe that anyone but themselves have the wisdom to decide what you and I should be seeing on computer screens. They have tried for years with books in libraries, but everyone defends the libraries' business of providing a wide range of materials to their patrons.

    Now suddenly, because it's the Internet, these groups see a backdoor way to force their point of view on the entire community. Don't believe that these groups will stop with just pornography.

    They have much larger goals.
  • You are wondering where all the 60's free-speech advocates went? Well, they are probably a part of the majority of Americans who aren't even aware of what's going on here. They aren't protesting because they are no better informed than anyone else is. They are getting the same 'meme' about this that everyone else is. And they are from a pre-computer generation where only a few of them will be aware of this issue.
  • You said:
    • Islam and Christianity are mutually incompatible and have been around for at least 15000 years -

    The reason such memes last is part of what memetics is all about - mutation. Memes survive by mutatuing to deal with changes in the environment. Since a meme is purely an idea, it can mutate very fast relative to a physical gene.

    In your example here, the memes survived by mutating whenever necessary. This doesn't have to be deliberate, either. The memes that didn't mutate into something more tolerable died off leaving only the tolerant ones left. The meme that Popes are infallable, for example, has died out because to hold onto it would be too hard. (Obvious contradicitons like collaboration with Hitler, condemnation of Galileo, etc make it hard to pass the meme on to others. So it dies to be replaced by the slightly more reasonable meme that the Pope can make mistakes too, but is generally less likely too.)

  • Instead of actively researching the topic, I would just pad my bibliography with the references from my one source. I am sure that quite a lot of disinformation is spread in this way, out of pure laziness.
  • This started to happen in political campaigns, just because the mudslinging was so obvious, and the voters were offended. But it doesn't always work that way.

    I'm amazed that Offspring was blocked. Anyone who actually listens to the words (and that's what this is about, right? Lyrics, getting your message across...) knows that Offspring is a lot less malicious than these people. Or maybe they're just really bad at math. Either way, I don't want them controlling what content I see.

    "When will the world listen to reason /
    I have a feeling it'll be a long time /
    When will the truth come into season /
    I have a feeling it'll be a long time..." - Offspring

    Yeah, it is kinda catchy. Too bad, really. :|
    ---
    pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [152.7.41.11].
  • If you can prove they are not telling the truth then their credibility will be removed.
  • Where is the Holland library? Obviously not in the country by that name.

    Yes, but isn't Holland an English name anyway? Does anyone in Holland actually call it Holland, or do they call it Nederland?

  • Blocking can be very wrong most of the time.
    The blocker we use regularly blocks /.!
    It did again today. It didn't say why though.. Just "Page blocked: sex". I'm guessing it's because of the suck.com refference.
    It happened about 3 weeks ago too. I still have no clue why.
    The problem is, being in Holland (The Netherlands this time.. not Michigan (sp?)) onyl ENGLISH words are banned.. When I go to any sites containing dutch vulgar language, it goes through perfect. (Maybe if they made a dutch babelfish, I could read /. without trouble?)

    Maybe I should go talk to sysadmin about the blocking..
    Maybe I should just let it slide and read /. at home.
  • Taken from Merriam-Webster:

    Main Entry: meme
    Pronunciation: 'mEm
    Function: noun
    Etymology: alteration of mimeme, from mim- (as in mimesis) + -eme
    Date: 1976
    : an idea, behavior, style, or usage that spreads from person to person within a culture

    In other words, a trend. This whole "memetics" thing is bullshit, if you ask me.
  • Sorry Captain, maybe you're a christian and you like to simply overlook certain atrocities. If you think Christians are harmless then go talk to the people of Croatia and Bosnia who had to suffer from the Orthodox Christians. Tell it to the few survivng members of Vokovar.

    Heh. Actually, I'm Jewish. But I never said that people who _claim_ to be Christians are harmless. I would expect, OTOH, someone who firmly believed and behaved in accordance with Christianity would likely be harmless. There is a difference in what someone says they are and what someone actually is.

  • Islam and Christianity are mutually incompatible...


    What makes you say this? From what I know of the two religions (I'm neither, thanks) they should be able to coexist peacefully without too much trouble if both sides are willing to live up to the teachings.


    Cultural, not religious differences, are more likely the root of this animosity, I'd expect. The crusaders, IIRC, killed many more middle eastern Christians than they did Muslims because they couldn't tell the difference and often didn't care.

  • Just trying to respond to both SIGFPE and Mawbid here...

    (IANA Christian or Muslim...)

    What I meant was this:
    Christianity and Islam are both different religions, sure.

    But Christianity, it seems to me, requires believers to love their neighbors; to consider one's own problems before considering others; and is generally against hostility. I can see proselytizing coming from Christians, but not much more.

    Islam, I understand, requires believers to be tolerant of Jews and Christians, due to the related nature of the three religions. They needn't particularly love each other, but there are limits to what can be done.

    But I'm not saying that you can be both, merely that both religions, imho, have practices which permit them to coexist peacefully. That they haven't is probably due to people on both sides who are not living by their espoused religious beliefs.

    Perhaps someone more knowledgable of comparative religion can help out here?
  • I think what is meant here is that you can't sincerely subscribe to Christianity and Islam at the same time. "Thou shalt have none other gods but me." and all that. That's not to say that either group must necessarily wipe out the other, although instructions (or at least hints) to that effect are encoded in the scripture.
    --
  • I agree that truthfullness is not the guarantee of the survival of an idea. Some people do search for truth and evaluate the worth of an idea based on it's truthfullness. However, many people evaluate ideas based on their emotions; does it make them feel good, make them look good, or agree with what they think already. In this case, truth is not as relevant.
  • It's nice to be appreciated, but I'm not like Katz. For one thing, I never finished high school - I got a GED instead. Katz finished high school. Second, I know how to speel *g*. And unlike Katz, I know linux, networking, programming, and other geeky things. I'm also damned good at writing, if I do say so myself - Katz admitted he's not the best at it.

    Now, if I may invent a new term, you're katzbaiting.

  • AUP means "Acceptable Use Policy".
  • Where is the Holland library? Obviously not in the country by that name.
    --
  • Does anyone else find it funny that people would actually research raping someone? I mean, I can see a soon-to-be rapist following someone for a day or so, and finding out when they can grab the person (assuming it's not someone they already know), but getting on the internet and looking up how to rape someone? That's just a really weird idea.

    -David T. C.
  • A trend would be a short term meme or meme complex. But something like the concept of 'freedom' or 'altuism' or, yes, even 'selfishness' is also a meme (or, maybe, a meme comlex), and those have been around for a looooooooong time.

    -David T. C.
  • Ah, but legally, according to the consitution, all states have to recognize the marriages of other states, so, CA is hoping, with this law, to stop people of the same gender from getting married in Hawaii and...waitjustasecond...since when can state laws override the consitution? Well, they're trying it with drugs, too. Maybe they want to suceed? :)

    -David T. C.
  • Actually, it is a good point. Saying that people are wrong to impose their belief on you is trying to impose your belief on them.

    -David T. C.

  • I hope I'm not the first to point this out, but one of the leading opponents to filtering software is the ALA - American Library Association (http://www.ala.org) [ala.org]. Check their website for more information on why.

    The local library that is acting as my ISP (2 hrs/ per day on 12 lines... No great bargain, even for free) is deep in the Bible Belt, so it's amazing that a filtering policy as enlightened as ours is is in place. All machines with exposed monitors are filtered, at all times. Adults can have an unfiltered account, that is only unfiltered on the in-desk machines. Parents can elect to deny their children access to the Internet, filtered-only access to the Internet, or unfiltered access to the Internet (of course, on those machines with submerged monitors). Personally, I say unfilter them all and let Bob sort them out, but I would like to keep the connectivity, so....

    One of the other Slashdotters mentioned that we need to put out the anti-censorship message a little more forcefully. I have to agree. A couple of years ago, I posted a short essay against censorship [lib.la.us], both as a celebration of National Banned Books Week (see the ALA homepage for more info on that) and as a some new content for the new website, since our system was just going online at the time. I dashed it off in 20 minutes or so, threw a couple of graphics on the page, and left it be... So, imagine my surprise when doing a vanity search, and up pops my name in a half-dozen places I wasn't expecting. People had quoted my little article. And started linking to it. And it was getting hits. Ok, so I expected 10 or 20 hits a month... No, 10 or 20 hits a day... Wow! A minor little page that doesn't say much of anything! There can't be too much out there about censorship, if I'm turning up that high on the search engines. So, I'm begging everyone: get your views out there. Post your ideas. Get my hitrate down where it belongs!

  • Enough with the meme crap! You are just going to frighten people away from your cause if you keep ranting about meme this meme that. They will think you are part of some wacko religious cult.

    THe abuse of statistics is hardly a new concept, and doesn't need any 'memist' explanation.

    The issue is really about what is the function of a library: to give any information about anything, or to only give information on selected topics. It is also about certain people forcing their morals on everyone else. Is the United States a Christian Theocracy or a Democracy?

  • Popes are only (supposed to be) infallible
    when they _say_ they're being infallible. Not
    all the time. Do they say that they're
    about to be infallible, or that they just
    have been? The infallibility has to cover
    the declaration of infallibility itself as well,
    presumably.

    This ought to be testable. Ask a Pope to
    factorize some huge integers, or something.

  • big guns / libel lawsuit? (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Would it be unreasonable to bring a libel lawsuit to bear on David Burt, for his damage to you? That could get your meme out; as opposed to you asking each 'family' group who doesn't want to have their most convincing numbers attacked.

    Furthermore, these 'family' groups attributing totally ficticious statements to your name. Doesn't that violate fair use? I mean, satire publications (dead tree and web) are routinely brought into court, where their rights are held up <i>on the basis that they are presenting satire, not fact.</i> Attempting to pass fiction off as fact would be libel. And that's ammo.

  • Re:I don't understand (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    When MIT got fast internet in dorm rooms they put posters up that said:

    "Resnet. Because you can't masturbate in the public clusters."

    The posters had a screenshot of a newsreader showing a list of some of the nastier pron newsgroups....

  • Considering there is no country by the name of Holland I'd say that this Holland library is not in that country is a good guess.

    Or maybe you ment the Country of the Nethererlands, which has a state called Holland?

    In any case this Holland refers to a small town in Michigan, a State of the US.

    PS, while you can be forgiven for not knowing where Holland Michigan is, mistaking Holland for the Netherlands is unexcusable, even if it is common.

  • Everyone hears about the $600 hammer (The versions I've heard have all ben $600, not $400, but it doesn't matter), and $1000 toilet seats. Those stories all miss the rest of the picture: when a detailed study is done the govermetn did not pay too much.

    That hammer was missing from a tool kit used in explosive enviroments. Therefore the hammer had to not react with the chemicals used, and it could not cause a spark when used! Normal iron doesn't qualify, and the metal they used really is exepnsive enough to justify the hammer being sold for $600. You cannot go to your local hardware store and buy this hammer off the shelf. You might find one that can order one, but you too will pay $600 for it. (probably more, after inflation)

    Likewise the $1000 toilet seat is not a normal $20 hardware store model. It was destined to go in the space shuttle, and had to deal with zero g. Those with dirty minds might enjoy figguring out all the things that can go wrong, but I prefer not to go down that path.

    I'll agree that goverment spends too much money, but the problem is too many programs, not waste in the accual spending. Many CEOs have discovered that after laying off 1000 people in a year they have exactly the same number of people on the payroll - they didn't cut any projects, and the projects needed to be staffed, so they had to hire that many back. The goverment needs to cut some projects. However now you get into old people who say "Yeah, cut welfare as I don't use it, but keep the FDA so that the medican I need is safe." To which the kid who made a mistake and now has to raise a kid without a good education responds "Cut that FDA, medican is safe enoguh and I don't use any, but keep welfare because I'll need it for anouther year before I can make it on my own." And so on.

  • This whole meme flap is just silly. The gist of it, that the objective of the battle is to infect enough minds with the idea by voting day, is quite correct. But really the whole issue boils down to a lot of technologically unsophisticated people (the majority of the voters) being caught in a tug of war between the right-wingers and the people who oppose them. It all boils down to who can put more wool over whose eyes, and who can be the most convincing. That's it. There are no ideas wandering around infecting minds or any such nonsense. It's all just a battle of propaganda.

    To answer another post, yeah, using "meme" instead of "idea" is just a way to sound l33t.
  • That's not new, and it's not very different from an idea.

    However, it is an idea put forth by my favorite movie: Pump Up The Volume. The truth is like a virus, because it spreads...

    "I like the idea that a voice can just go somewhere uninvited and just kind of hang out like a dirty thought in a nice clean mind.Maybe a thought is like a virus. You know, it can just kill all the healthy thoughts and just take over. That would be serious."
    ---
    pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [152.7.41.11].
  • Civil disobedience only works when the "general populace" can see this taking place, and demand action...

    If the flow of information is controlled, no-one will ever know that you were "civially disobedient", and the security police will drag you off never to be heard from again...

  • "Intranet" is still a necessary and non-made up word that we need to use. As one in catalysis, there's a big distinction between diffusion that is "intraparticle" (within the same particle) and "interparticle" (between particles). The magnitude of their rates is vastly different.

    An 'intranet' is a network between computers within the same organization, internet a network between organizations. The way you can manage and publish for the two are vastly different.

  • None of this "meme" stuff - at least in this article - is new. All of it was common knowlege 50 years the first time an adman came up with the words "4 out of 5 dentists agree."

    Memes as a metaphor for human cultural behaviour is interesting, and possibly useful, but not to be taken too seriously. The art and science of good PR incorporates most of the real insights I've seen coming out of memeologists.

    As for attacking censorware, let me express my support, my thanks and my encouragement. A good lie can go around the world while the truth is still getting out of bed, so those who have the truth on their side still have to work extra hard despite what ought to be an advantage.
  • Geez, I thought I had seen the last of David Burt -- I was a long-time member of a library mailing list (web4lib), the very same place David Burt first started rearing his ugly head. David took it upon himself to promote censorware as the One True Way to save "children" (although he made no allowances for adult-access only library terminals) from the scourge of Internet porn. I had to leave the list because it had basically turned into David Burt's soapbox, even though just about everyone else there couldn't stand him either.

    David Burt should turn in his MLS degree -- he doesn't deserve to have the title "Librarian" being as he is dedicated to the blocking of information.

    adr

  • What a load of BS.

    See, that's what I was talking about in a lower-numbered thread. Censorship is OK to some people, as long as they disapprove of the groups being censored... much as AC wants to censor the Christians he disagrees with by marginalizing them and their beliefs.

    Once again, I assert that the right-wing and Christians hold no monopoly on fanatacism and hypocrisy.

  • ...tug of war between the right-wingers and the people who oppose them...

    OK, now I have to vent.

    Why, oh why, is everything ludicrous attributed to right-wingers? I am just about as far-right-wing as you can get, and I assure that my core beliefs do not condone censorship in any form. I mean, remember the PMRC (record labeling)? That was Tipper Gore, not Pat Buchanan. I'm not saying that all conservatives agree with me. However, one of the fundamental conservate tenets is freedom from government, which is diametrically opposed to supporting the denial of someone's freedom of speech.

    Remember, the right-wing doesn't have a monopoly on dumb ideas.

  • Tackhead dun said:

    Now - if you're a God-fearing Christian, why on earth would you rely on a solution advocated by a satanic cult that believes that the whole Jesus story was merely an "R6 implant" - a false memory artificially-implanted into our collective unconsciousness by evil alien overlords?

    Maybe because, oh, there are a really surprising number of groups that claim to be "Christian" yet use the exact same coercive tactics as Scientology does? (Caveat--I speak from experience on more than one front here. First off, I'm a walkaway from a "Bible-based cult" which uses techniques similar to Scientology. Secondly, it was (in part) various FAQs on coercive groups including Scientology that led me to realise the general techniques used in coercive groups in general. Thirdly, I've lurked off and on on ARS since the "Cancelpoodle" scandal (I was a reader of the various net.abuse groups, and the whole thing led me directly to ARS)...just so folks know.)

    The thing is, most folks who are in deep with the various Religious Right groups like FRC and so forth are also members of various Bible-based groups that use coercive tactics. Not only that, but some of the "higher-demand" Religious Right groups may in and of themselves be borderline coercive groups (I know that concerns have been mentioned regarding Promise Keepers, for one). A lot of the issues re coercive tactics between "Bible-based cults" and Scientology are very similar, so (at least to me) it's no surprise whatsoever that they both push for censorware.

    Warning: The following comparison will probably not have a whole lot of relevance unless you are intimately familiar with how coercive groups work, and especially not unless you are familiar with the particular coercive tactics used in Scientology and/or Bible-based coercive groups. If you are not familiar with either of these groups' tactics, I strongly recommend that you read Xenu.net [xenu.net] (for info on some of the particular coercive tactics used in Scientology and some of the terminology) and Walk Away [ifas.org] (for info on some specific tactics used in Bible-based coercive groups), then come back and read. Otherwise it's probably not going to make terrible amounts of sense, especially in regards to effects of the coercion.

    Now...I can give just a brief list of Scientology coercive tactics and their analogues in Bible-based cults:

    Scientology: Essentially all of your problems are the result of "body engrams" resulting from when you were dumped into Kilahuea 73 million years ago by the evil Xenu. This includes doubt in Scientology.

    Bible-based cult analogue: All of your problems, including doubt in the church or your minister, are the result of demons attempting to oppress or possess you. (By the way, this along with the next two sections is commonly termed "Deliverance Ministry".)

    Scientology: The only ones worthy to be called human are clears. Everything that could bring negative body engrams--including Supressive Persons who say Scientology is bunk--are to be avoided.

    Bible-based cult analogue: Your group is the only ones who are truly saved--everyone else is lukewarm at best, and most are outright in league with Satan. You should avoid all media not done by us, only do business with folks in our church, and vote for whom we tell you to--because everyone else is oppressed or possessed by demons, and info from outside can lead to demonic posession. Those who say bad things about our church are probably demon-possessed.

    Scientology: You have to be constantly on alert for bad engrams. You have to do lots of clearing sessions; if someone is acting like an SP, they probably need an intensive "clearing session" whether they want it or not. (Lisa McPherson being held against her will to be "cleared" is the likely cause of her death.)

    Bible-based cult analogue: All doubts are the results of demons trying to oppress you; you must constantly "pray the demons out". If someone is acting rebellious, they are probably demon-possessed and need to be exorcised to get the demons out. (Tens of children each year are killed in such "exorcisms"; many more people are probably driven insane, much as Lisa McPherson was before her death. The Walk Away site, mentioned above, has a rather dramatic [and all too factual] description of an exorcism as practiced by most "Bible-based" coercive groups.)

    Scientology: We must Clear The Planet, and those who oppose us must be stopped by any means necessary, including dead-agenting. It is permissible to deceive people to get them in for becoming Clears.

    Bible-based cult analogue: We are in a war with Satan, and those who oppose us must be stopped by any means necessary. Deception and libeling are perfectly permissible weapons to use in the war. (This is actually called "Heavenly Deception" in some Bible-based cults; the Bible-based cult version of "dead agenting" can be seen in most fundy literature. Bible-based cults have also been known to use deceptive measures (such as "free pizza parties", "anti-drug talks" by athletes associated with fundy groups held in schools, and "hell house" haunted-houses in which people are forced--as in not allowed to leave till it's over--to listen to sermons) to recruit people, especially teens, into such groups.)

    Scientology: You need folks to watch out for you, especially to make sure you don't have any bad engrams and to make sure you keep being an OT. They are expected to check up on you and report if you might be becoming a SP.

    Bible-based cult analogue: You are divided into groups of five or so, and expected to meet every week for Bible-discussions and to make sure that you aren't backsliding. Your group is expected to check up on you, and report back and take action in case you do backslide. (This is known as "shepherding" or "Cell Churches"; it is increasingly recognised as one of the single most destructive practices of Bible-based cults. It is this practics which is causing serious concern about Promise Keepers.)

    Scientology: OTs are expected to influence their legislatures to make sure nothing negative to Scientology passes, and in fact OTs are supported. Lobbying wings exist to fight things that Scientology may disapprove of, often not revealing their links to the main group (such as organisations protesting "psychiatric abuse"). OTs are the only truly fit leaders and eventually OTs will take over the world.

    Bible-based cult analogue: Members are expected to join lobbying groups for "Christian" causes; often, lobbying groups are actually run by deacons or ministers, or based out of the church itself. Voter-guides are provided. Groups are set up, usually "concerned parents" groups or "American heritage" groups, which try to fudge their links to the Bible-based group or the Religious Right at all. Christians are seen as the only fit leaders and it is their destiny to turn the US into a fundamentalist theocracy.

    Scientology: Members are often lured in with guidebooks, like "Dianetics", which eventually suggest you come to a processing center to get Cleared. It's not mentioned explicitly that Dianetics is a Scientology book on the adverts.

    Bible-based cult analogue: We'll promote books, "hell houses", sponsor rod-runs, etc. that suggest you come to our church to get more info and become a member. We don't mention that we're affiliated, other than being a "Christian" or "Faith-based" group. (This tactic is actually used by the Arthur S. DeMoss Foundation--a hard-right fundamentalist group that supports Christian Reconstructionism and has even supported racist groups--to hawk "Power For Living" as an innocent "guide for getting closer to God" [what it is, in fact, is a book promoting fundamentalist Christianity, and in particular those varieties that go over the line into being coercive groups].)

    Scientology: Use famous people to promote Scientology and show how it's made their lives better.

    Bible-based cult analogue: Use famous people to promote the group and show how it's made their lives better. (Again, this tactic is used outright by the Arthur S. DeMoss Foundation. Other Bible-based coercive groups have done this too, especially with NFL (American) football players; one player actually seems to have gone insane as a direct result of being involved in a Bible-based cult, and he'd done public speeches on how fundamentalism was a Good Thing beforehand)

    Scientology: Psychiatrists, "coercive group info" groups like FACTnet, and folks against Scientology are SPs. One good way to stop them is protests en masse, or suing them into submission so that we own them then keep the site up for folks looking for info on coercive groups. (Scientology actually sued a group that reported on coercive tactics into bankruptcy, then bought the group wholesale.)

    Bible-based cult analogue: Gays, women's health providers, anti-censorship groups, and folks who are against us are literally in league with Satan. It is perfectly acceptable to engage in mass protest, or to sue the people claiming that into submission; it's also good to get a name really similar to the group you're fighting so that folks will come to you instead. (This tactic is partly why the American Center for Law and Justice, a group that files lawsuits on behalf of fundamentalist causes, is very similar to the ACLU; it's also why groups like the fundy parents in Paducah are suing nearly the entire entertainment industry (they hope to bankrupt them) and why anti-abortion "counseling centers" get names very similar to women's health providers (sometimes even locating in the same building) so that people will get confused.)

    Scientology: It's ok to break the law to advance Scientology.

    Bible-based cult analogue: It's ok to break laws to advance the "kingdom of God". (This has shown up everywhere, from outright fraud with the "hell houses", to illegally distributing voter guides in churches, to illegal electioneering IN the churches, to "tax protesters" who refuse to pay taxes because "it supports abortion", to folks who libel and harass people who support gay/les/bi folks being added to civil rights laws, to people who stalk abortion providers...)

    Scientology: Don't question what you're being taught. You've got to pay money for each level.

    Bible-based cult analogue: Don't question what you're being taught--that's a sign of demonic oppression. You must give at least ten percent, and preferably more, to the church so that we can continue operating. (As an aside--there is evidence that both Scientology and many Bible-based cults are basically money rackets. Hubbard supposedly admitted as much with Scientology; many larger Bible-based cults run networks of TV stations and the like and demand money from their fellowship, and more than a few have been found to be decidedly shifty with their finances.)

    Scientology: In Sea Org, you are subject to poor food (beans and rice) and hard work, often doing work around a Scientology office.

    Bible-based cult analogue: Members are expected to fast completely (water only), often for long periods (the group I walked away from often had 21-day fasts...to support their damned television station...they also had 40-day fasts that people participated in). "Partial fasts" are done with poor food (the "Mayo Heart Clinic Soup Diet"--which is NOT promoted by the Mayo Clinic, is pretty much nothing but watery cabbage soup, and can actually cause deficiencies in needed nutrients if eaten exclusively for more than two or three days--is often pushed in "partial fasts" in Bible-based cults). Members are expected to participate in church functions (including long revivals extending for tens or even hundreds of days) and are expected to prosyletise often, often going door-to-door.

    Want me to list some more examples? ;)

    Or, just for fun...get one of the sheets that talks about characteristics in coercive groups. Then compare Scientology to that. Then compare Bible-based cults (as I've described them, and as described on places like Walk Away)...you'll find that the two are nearly identical. About the only major differences are that Scientology has the Sea Orgs (then again, most Bible-based cults are involved in large political networks and have enforcers such as deacons...which is probably worse) and Bible-based cults are even worse as far as deceptive tactics to get you into a group as well as one-on-one mind-control techniques to keep you in and keep you unable to get out. (It also doesn't hurt that there is a very well-funded media industry that caters exclusively to the Religious Right in the US.) The single most destructive practice in Scientology--the idea of "engrams", the constant sessions to clear them, and an almost paranoid avoidance of the non-Clear and involuntary Clearing sessions for SPs trying to leave--is almost identical to the entire practics of deliverance ministry in Bible-based cults (literally the only thing different is the terminology).

    You don't hear that much about Bible-based cults, though. Part of it is, well, they've gotten a lot of power. Part of it has to do with, well, the fact they're Bible-based cults--nobody wants to think a Christian group can go coercive, and for some reason "Christian" churches are seen as respectable--they think it's always the WEIRD stuff like Scientology that goes coercive, not the little "Full Gospel" church down the street (that even goes so far as to tell their members who they can and cannot marry, tells them what clothes they can wear, and just happens to be the headquarters of nearly every Religious Right group in the county... :P).

    Trust me, though, when I say that the poor sods in the FRC are probably just as brainwashed and lost as your average OT VII is who's spent $300,000 on Clearing sessions and such. :P

  • A lot of the quest for knowledge is explicitly recognizing and analyzing the obvious. Memes may be intuitively obvious -- we've had enough "master politicians" and the like using them for centuries -- but to understand how they affect us, we need to state the obvious. Namely, that ideas infect us based primarily on our exposure to them, and rational thought is more a defense against bad ideas than a progenitor of good ones.

    Why should we bother discussing this system of idea propogation? Because a lot of people are manipulating this system to control our actions and reactions. And because it shows the professions of journalism and public relations (like there's a difference, anymore) for what they are (a weapon moneyed interests use for controlling mass populations) rather than what they want us to think they are (a shining beacon of truth that's working to keep you informed -- an idea they've inundated us with for years after it lost even the semblance of truth).

    You are quite right that the advertising community has had this down for a long time. For years, they've been talking about how to "position" an idea in an "overcommunicated" society. A meme is an idea that is spread like a disease. "Positioning" is infecting as many people as possible with a meme, and "overcommunication" is a euphemism for the toxic environment of spurious advocacy that they have created for us.

    Personally, though, I think memes should be taken very seriously. Some of them are public health hazards, and the problem is, the progenitors of this pestilence seem to be in control of the health service. All that's left for us to do is protect ourselves against them as best we can -- and, when warranted, give them the same treatment we did smallpox.

    phil

    Doing it for the children, or for public decency, or whatever else you need to believe, and whatever "it" really is. And doing it with 99 and 44/100ths percent accuracy.
  • Some anti-censorware group, perhaps the EFF, should just setup free, uncensored, Internet Cafes near all the libraries with blocking software. They should research the blocking software and inform the false positives so that those publishers can initiate legal action.

    I have repeatedly found that you can't get action you want to prevent a disaster until after it's happened the first time. Perhaps we have to take a break from fighting the memes and initiate a bunch of legal-system DDoS attacks?

  • What really, _really_ gets me pissed off is that when the report was released, the censors censored out the report, filing it into every category: sex, hate speech, etc.

    I'm no lawyer, but can't most of these wrongly blocked sites sue for defamation/libel?

    There's damage to the reputation (calling them a pr0n/hate/criminal site when they aren't) and probably monetary damages as well (by blocking access to their web site).

    One or two class-action lawsuits would probably make these filter programs go away, or at least wise-up and be more careful about what they filter.

    I can just see the filter companies filing countersuits though... "Our blocklists are encrypted. If they know that they are on our blocklists then that encryption must have been bypassed, in violation of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act." Ugh!!!

  • We're allready there. Do it their way or don't do it. Of course your thoughts are owned by someone. But that's not you.
    --The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
  • In the short term, your proposal is likely to be successful. However, arguing this point shoots past the real problem entirely.

    If vendors of censorware programs receive negative press because they've failed to block some material that "should" be blocked, then they're going to do the logical, responsible thing (from their business's point of view): they're going to expand their filters so that they block more material.

    And the censorware advocates will argue that blocking some of it is better than blocking none of it.

    The only way to effectively defeat the censorware movement is by raising awareness of how efforts to "protect" children are in fact cutting off their access to legitimate--perhaps even essential--information resources.
  • Meme is also an example of a meme =)

    Until the term was coined, idea was one of the words used to characterize the concept of a meme. However, ideas are also used to describe the solutions to problems, far fetched concepts, and other things. In a way, the word is an overloaded operator, and to encapsulate a specific concept into a precise term with a defined context, we use the word meme.

    The idea(more overuse of the word) that thoughts can infect and spread virally is associated with memes.

    In the same way, in the near future, we may need another term to denote free software vs open source free software vs open source non-free software. Or maybe not.


    -AS
  • "The first thing he did was ignore all the bad blocks we'd found that he thought were perfectly appropriate. "

    I find this quote quite chilling although accurate. Why do these people feel they have a right to decide what is appropriate, and why doesn't anyone stop them from enforcing it on others?

    How did these people get so bold?
  • ...is often what's good for the meme.

    Will the "fight fair" meme become popular in the long run? I hope so. But the way I see it, that will only happen if it is more successful at reproducing than its alternative: "fight dirty." In the long run, it doesn't matter what's right, or what's good, or what benefits us humans the most. The memes just spread because they're good at spreading.

    So to some extent it does matter what benefits us humans most. Because with very few exceptions, memes need humans in order to spread. Lethal memes, like lethal viruses, kill off their hosts. If you kill your host, who's going to replicate you? This of course does not entirely eliminate deleterious memes. Lethal ones will continue to appear, but they will rise to prominence quickly, and fade even faster as their hosts die out. F'rinstance, the heaven's Gate cult. Not a lot of people propagating that meme anymore. Over the long term, memes that are neutral wrt their hosts - or even beneficial - will tend to persist longer than their deleterious counterparts.
  • It's useful because it associates ideas explicitly with their evolution as reproducing entities in the human brain environment. You could just substitute a cumbersome phrase such as "ideas which are encapsulated units and are understood to proliferate differentially due to their having "hooks" that facilitate this", but "meme" is a lot shorter. So I don't think it's fair to say that it's to be an 3l33t d4rw1n br41n h4x0r. I don't know that I agree that the 1/million is really a meme though, it seems more like this is just an epiphenomenon of the censorship meme.
  • Yet again a highly readable article from Jamie. I'm really enjoying this new aspect of /. There is an interesting perspective on memes from Susan Blackmore in Skeptic Vol.5 No.2 entitled "The Power of the Meme Meme", pg.43 1997 which might be interesting for those into this stuff.
    --Crush
  • Or maybe you ment the Country of the Nethererlands, which has a state called Holland?

    Actually, holland is a name for a region in the netherlands. It consists of two provinces, noord holland and zuid holland.

    PS, while you can be forgiven for not knowing where Holland Michigan is, mistaking Holland for the Netherlands is unexcusable, even if it is common.

    I'd hardly call it unexcusable. I live there and I use both.
  • I am the host of MemeSpace [memes.org], and online community of Memeticist and other people who realize the ubiquitous presence of Memes as contagion

    When I first began the discussion, I was not even really sure that memetics was the right thing to call this popularly-held concept of what we are talking about here: censorship and the filtering of ideas, knowledge, and programming.

    Now I am not so sure.

    We have not discussed censorship very much (if you would like to start a thread, be my guest) but we have discussed the power of the word and the responsibility to it we must have (or not have), and we have realized that the power of the meme comes with both was is transmitted and what is not.

    The power is both in the transmission as well as the restriction of the idea. The barring, filtering, or censuring of the idea is as powerful as is the sharing.

    We have steadily realised that it is possible to kill a meme but it is not easy -- and in just the same way that a man's singleminded desire to become immortal through his memory can backfire and result in a self-destruct, the attempt to kill a meme -- idea, image, or the PoMo text -- can result in a more virulent idea altogether!

  • Every time the subjects of drugs or gun control are debated in public, you can expect a deluge of distorted or fabricated statistics. The ones that make good "sound bites" take on a life of their own, no matter how many times they are debunked. Intellectual honesty takes a back seat to political expediency.

    Remember, "It's for the children" and "If it saves just one life".

  • Okay, look up the short story by Henry Kuttner called 'Nothing but Gingerbread Left'. I saw it in a Science Fiction anthology. It's fiction about linguists winning World War II by creating a poem/pop tune in German which the German soldiers couldn't stop thinking about. It's more complex than a simple idea, it's a contagious tapestry of conflicting ideas.

    It doesn't use the term "meme" because it was published in 1943.

  • <em>The hacker ethic is antitheical to this New World Order of information control... this is the
    real war - it's not one of politics or <b>mimes</b>.</em>

    Damn straight, those mimes are even more annoying than politicians. :)

    That's a nice manafesto you've got going, but I'm left wondering which "hacker ethic" you're referring to. Is it the free sharing of information, or the "liberation" of secret or proprietary information?

    Of course, after this DeCSS fiasco, I'm no so sure there's much of a difference anymore. When a collection of facts can become property, when encryption can destroy fair use rights, and when stupid ideas like UCITA are passed unaminously because politicians are in the pockets of big corporations, a great deal of civil disobedience may be the only option. I'm just afaid it will lead the world into something like some cyberpunk novel, where you're either a corporate shill or a criminal.

  • One point (Score:2)

    by / ( 33804 )
    Remember, it's not the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of the press that applies to the states here, it's the Fourteenth amendment's guarantee of (substantive) due process in abridging liberty. While the freedom to publish ideas is certainly incorporated into that protected "liberty", there's no reason why the freedom to read those ideas should not also be incorporated.

    And if it weren't for the Slaughterhouse Cases back in 1873, we could try to get them under the "privileges and immunities" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment also. Bloody conservative reconstructionist court.
  • Nice Libertarian, *ahem*, analysis there, Jim. Wow, would I have loved to be hearing things like that years ago, when I first set out to oppose censorware. ...

    You were, Seth, and one needn't be a libertarian (or a Libertarian) to follow the money (thanks for the links). Years ago, silly me, I had hoped that in the diversity of censorware offerings there'd be one -- just one -- "filtering software company" that:
    1. Tried to be at least somewhat-honest about the impossibility of doing their task perfectly, and
    2. Marketed to misguided parents, instead of to misguided governments.

    Obviously, my hopes were not fulfilled, I was not 100% supportive of your ideas (funny how calling other people "stupid" makes 'em tend to behave that way) and you were right (how many times must it be said?) that ALL censorware companies are 100% venal. As for anyone from my part of the idea-spectrum advocating TAX money to put this crap in libraries (or anywhere else) I don't recall it ever happening. Indeed, I recall (over and over) quite the opposite. Just because idiocy & evil can't be stopped doesn't change my position regarding unwilling subsidies for them out of either of our pockets.

    Anyway, at this point the government's appointed regulators of speech are too busy chasing ad puffery ("Better Ingredients, Better Pizza" is now dangerous speech!) to bother with the outright LIES exposed by the Censorware Project. I quit politics, so I won't even try to dole out blame for this unsavory turn of events -- people can (follow that money) figure it out for themselves. Let's not make this another flamewar, I think (for once) that we vehemently agree.
    JMR
  • (Jamie won't be surprised to see me saying this, but) folks, follow the MONEY!!

    These people can't sell their crappy software to "families," because it DOESN'T work. (They even have to lie when they say that URLs are checked by a human, among their other lies, I'd link to the report, but it appears censorware.org is slashdotted.) The FRC's point, their battle to win since they've lost out in the "real" marketplace is to sell this crap to politicians! You know, the creatures "stupid" enough to buy $400+ hammers and toilet seats because it's YOUR money but THEIR buddies skimming the loot!

    This is all about spending your tax dollars to LIMIT content and information in libraries, and the dishonesty of Burt & company is astounding. There is a big danger with secret blacklists that the content censored will be political content, thus feeding back into the infinite corruption-loop. These are tax-&-spend CENSORS who want to electronically "burn" books with OUR money! It's entirely unacceptable from either an economic or first amendment POV, and must be stopped.
    JMR

    PS, Jamie, it would not have been a low blow to describe Burt's "retirement" here, also.
  • The answer to this is trivial. Take the battle into their own meme-space.

    Listen to me brothers, this person is doing Satan's evil work! He takes the results of hard, clean labor and twists it for his own evil ends. Take that site which discusses PGP cryptology. Now don't you think Satan may want to prevent people of good faith from communicating out of the sight of his minions? (The Lord always sees what Satan's little helpers are up to, of course.) What other sites does Satan want banned... sites that we might also find objectionable until the Lord gives us the sight to see the real reason why they strike fear into Satan's dark soul?

    And what about these people who claim to be doing the Lord's work while speaking with forked tongues? Brothers and sisters, have you ever heard of *anyone* being lead to the truth by a lie? These people might not even realize how they are doing the work of the Great Deceiver in these petty lies, but we all know how the road to Hell is paved by good intentions... and how easy it is to find ourself on that dark road if we don't commit to a life of integrity in the service of our Lord.

    Brothers, let me close with a single observation. These filters have blocked the Good Book. Oh, that block was removed once the error was pointed out, but it took a lot of hard effort to find that error. Who gains by the widespread adoption of software that blocks the Bible, even "in error"?
  • These kinds of battles, ideaological ones, can never be fair. We live in a world that is measured in "mindshare" so when it comes down to a battle of ideas on what is "right" and what is "wrong" fairness doesn't begin to be included into the equation. Those who are waging the battle, fighting the ideaological wars, don't want to get bogged down in complicated ideas like fairness. They want only one thing: The win. We need to remember that history is written by the victors. When, and if, censorware and censorship in general get worked out to any kind of conclusion the side that has won is going to be saying what they will about the side that loss. For the good or ill what is considered fair will take place at that point and not before.
  • Here's an idea, why doesn't someone put up an explicitly illustrated bible web page, and wait unitl it gets blocked by the censorware. Then you can make then out to be godless commies, or something.

    Here's a few freebies, you'll have to find the pics, though:

    How beautiful your sandaled feet, O prince's daughter! Your graceful legs are like jewels, the work of a craftsman's hands.
    2
    Your navel is a rounded goblet that never lacks blended wine. Your waist is a mound of wheat encircled by lilies.
    3
    Your breasts are like two fawns, twins of a gazelle.
    4
    Your neck is like an ivory tower. Your eyes are the pools of Heshbon by the gate of Bath Rabbim. Your nose is like the tower of Lebanon looking toward Damascus.
    5
    Your head crowns you like Mount Carmel. Your hair is like royal tapestry; the king is held captive by its tresses.
    6
    How beautiful you are and how pleasing, O love, with your delights!
    7
    Your stature is like that of the palm, and your breasts like clusters of fruit.
    8
    I said, "I will climb the palm tree; I will take hold of its fruit." May your breasts be like the clusters of the vine, the fragrance of your breath like apples,
    9
    and your mouth like the best wine. May the wine go straight to my lover, flowing gently over lips and teeth. [1]
    10
    I belong to my lover, and his desire is for me.

    and for the pervs out there:

    Judges 19:24-29 "Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing. But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go. Then came the woman in the dawning of the day, and fell down at the door of the man's house where her lord was, till it was light. And her lord rose up in the morning, and opened the doors of the house, and went out to go his way: and behold, the woman his concubine was fallen down at the door of the house, and her hands were upon the threshold. And he said unto her, Up, and let us be going. But none answered. Then the man took her up upon an ass, and the man rose up, and gat him unto his place. And when he was come into his house, he took a knife, and laid hold on his concubine, and divided her, together with her bones, into twelve pieces, and sent her into all the coasts of Israel."

    Thanks mostly to the XXX-rated Bible [postfun.com].

    George
  • Maybe it's a case of o/~onward Christian moderator, marching as to waro/~ after all he's just simplifying what the article is pointing out, that the Christian Right are the dishonest, corrupt bad guys in this case... hey, I got moderated down once for saying much the same thing.
  • I have a belief about the leaders of the Fundamentalist Christian Movement. It is this: the ultimate goal of the fundie leadership is to get their followers to accept what they say without question.

    I accept the above as proven fact, and this makes the fundies a dangerous cult in which men are the true gods of the cult. One day, those men may say "kill the heathens" to the followers of the cult, and if the followers are as sheeplike as they seem, they'll do it.

    Because of this, I'm not sure exactly what creating propaganda which works on them will do. Sure, the followers might catch on to "Filterware isn't about protecting the children. It's a scam that can never work. The companies that write it and sell it are lying to you" However, the leadership will come back with "We say that isn't so, if you doubt us, you are doubting God's word. Dare you risk eternal damnation?"

    You see at this point I don't see the fundies, I mean the followers, as much more than glazed-eyes zombie cultists. I don't think they think for themselves, and I don't think they want to.

    In my opinion, we can't convince the fundies of anything, we have to hope that there are more normal people out there than cultists, or everything is lost anyway and it's time to move to a bunker. So, in my opinion, pointing out that the Offspring's site is blocked might be helpful to getting normal people (you know the one's who send their kids out "trick or treating" on Halloween because they don't think it is some kind of Satanic ritual. Note the large selection of Halloween costumes in Walmart near Halloween, I think it's safe to say that the majority of people are still letting their kids get dressed up.) see that this is the behaviour of the extreme, radical, "Carrie's Mom," Right. Actually, it would be really great if we could find sites about the Beetles or the Rolling Stones that are blocked... since we are trying to convince older people (a.k.a. voters, older people are more reliable voters.) that these people are nuts. People tend to get emotionally attached to the bands they listened to in there youth, but are not necessarily up to speed on more modern music... and may even ascribe sinsiter influences to it..

  • Hmm...

    I'll admit to not being up on the whole meme thing, but I think that as you've described it, "a mental virus," there may be a meme here.(hmm... I remember reading something like this in a story by Henry Kuttner or L. Sprague DeCamp, I think it was called "the Gingerbread Left." Written during the Second World War, it was about a German language phrase being written which was so catchy, it would drive any German speaking person who heard it insane. It was a weapon to be used by the Allies against the Nazi's in the story.)

    You see, people like the Family Research Council have been around for years. When I was a kid, their main occupation (as far as I was concerned) was gathering up Dungeons&Dragon books and burning them. The point is they were around, and they got the idea into there heads was that the best way to assert both that they were good Christians and to give external evidence of Christian power was to purge things from society. I think, that the "mental virus" is that this idea, that good Christians purge "evil thoughts" from society has become so prevalent among some types of Christians that it has overcome the ideals of Christianity. For example, a lot of the stuff these people do cannot be sold to the general public without major lying and dishonesty. Christians used to believe that dishonesty was wrong, especially dishonesty done in the name of God. I mean, lying was considered serious. This is why it is so hard to deal with these people, not only do they ignore the "Thou Shalt Not Lie" and "Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness" commandments, they also ignore Jesus's warning to the scribes and pharisees about religious hypocrisy. This was when He referred to them as "whited sepulchres" who "indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones and all uncleaness." Of course, Jesus was dealing with basically the same political situation as we are now, people who were more interested in maintaining a theocracy than in doing good.

    To these people, the idea that the ends justify the means has overcome their suposed religious beliefs, so that the only thing that matters is political victory. If they have to lie to achieve it, well "you can't make an omelet without breking a few eggs." This sort of thing happened before, England under the Rump Parliament (and later "The Parliament of Saints") after the English Civil War is a good example. Political power, cloaked in the guise of religion and justified through an appeal to Christian morality which has no relation to the actions of the political leaders, is what we are seeing here.

    Maybe referring to Orwell would be better, whatever the Party leadership did was right because the Party, by definition was acting in the people's interests. People were required to believe it, even though the actions of the Party consistently proved it wasn't true.

  • Hah! Wildmon, of the FRC, even got the Catholic Church my family attends to go along on one of his crusades. (In this case, against the TV Show, NYPD Blue.) It's absurd, because why would a sane Catholic church allows its members to be led, politically, by a radical fundamentalist of a non-Catholic sect? These are the same people who made certain, recently, that a Catholic would not be chaplain of the House of Representatives, even though he was considered the most qualified for the job. (I'm not going to get into whether I think the office of chaplain is an antiquated and best retired office. The point is that there is one for now, and it is currently not going to be occupied by Catholic priests, if the Religious Right has anything to say about it..)

    Catholics who think about religion as a political issue care about only one issue, abortion, really. This type will ask "Is Wildmon anti-abortion?" "Yes." "Then he must be OK." (Ok, I'll admit not all politically active Catholics are like that, but most of the ones I know are willing to ally with the fundamentalists primarily because of this one issue. It's rare I can feel pride in my priests any more, though I did recently when one of them spoke out against all the Halloween bashing that goes on amongst fundamentalists. That sort of thing doesn't happen as often as it should, though.) Catholics who don't follow the church on abortion or other issues don't have a voice, politically, inside the Catholic Church, so they won't influence the decisions of the Catholic Church.

    So, I believe that in supporting these people, the Catholic Church is participating in its own destruction but I doubt very much I could convince my priest of that.

  • There's a problem though, what if the "morals" these people profess are just wrong? What if I find a lot of the hatred they preach to be immoral? What if I have a strong code of morality that prohibits the banning of book and ideas just because they happen to disagree with the ideas these people present?

    I have no problem with morality, I believe in morality, and will indeed attempt to convince people that my morality is correct.

    And according to my morality, these people are evil. According to my morality, these people are trying to take away people's free will (dare I say God-given free will?) and replace it with fear of a government imposed set of rules that have everything to do with giving the FRC power and nothing to do with morality.

  • Chaosgrrl writes:
    > J.Random Public doesn't want to be confused by the facts. [ ... ] They want to feel good about their actions [ ... ]
    > The more the spread [the meme] and get approval and agreement from other citizens, the
    >more justified they feel in holding this meme [ ... ] They'll only discard it if enough people whom they
    > respect laugh at them and tell them what fools they were for buying the meme in the first place.
    >
    > The only answer I can think of is for us to go out and laugh at anyone we hear propagating these inaccuracies.

    Humor is an effective weapon - possibly the best use thereof has been the alt.religion.scientology wars.

    Here are a couple of representative USENET posts:
    Post 1 [deja.com]
    Post 2 [deja.com]

    The effectiveness of humor against the $cieno meme complex has been demonstrated pretty effectively. Of course, it's hard not to laugh at someone who spends $300K to find out that the source of his personal problems involves volcanoes, H-Bombs, and an evil Galactic Overlord named Xenu, particularly when cult doctrine considers "joking and degrading" a high crime. (Solution obvious: Make everything a degrading joke about the cult - then stand back and watch cult members go apeshit, labelling everyone but themselves criminals, much to the amusement of anyone watching. Give a cult enough rope and it'll hang itself.)

    And while we're on the subject of the Co$ and censorware, as a followup to my "Censorship is for suckers" thread -- is it any wonder that the very same Cult of $cientology ordered all its members to use it's own custom-branded version of Cybersitter on their home PCs?

    For reference:
    Co$ Censors Net Access for Members [xenu.net], and The Scientology Net Censor [gate.net].

    Now - if you're a God-fearing Christian, why on earth would you rely on a solution advocated by a satanic cult that believes that the whole Jesus story was merely an "R6 implant" - a false memory artificially-implanted into our collective unconsciousness by evil alien overlords? I'm sure glad my library is following the lead of the Cult of $cientology and using censorware!

    This leads to another propagable meme: The only "major" "religious" organization to mandate its members' use of censorware is the Cult of $cientology. Why are we following the lead of a god-denying UFO cult? Do you want to trust your children's safety to a group of software companies, when at least one of them has already demonstrated a willingness to develop a custom version of their product to a nut cult that believes Jesus Himself was merely an fake memory implanted in us by aliens? Do the censorware merchants have no shame? How stupid do the censorware peddlers think we are?

  • I first came across meme in Richard Dawkins "The Selfish Gene", where he equates the meme with the gene (they rhyme so it must be good :-).

    The gene can be made up of many building blocks in different forms, the meme can be a single idea or often a collection of ideas and the way in which those ideas develop.

    Powerful Memes can be concepts like "free speach" or equally things like racism and supposed racial superiority, they cover a broader space than the english word idea. A meme seeks to breed and multiply and adapt to its surroundings.

    Some of the most powerful memes can be found in things that can't be described as ideas, football (soccer to those in the US) is a meme that has a life of its own and has spread around the globe pretty much unhindered.

    An idea can be a meme or could be a part of a meme, but a meme doesn't have to be an idea.

  • "Jamie needs to stop mocking the voters in his town and start listening to them."

    I have to agree here. You can't tell someone they're an idiot for what they believe and then expect them to listen to you while you try to persaude them that they are wrong.

    I had to wince when I saw Jamie on TV8 (WOODTV, a local station). I'm anti-filter and yet Jamie seemed like a radical loonie from the clips that TV8 showed. I thought when I saw it, "he's not doing any good for the cause".

    I understand Jamie's passion for the cause. I just hope he can tone it down to a level that might work in Holland MI. Don't slap the people you need to reach out to.

    And being a Holland-er all my life I can say that words like "memes" scare a lot of Holland folk. Words like "protect your children" don't.

  • If you really want to get anywhere with many of these people, you really need to accentuate the false negatives, not the false positives. Most of these censor types will excuse false negatives just as that guy did. Either they'll figure out some reason why it is ok, or imply that it is worth it to mistakenly block a few sites to "save the children". Since most people only half listen to the real arguments, they'll just come away confused.

    Instead, accentuate examples of offensive porn that wasn't blocked. Do this even if you don't think porn is bad. The reason is that it undercuts their whole argument. If you can show that censorware will never effectively block porn in the real world, there ceases to be any purpose for censorware and you don't even have to get into an argument about what is "offensive", and whether people have the right to look at offensive stuff. It will be hard for censorware types to respond to this other than to say "the next version will work". Harp on this enough, and people will start to realize that it will never work.

    Besides, "Censorware allows your children to see porn!" is a much catchier headline then "Censorware keeps your children from seeing 'The offspring'". It'll make the evening news much more often.

    So if I were you, I'd start searching that mass of unblocked data for porn sites. If you can show that a significant percentage of porn is not blocked, you'll win the argument.
  • Essentially what I'm saying is that the urge for control would be much less a problem if the people who were attempting to gain that control were really educated as to what's going on.

    It's possible, though, that if these people knew what was really going on, they'd gain a sense of personal responsibility, and they'd lose the urge to gain control of other people. So essentially what I'm saying is, if they weren't ignorant, they wouldn't be the people they are in the first place.
  • Sure, we've known ideas spread and change for eons longer than we've known about evolution. Dawkins used the term 'meme' much in the same way he used the term 'animal-space' in his later books; it was a convenient vehicle to make people think of a particular aspect of the thing. 'Animal-space' means an organized three-dimensional set of all lifeforms, and implies that one can draw a straight line between any two and predict by the length of the line how many mutations and how much time is needed for the transition. While 'meme' can be used interchangably with idea, he specifically used it to imply that it was the basic unit of cultural evolution, and the same set of laws that apply to physical evolution apply in the cultural sphere.

    Again, merely splitting hairs over a connotation of the same thing, but, eh! Why the heck not!

  • The hair style and pants/skirt length of teenagers are the classic examples of memes -- they are apparently random parameters of fashion whose spread can be easily seen.

    Thank you. That actually makes some amount of sense. You couldn't easily describe that phenomenon using "idea" or "concept".

    Based on this, I agree that the author of the story's use of "meme" is gratuitous. "Memetic Warfare"? I think the other term for that is "propaganda". But that's far less l33t [l33t.com]. :)


    --

  • It's a question of emphasis. Your memory is very kind.

    Just in passing, on the topic of money, I should note for the thread that Censorware Project (I was a cofounder, have since left) has never gotten a cent from anyone.

  • I believe that truthful memes will proliferate in the long run, because enough people's brains select for truth.
    Umm, do you have any evidence for this, or it is just a meme? 1/2 :-)
  • Nice Libertarian, *ahem*, analysis there, Jim. Wow, would I have loved to be hearing things like that years ago, when I first set out to oppose censorware. Anyway, I actually think the situation is a bit more complex. I don't have the time or inclination to write a long essay (I quit free-speech activism). But the community library lobbying is more a function of the Religious Right. That's who funds David Burt and similar. The censorware companies are dealing with bigger fish, Congress and large corporations (see GetNetWise Supporters [getnetwise.org])

    Following the library money:

    Pro-filter group takes big money lead [mlive.com]

    Pro-filter factions win money battle [thehollandsentinel.net]
    "Thanks to $35,000 gift from AFA, groups pushing for Internet filters have advantage"

  • You're missing it. what you have are ethics (the principles you use to guide your own actions). Morals really are the principles that a society generally accepts as standard behavior. Morals are kind of a contract between you and the other members of your society (i won't kill you and you won't kill me and we both benefit).

    I had to take an ethics class in college, and there I learned that morals regard what is (absolutely) right and wrong, and ethics regard a proper code of conduct in a given field (e.g. medical ethics, business ethics). However I think that "ethics" and "morals" as we define them often get confused, and I'm not sure that either my definition or yours is the "correct" one. This seems like one of those cases where everyone's definitions are a little different. I know what you mean, however, and I think you're right, mostly, although I don't think I'd call the common social contract "morals". But it's really just splitting hairs at that point.

    Which words refer to what aside, as long as we agree that there are separate entities thus:

    - Things that society in general agrees are right and wrong
    - Things that you personally think are right and wrong

    ...then regardless of what words we use for them, we can probably agree on something. :) But if we do take your definition, then I guess what I meant was that according to MY ethics, it's wrong for someone else to force THEIR ethics on anyone.

    They definitely exist, whether you choose to acknowledge them or not. But cross them at your own peril.

    No kidding :)

    The problem arises when a minority group claims that its principles are moral (i.e. they apply to all of society) when they aren't in fact shared by the majority. Abortion is an obvious example - the majority feel that abortion under some circumstances is ok (the set of circumstances varies of course).

    This sort of thing (draping yourself in the mantle of morality) seems to happen a lot more now than in the past. I don't know why.

    From what I can tell of history, people have always done this. There's just more people now. :) It sort of became more visible in the 90's because of the rise of the Christian Right (at least in America, which is where I'm assuming you are, though I probably shouldn't). The "family values" meme started infecting everyone, and they're still using it to bash people over the head with. (The difference between Democrats and Republicans: Democrats want the government to run everything except morality, and the Republicans want the government to run nothing except morality.)

  • > Why, oh why, is everything ludicrous attributed
    > to right-wingers?
    >
    > However, one of the fundamental conservate
    > tenets is freedom from government,

    This of course begs the question of how one
    defines "right wing" and "Conservative".

    The classical meaning of conservative has little
    or nothing to do with "freedom". In fact, if I
    remember my History courses, meant a mindset of
    maintaining the "status Quo" (no matter what it
    is) and refusing to make decisions while an issue
    is "hot". The idea being simply that people should
    not make big changes while their emotions are
    involved and thus "Conservatives" are people who
    resist change to protect the system from mistakes
    made out of clouded judgement.

    An example would be that right after a big public
    murder, we should realize that our judgement right
    now is too clouded by the atrocity of the event
    to even think about making new laws to prevent it
    in the future.

    This is not what is meant by "conservative" in
    the modern sense. In the modern sense Conservative
    seems to mean "I think like and act like this
    group of people , who also call themselves
    conservative". In fact, "Liberal" has come to mean
    the same thing.

    Lately, I have trouble telling the differce
    between l"liberals" and "Conservatives"...the
    only difference I see is that they hate eachothers
    ideas with a passion.

    Now...as to why "right wingers" (whatever they
    actually are) get blamed. Many of the groups who
    wish to shove their worldview down everyones
    throat tend to be hard core christian groups
    and identify themselves as "right wing".

  • > See, that's what I was talking about in a
    > lower-numbered thread. Censorship is OK to some
    > people, as long as they disapprove of the groups
    > being censored... much as AC wants to censor the
    > Christians he disagrees with by marginalizing
    > them and their beliefs.

    How interesting. However I would say that there
    is quite a large difference between voicing an
    opionion like "they are irrational" and actually
    trying to stop people from being able to access
    their material.

    One is speach, the other is censorship. Contrary
    speach is not censorship.

    Personally, I think the people who wish to have
    censored internet access in libraries should open
    their own, privatly run, libraries and offer
    censored terminals. Then they get what they
    want, without bothering the public at large.
  • 1) Quit using the word meme. It's stupid, and already covered (based on context) by many other words. It should be thrown into that pile of words like "Enterprise", "Intranet" and "think out of the box" that noone should use. Sorry, personal rant.

    2) Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics. I remember when Time proved that 99.4% of the 'net was used for pr0n based on a report out of CMU. Statistics will always be used for and against you. Probably the best thing you can do is stand up and refute the statement, especially if someone uses it in your presence.
  • I choose to be an optimist about the marketplace of ideas. I believe that truthful memes will proliferate in the long run, because enough people's brains select for truth. Tnen you are kinda missing the point about memes. If people selected for truth then the whole meme idea would be completely uninteresting because at the end of the day ideas would have no internal dynamics of their own as truth would always win out. What makes memes interesting is that ideas have all sorts of different ways of surviving regardless of their truth value. Islam and Christianity are mutually incompatible and have been around for at least 1500 years - a pretty 'long run' wouldn't you say?
  • Start letting people know that it is you, not some fundamentalist group with a three-letter acronym name, that is ultimately responsible for raising your children.

    Or don't, and regain the element of surprise. You see, you WILL raise your children, and they WILL acquire your memes, regardless of what laws and rules are imposed on your family by the misguided others. Sure, those others are annoying, but ultimately, your children listen to YOU. So be a good parent, and infect them with your memes. Then make sure they're a little more successful than you, so they pass your memes on to their children. This is happening now, and it has been happening for thousands of years. The idea that information should be suppressed, filtered, hidden, is inherently a dying meme. (It's a little like a genetic predisposition to be homosexual. If there is such a thing, and there might be, it faces hardcoded barriers to reproducing itself. You are free to feel however you want to about that.)

    Nevertheless, it's a slowly dying meme, even now. Even with technology advances like the Internet making it more difficult to suppress information, there's still just as many people who WANT to, and will attempt to come up with technology weapons to use against the Internet. Blocking software is one example and there will be others. Fight carefully, fight by educating your children (this is the sort of war you are morally obliged to send your children into), fight with better memes. Critically examine what you read, even here. Critically examine my words. The truth is that we will be a happier species if our ideas are not suppressed, and we are naturally predisposed toward truthful memes.


  • Would it be unreasonable to bring a libel lawsuit to bear on David Burt, for his damage to you?
    Yes, it would.
    As a member of The Censorware Project, I have as much interest as anyone in our work being praised, or criticized, on the merits instead of on false memes. But as a First Amendment lawyer who has been defending libel actions for more than twenty years, I know that it would be extremely difficult to win such an action, and that, win or lose, the mere filing of such an action would play right into the hands of Burt or other critics. Think "First Amendment Advocates Only Support Their Speech," or the like
    The law imposes a very high burden on so-called public figures, and the Censorware Project members are public figures, at least for our censorware work. Overcoming that burden is, and should be, difficult.
    But apart from what the law requires, a true believer in the right of free speech must recognize the right by supporting the right to speak of those with whom one most vehemently disagrees. Libel suits have a major chilling effect on speech, and not just those who are sued, but those who are aware of the possibility of being sued. Our common interest at The Censorware Project is censorware, but that interest arises from more fundamental beliefs about the right to speak, and about not chilling the speech of others.
    Each one of us could give many examples of being slimed by Burt, but I would not for a moment think of suing him over any.
  • The content of this article is relatively interesting, but mixing meme's and censorship doesn't work.

    The original idea of a meme was an idea that propagates itself in the manner of a gene or a virus.

    It was a pretty fuzzy concept when it was originated but it was a way of describing some things that happen in the real world - i.e.

    Stories like alligators in the sewers seem to go on forever, passed from person to person.

    Some complex 'memes' such as the Mormon religion have a belief that the members should work to gain converts. A lot of people laugh at the ernestness of some young Mormon missionaries, but the growth of the church seems to prove that this is a 'meme' with high survival and growth characteristics.

    The only intellectual benefit in calling something a 'meme' is that you can study how the idea survives and propagates without having to pay attention to the actual content of the idea.

    The fact that people tend to spread lies that they want to believe is not very surprising, but in the context of the article mixing lies, memes and censorship is simply confusing.

    If you give a man a hammer, pretty soon every problem starts looking like a nail.

  • The fight will never be fair because if it was, they would lose:

    "We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide that the right balance is between being effective and being honest. "

    Stephen Schneider
    Environmental activist, in Discover, Oct. '89

    "There are lies, damed lies, and statistics."

    Mark Twain

  • The public library is such a crappy place to whack off to pr0n anyway. How many people are actually doing this, beside Pee Wee Herman fans?

  • Here's a thought I just had, make of what y'all will. How old are the people organizing all the censorship initiatives? I just longing for the "Sixties" and the whole free speech movement at the time--I ain't old enough to remember it, but it sure reads like a good time don't it. Anyway, I got to wondering: Where did all the hippies who engineered all the progressive movements back then disappear to? Have they transformed into these pro censorship types? If not, why aren't those guys flat out horrified by this whole thing and taking action? For that matter where did the pro censorship movement materialize from. Are these people who came of age in the aftermath of that period? Do they even fall into one age group? I'm just trying to figure out where these people got on the whole decency kick. Are they people who are now afraid of the changes they wrought in the first place, or are they people who grew after the change nostalic for the old--and largely imaginary world? The reason I'm asking these questions is that somewhere along the way a meme kinda crept into out collective consciousness: The idea that the world is a dangerous place. With that one idea, censorship in the name of protecting children becomes not only permissible, but mandatory. I'm just trying to figure out when it happened.

    Now in terms of relevance to the whole geek/tech side of this community, the debate about censorship vs openess has a direct connection. The protocols which power the interconnectivity we enjoy are products of the memes of the late sixties and seventies. The TCP/IP protocols were designed to be transparent, open, and are not owened by anyone. They were developed out of a consensus. Same thing with Unix and the whole open source movment--which has been around a whole lot longer than Linux. You wonder perhaps what protocols and standards are going to come out of this era? Look at the society the techs live in. Right now, it looks as though we're headed for a closed two-tier where creativity and imagination are attacked. Doesn't bode well.

  • Similarly... (Score:3)

    by Chops-Frozen-Water ( 2085 ) on Tuesday February 15, 2000 @07:46AM (#1271894) Homepage
    Reminds me of the little section in Neal Stephenson's Zodiac (What? You still haven't read it?) where Sangamon mentions pH differences and calls it "More than twice what they're licensed for" when he knows that it's really more than 100,000 times what the guilty party is licensed for (pH scale is exponential). Why? People think about it if you say "more than twice" but dismiss you as a flake if you say "over 100,000 times more". There's a point where any discussion of quantities becomes fuzzy because we don't quite have a good picture of what the numbers mean. Even if a million dollars doesn't go as far as it used to, it still has that mystique attached to it of being a 'millionaire'.
    In the same vein, I suppose, one can dismiss 'one in a million' but one has to think about 'one in twenty'. To quote The Tick, "I just can't get my mind around it!"
    --

  • Is it possible to tack an EULA onto a published study, along the lines of:

    The results and data of this research may only be published with the written permission of the author...

    I mean, we all agree that these sort of licenses are detestable. However, there seems to be a sizeable overlap between the group of people who think that those agreements are just fine and the group of people who think that blocking software is peachy keen. In other words, the idiots who would want to misuse the data would be the same ones most likely to follow the "contract" not to.

    I just don't wanna be controlled - that's all I want. - The Offspring

  • Very telling.... (Score:3)

    by cpt kangarooski ( 3773 ) on Tuesday February 15, 2000 @07:41AM (#1271896) Homepage
    What really, _really_ gets me pissed off is that when the report was released, the censors censored out the report, filing it into every category: sex, hate speech, etc.

    If you're incapable of tolerating *criticism* this immediately indicates that there is something seriously wrong.

    While I don't support censorship of any sort (quite different from forcing people to read everything) I would at least be more accepting of censors who welcomed input as to what is and is not acceptable, and who corrected their errors in a responsible fashion.

  • Re:Quand meme, ce n'est meme pas une meme... (Score:3)

    by Windigo The Feral (N ( 6107 ) on Tuesday February 15, 2000 @09:31PM (#1271897)

    Just Some Guy dun said:

    Why, oh why, is everything ludicrous attributed to right-wingers? I am just about as far-right-wing as you can get, and I assure that my core beliefs do not condone censorship in any form. I mean, remember the PMRC (record labeling)? That was Tipper Gore, not Pat Buchanan.

    Hate to have to bring some things up to dash the illusion there, but there are some things I do need to bring up in light of your venting...

    1). The vast majority of groups pushing censorship, and for that matter a lot of flatly ludicrous stuff, are right-wing--specifically, members of various political groups which are basically run by fundamentalist "Christians" in the US. (For that matter, Israel sees the same thing with ultraorthodox "Jews", and darn near every country with a signifigant Islamic population deals with fundamentalist "Moslems" of the two main denominations of their religion. For THAT matter, as I understand it, India's having the same damn problem with fundamentalist "Sikhs" and fundamentalist "Hindus".)

    2). For all intents and purposes, there is no functioning left-wing in the United States. The US has literally gone so far to the right (largely because of influence of fundamentalist "Christian" groups, which at one point had pretty much taken over the entire Republican Party apparatus in thirty-four states; they have apparently led to the self-destruction now of a second party [the Reform Party]. It's not all the GOP's fault, though--I'll note that in a minute) that were Richard Nixon to run today on his present political platform, he would be considered a liberal. The most "liberal" parties in the US with any large percentage of voters (the Democratic and Libertarian parties) would be considered right-moderate in most political systems in the industralised world (yes, that includes Canada, too); the largest "conservative" party (the GOP) would be hard-right in nearly any other country's political system, and the second or third-largest "conservative" political party in the US (the US Taxpayer's Party) is, for all intents and purposes, run by extreme far-righters in the US and in fact promotes theocracy as a platform. (The Reform Party, before it basically started destroying itself when Pat Buchanan got considered for nomination, probably fell in between the Republicans and Libertarians; now, for all intents and purposes, the Reform Party will probably end up as two parties, one beign slightly more left-leaning but both still firmly on the right.) One newspaper, which started in the 1800's as a "moderate conservative" paper of the times and has had pretty much the same political bent ever since it started, is now considered one of the hardest-left papers in the US. It would also probably be considered moderate or moderate-left in political spectrums in most industralised countries.

    Sad to say, but the political spectrum in the US today is less like other industrialised countries and more like those in which a fair amount of corruption occurs (such as in many "third-world" nations) or which are having very serious problems with fundamentalists trying to subvert the very structure of the government itself (this is certainly true in the US, and in a lot of other places you hear about in the news--like Israel, or Pakistan and India (basically a pissing contest between Muslim fundies and Hindu fundies which could well end up in a nuclear war before it's over with) or Sudan (which is having a rather nasty civil war between Muslim fundies and Christian fundies)).

    2a). On a related note, and this is very important to note with anything related to fundy movements in general--most fundy groups, especially so in the US, are basically run by power-hungry individuals. In the US at least (and probably elsewhere--there's real signs of it at least in some ultra-Orthodox communities, and among nations like Iran and Afghanistan especially), many of the people who are members of the various fundy PACs here--and especially the more decidedly active ones--are members of churches that can be described as coercive groups much as Scientology can be described as a coercive group. Many of these groups use various mind-control techniques on their members to not only have them basically allow their minister to think for them, but to specifically "block out" anything that could be averse to what the minister says (these include basically teaching that the people in the church or group are the only ones who are "saved" and that anyone who isn't "saved" is in direct league with Satan; teaching that any doubt is the result of either demonic oppression or (if someone else says it) outright possession and one needs to "pray the doubts out" or have exorcisms performed (often involuntarily); forced confession of "sins" (which have included the involuntary outing of gays in church; most Religious Right groups are homophobic at best and some (like Fred Phelps, or Donald Wildmon, or Kentucky's own Frank Simon) are downright infamous for it); telling members to only do business with "members of like faith" (including printing special directories, like the "Christian Yellow Pages") and to only watch media that is affiliated with the church because all other media sources are "worldly" at best and outright "Satanic" at worst, not to mention businesses; "shepherding" programs and "cell churches" (in most programs, the people are divided into groups of five which, in essence, play "Big Brother" on each other--if someone has doubts, the other members try to work them more into the group, in extreme cases by methods like involuntary exorcisms), and so-called "divine lies" (basically, lying about your goals or at the least being dishonest about them to lure folks in to "win more souls for Christ"--this encompasses everything from "hell house" haunted-houses which are marketed as regular haunted houses for "educational purposes" which in fact are used to make people listen to fundy preaching (and yes, sometimes the doors ARE locked and the people not allowed to leave, so yes, they are in essence forced to listen) to "pep talks" run in high schools by groups that have fundy athletes come in to prosyletise, often on the premise that these are "anti-drug" or "self-esteem" talks (most of the time, these assemblies are mandatory to attend for kids, and often the groups will take innocuous-sounding names like "Athletes Against Drugs" or suchlike to hide their fundy links) to "free pizza parties" held by fundy groups who then hold the kids for hours, not allowing them to leave (it is almost never revealed that the "pizza party" is in fact being run by a fundy group) to "stealth candidates" for political offices (which don't reveal their fundy links till elected)...). Basically, because a lot of these groups ARE essentially Bible-based cults, they can feed their members an amazing amount of horsesheisse and (because they literally have nothing else to "error-check" it with) their followers will swallow it. If anything, most folks involved are to be pitied (the only ones that really deserve hate are probably the leaders who outright manipulate their followers).

    There has not been a terrible amount of info on how "Bible-based cults" do manipulate their followers until fairly recently, largely because most folks associate "cults" with "new religions" and most folk haven't wanted to believe that "Christian" groups can and sadly do turn into coercive groups preaching far more of a god of Fear, Hate and Loathing (both of self and others) than a god of love, acceptance, and respect (which is what, at least with those folks whom I've met who I sense actually "get" what Yshua was saying, feel it's supposed to be about anyways). I also expect this is a big reason why most mainstream churches in the US haven't spoken out about "Bible-based cults" except in cases where they've been really extreme (part of this, too, might be because--sadly--coercive tactics are getting into larger and larger denominations; one of the largest fundy denominations in the US, which is in essence a Bible-based cult, was the major source of TV preachers for years and has well over one million members...a recent expose of the "Brownsville Movement" (which is centered at one of the larger churches in the US for this denomination in Pensacola, Florida) using coercive tactics is one of the major exceptions; the Southern Baptists, which have had their entire church head and seminary taken over by the fundamentalist wing of the denomination, are starting to dance close to using coercive tactics though they aren't as bad as the "traditionally" fundy denominations yet); part of that, though, may be because most fundy denominations (and especially those which are basically Bible-based cults) don't have anything to do with most major ecumenical conventions, holding their own separate worldwide conferences because they feel mainstrean Christianity is "lukewarm" at best and outright perverted by Satan at worst).

    I'll also note (this is a personal aside, based on my own observations of having grown up in a family of raving fundies and having seen far more than I like of the internals of the Religious Right and fundamentalist groups in the US) that--probably because many of these folks have literally been in these groups for generations (I know of three-generation households in the group I walked away from; also, many of the younger especially are literally isolated from the outside world from birth all the way through college (fundies push homeschooling in large part so that kids CAN be isolated and not see anything that could spur them to walk away; there is now even a college being set up specifically for fundy-homeschooled kids to train them to be "political leaders for Christians", homeschooled kids being perfect fodder because they have literally been raised and brainwashed in Bible-based cults from birth), partly because walkaways from groups one has been raised in are EXTREMELY rare (pretty much most kids walk away when their parents do, or if they are forced out of their homes due to "irreconcilable differences" like the kid discovering he's gay; there are literally no statistics on kids walking away on their own (with no help from parents or exit counselors) from groups they were raised in because it is so rare), and partly because this is all they know as a result...a large percentage of those involved in Bible-based cults and in groups like the FRC are, to put none too fine a term on it, control-freaks. This is probably because the only real model they have IS the preacher, who basically uses coercive tactics (and a hell of a lot of FUD) to keep his flock "in line" and not questioning the preacher--this is especially true of folks who have been raised in such groups for generations--and so they basically take the whole "coercive-tactics"/"control-freak" thing to ALL walks of life. Literally everything from politics (a big part of why fundies want a theocracy here has to do with Control and Power over others; again, this is probably an extension of how their own ministers and deacons use Power and Control to keep the flock in line, along with the major "us versus them" mindset in such groups) to parenting (a lot of fundy parents will homeschool kids specifically to keep a maximum amount of Control and Power over them--this is also why they push so much for censorship initiatives to "protect the children", and a lot of fundies won't allow their kids to attend non-Christian colleges or allow them to attend schools with coed dorms or alcohol on campus [yes, I've had experience with this; the fact Beloit College had coed dorms and alcohol on campus pretty much shot all hell out of any chance I had of going there, even without money concerns]). Basically, to put a fine point on it, many of them are control-freaks by basis of being in groups that are run by control-freaks who use coercive tactics, and they have no other model to use (either by model of literally not knowing any better, or by model of literally being so brainwashed that pretty much they have nothing else to go by).

    A good starter for exploring the mindset of which I'm talking on is here [ifas.org]. It's a page for walkaways, specifically from Bible-based cults, run by a person who was formerly involved in one (he walked away, and now actually runs a "fight-the-right" group largely because of his experiences in the coercive group); it gives you a lot of perspective on where they're coming from, if you've never been misfortunate enough to have experienced Fundie Hell for yourself. (I honestly don't recommend the latter for anyone, especially not kids and other living things. It can screw you up for life, seriously. Look at me. ;)

    2b). As another aside--this is probably not widely known by folks, but there are a lot of businesses in the US--many of them Fortune 500 companies, yet--that not only are affiliated with the Right Wing in the US, but are in fact members and actually supportive of it. An enlightening--and scary page--for starters is here [ifas.org]--this is a page featuring info on the Coalition for National Policy, which is essentially a secretive, invite-only think-tank for the Religious Right in the United States. It features a membership list [ifas.org] that includes, among others, many members of the Coors family, a (former) Presidential candidate, and a number of representatives to US and state legislatures. There's also a good link here [sjcdc.org] that talks about the CNP and a lot more of the big names in the Religious Right...

    For more starters...both the Coors family (yep, as in Coors Breweries) and the Waltons (yep, as in Sam's Wholesale/Wal-Mart--as in, before Sam Walton died, one of the single richest individuals on the planet, worth more than Bill Gates, and only surpassed by the Sultan of Brunei; the Waltons collectively are still in the top 100 of the richest people on the planet) are heavily involved with the Religious Right, outright subsidizing them and being sympathetic to concerns (to give examples--the Coors family supported Amendment 2 in Colorado, which would have rescinded civil-rights laws that included sexual orientation; the Waltons have made it a policy not to carry albums with "Tipper-stickers", refused to carry heavy-metal magazines for a long time, and refuse to provide "morning-after" contraceptives even though they will provide Viagra). Needless to say, these are two of the biggest companies in the US. Another interesting one is AmWay--AmWay in and of itself has been accused of using coercive tactics with its sales representatives, but is also run by fundamentalists with links to the CNP and AmWay has been known to bankroll fundy groups in past. Not even home shopping is immune--as it turns out, the person who owns Home Shopping Club, Home Shopping Network (the off-hours version of HSC that shows up on a lot of "Christian" TV stations and also used to show up on the "Family Channel") and PAX TV is a major bankroller of the Religious Right (more on that below).

    For even more shockers...a lot of times, Religious Right groups deal in a fair bit of "cloaking". The Arthur S. DeMoss foundation (a Religious Right group that pushes "Christian Reconstructionism", has actually endorsed Christian Identity groups on occasion, and pretty much is a major funding source for the Religious Right; it was founded by the widow of a Religious Right supporter who happened to be a multi-millionaire) hides most of its nastier stuff by not only doing innocuous-sounding adverts for adoption and "Power for Living" (basically a book which hawks fundamentalist Christianity), but has sympathetic multi-million-dollar stars like the woman from "Children of a Lesser God" and Jeff Gordon (great...have NASCAR drivers hawking fundamentalism to the kiddies...Jeff Gordon, probably more than anyone in NASCAR short of the Pettys, is seen as particularly "kid-friendly" and as a general, All-American "Wheaties"-box boy) and NFL stars hawking for them. (Knowing that group, I'm almost willing to bet that either a) they might not have been too forthcoming with these folks other than that they were a group promoting a book about "Christian living", or b) a hell of a lot of people in show-business need a good expose like there has been with Scientologists in Hollywood...more info on the Arthur S. Demoss Foundation here [au.org] and here [google.com] [thank you Google...it seems that Pathfinder is not wanting to behave well].) The Family Channel, until recently, was owned by the same folks who brought you Pat Robertson and the 700 Club--it was renamed from the "Christian Broadcasting Network" to make it sound like it offered "family-friendly" programming and to hide its links to the Religious Right (as Pat Robertson and the Christian Coalition had started to get a rather bad name). In fact, the Family Channel was sold to FOX, which does have some links to the right in the US (though not as bad as, say, Coors).

    PAX TV, which is a TV network set up by a fundamentalist (again, using the exact same canard that the "Family Channel" did in its Pat Robertson days--as a purveyor of "family-friendly entertainment" which conveniently neglects to mention its links to the Religious Right) and which is largely carried on "Christian" TV stations, is heavily bankrolled by Home Shopping Club and Home Shopping Network (which--not exactly coincidentially--also showed on the Family Channel on off-hours and shows on a lot of "Christian" TV stations in off-hours) and--even worse--is also owned 20 percent by CBS and NBC was planning to buy 32 percent in PAX TV (this would be over 400 million dollars). More info here [onlinejournal.com], and more info on PAX here [salon.com]...for that matter, the very head of Focus on the Family (which spawned off Family Research Council as a lobbying wing), James Dobson, makes a rather healthy living selling parenting books promoting "tough love" and "discipline".

    Even besides all THAT, a lot of the major Religious Right groups get a lot of funding from members, and many of them can actually get it tax-free (by either setting up separate "political" wings when the heat from the IRS gets too much, or by setting it up with roughly the same tax exemptions a church would get). There are also local businesses...as one guide has advised, if you want to boycott teh Religious Right you almost have to look through one of the directories made for the Religious Right or avoid every business with an ichthus-fish on it...and besides all THAT, Religious Right groups are increasingly going stealth or relying on certain "code words" within the community like "Family", "Heritage", or names confusingly similar to existing groups (one anti-abortion "counseling center" actually named themselves "PPC, Inc." and based themselves in the same building as the local Planned Parenthood office; a legal group that bankrolls and supports lawsuits friendly to Religious Right causes is named "American Center for Law and Justice"; a really amazing number of Religious Right groups use "Family" or "Heritage" or "Christian Life Center" (in the case of churches) because these are actual code words in the fundamentalist community for fundy-friendly causes).

    Needless to say, unfortunately, the Religious Right isn't exactly hurting for money and, short of ALL of their members walking away combined with a massive economic crash that disrupts nearly the entire worldwide financial system to the point that it forces us to go back to barter or most of their members walking away combined with a massive boycott of ANYTHING the Religious Right has their fingers in, they aren't going to be hurting for money anytime soon. :P

    2c). Media that isn't tied with the Religious Right somehow is often basically bullied into submission. As noted above, a lot of folks in fundy groups have a very "us versus them" viewpoint to begin with--they literally believe they are fighting Satan and all of us not in a fundy group are practicing Satanists as a direct result. :P If ANYTHING is reported whatsoever that is in the LEAST critical of the Religious Right, they will protest (even if they don't read the paper or watch non-"Christian" TV because it might be "Satanically influenced") because, in essence, they will be informed about it and told to raise forty kinds of hell over it. And they will. In droves. (A Pensacola paper found this out when they basically exposed the "Brownsville Movement" as a Bible-based cult; "20/20" did an expose of the "Brownsville Movement" and likewise were damn near pilloried (of course, most fundies were already boycotting anything relating to Disney because {horror!} they dared give equal rights to gay couples for benefits and had a "gay Day" there, but that's beside the point)...my family raged for days about the expose because "Oh god, they make us all out to be cultists or something" (I hate to inform them, but, well, if the shoe fits...I'd think instead of ranting at ABC maybe you should do some serious soul-searching on whether the chuch is doing the Right Thing or not, but then again, I walked away and I dare to be sensible about the whole thing instead of getting my panties in a wad)...read your newspaper's editorials everytime someone dares suggest that the Religious Right and theocracy or even putting the Ten Commandments in schools might possibly not be the be-all, end-all to the world's problems to get an idea of just WHAT kinds of cain they do raise.) Burger King and Pepsi, among others, have literally been bullied out of running certain adverts or sponsoring programs because of letter-writing campaigns by the American Family Association (a hard-line Religious Right lobbying group which has some decidedly homophobic tendencies); many ABC affiliates were likewise bullied into not carrying "NYPD Blue" during its first two seasons for the same reason.

    3). Now, to a direct point I was going to mention--hate to break it to you, but the PMRC is by no bloody means liberal. Tipper Gore (and Al Gore) are (as noted above) right-moderate AT MOST; the other co-founder, oddly enough, just happens to be Elizabeth Dole, wifey of Bob Dole and onetime candidate for the 2000 GOP nomination for President. One of the founding members was Susan Baker (wife of Former Secretary of State James A. Baker III (R)).

    More to the point, though, the PMRC has many a link to Religious Right groups. First off, they have carried advertising in PMRC literature for "Back In Control Training Center" and other "training centers"; Back In Control was basically an inpatient program run by two former LAPD officers which was advertised to "de-metal" or "de-punk" kids, which was in effect a brainwashing center with links to the Religious Right and which has claimed, among other things, that Wiccans are Satanists and that the Magen David (the Jewish star) is a Satanic symbol and that if kids are wearing "gothy" or "metal" clothing this is a sure sign of Satan-worship. Back In Control has also worked with a lot of police departments and schools, and (ObSlashdot) is one of the groups that is directly responsible for kids being harassed and worse after Columbine for wearing "goth" clothing. (More info here [purdue.edu],here [addict.com] (in passing, but in direct relation to how Back In Control Training Center has been heavily promoted by the PMRC), and here [theroc.org].)

    Also, they've promoted and used material from Bob Larson Ministries; for those who aren't aware, Bob Larson is a "foamin' fundy" radio preacher who, among other things, promotes censorship and the whole Religious Right agenda. Among other things, he's called peace symbols and the Nike swoosh Satanic symbols (no, I'm not making this up) as well as the good old canard about the Magen David supposedly being a Satanic symbol. More info here [washington.edu] (or the newer version here [freespeech.org]--the "Bob Larson Fan Site"--trust me, the kinds of horsesheisse Larson spews is the kind that must be seen for itself to be believed), and a lovely expose in a British Columbia Christian mag here [bcchristiannews.org]. Yes, the PMRC actually promoted material from this nut :P

    Incidentially, you can confirm all the info above by getting a copy of the book "50 Ways To Fight Censorship" by Dave Marsh (head of Rock and Rap Confidential, and the guy who coined the phrase "rock and roll" incidentially). It's out of print, but most better libraries do have a copy, and if you can't find it there, there are all manner of online bookstores who could probably scare up a copy for you.

    Oh, and if you wondered whether the PMRC still has links to the Religious Right...the answer, darling, is an emphatic yes. The present head, one Barbara Wyatt, just happens (ironically) to also sit on the board of Focus on the Family (!)...more info here (again, thank you Google; the more recent version is [google.com]here [tylwythteg.com], btw), and here [ultranet.com].

    And BTW, just for the record--I don't have an agenda, other than being a walkaway from a Bible-based cult who really does not the US to descend into a theocracy (I lived under one for all intents and purposes for 25 years of my life; trust me, it sucks, and it will suck twenty times worse if they can get their theocracy nationwide) and who knows all too well both the mindset these folks operate under and the real danger (to freedom and, ultimately, to the psyches of both their memberships and those who are family to them) these groups ultimately present. In essence, I don't want the rest of y'all on Slashdot to have to put up with what I had to put up with for 25 years of my life, and an especially hellish thirteen years after I walked away and I had to live in a household of which the majority of people were raving fundies (and the rest of my family was, slowly but steadily, being assimilated by the Bible-Based Cult Of Borg). It sucks. Bigtime. :P (I note this because, when I made a little post exposing the agenda of the Family Research Council, I was accused of having an agenda. Sorry, I've got no more of an agenda than a kid who's been abused has in getting the abuse to stop. :P)

  • Misunderstanding of morality (Score:3)

    by greenrd ( 47933 ) on Tuesday February 15, 2000 @09:52AM (#1271898) Homepage
    What I do have a problem with is groups that point their fingers at my family and say, "All right, now we'll set your moral standards for you.")

    I'm afraid that's exactly what has to happen - that is the *meaning* of the word morality. Just read any philosohical book on ethics. There's no such thing as morality that only applies to a small group of people - it applies to everyone (under morally similar conditions), or it's not morality at all. Just think about it for one second - take some commonly accepted moral rules:

    1. It's wrong to kill someone for fun
    2. It's wrong to steal from a baby
    3. It's wrong to eat people
    Obviously these apply to everyone. Saying "It would be wrong for me to kill someone for fun, but not if you did it" is just ridiculous. The same goes for any other moral principle. I believe that it would be morally wrong for me to choose to eat meat, because of the animal suffering and violence involved. That *automatically* implies, by definition of morality, that it is wrong for everyone else to choose to eat meat. For people for whom it doesn't, they must be confusing morality with something less strong, like just personal taste. There's no getting away from it.

    I don't agree with compulsory censorware, but your argument is completely illogical - unfortunately it's quite a common mistake.

    Your moral principle is that "You shouldn't impose your moral principles on other people." But don't you see - imposing that moral principle on others is totally hypocritical!!

  • Tailor the meme to the audience!!! (Score:3)

    by Tackhead ( 54550 ) on Tuesday February 15, 2000 @10:22AM (#1271899)
    In an unrelated thread, someone wrote:
    > Besides, "Censorware allows your children to see porn!" is a much catchier headline then "Censorware keeps
    your children from seeing 'The offspring'". It'll make the evening news much more often.

    I've quoted it here because to me, this is all about propagability of memes. Some people evaluate memes based on truth values, but most don't. Truth is not a predictor of propagability of memes, and in order to win this battle, we need memes that can propagate as well among the fundie crowd as they do among the Slashdot crowd. .

    Let's consider the memeset of our "enemy" here, and that Offspring lyric that got posted. Our enemy probably knows "The Offspring" as "that band that sings about beating people up and being a rowdy teenager". Blocking Offspring isn't a bug to these people, it's an accidental feature.

    Those Offspring lyrics - put yourself in the brain of a stereotypical fundie and read the lyrics: "When will the world listen to reason / I have a feeling it'll be a long time / When will the truth come into season / I have a feeling it'll be a long time.."

    Now, since you're a fundie, and you know that Offspring isn't "Christian Rock", you can only assume that they're not talking about "the world waking up to the realization that Christ is the One True Savior". In fact, you probably suspect that they're trying to get your kids to "wake up" and snap out of their fundie-raised upbringing. What we /.ers think of as "think for yourself" is - in the hardcore fundie mentality, "the sin of pride", a rebellion against God's divine authority that puts man at the center of their universe, not God - oh, the horror!

    Do I agree with that logic? Not on your life. But $10 worth of hot grits down Jerry Falwell's pants says that the people who want blocking software do. And THEY'RE the ones propagating the memes right now, which is why we're losing this war.

    We need to stop pretending that our opposition cares about the First Amendment. We know damn well they don't. Stop pretending that our audience cares about the First Amendment. They're too ignorant to care about things when the meme of "saving the chiiilllldrun is worthwhile at any cost" shows up. From a memetic warfare standpoint, the logical alternative is to take the battle to a level the sheeple can understand, and that means to start scaring them into submission the same way our opponents have been doing, and that means a memeset that propagates among fundies.

    An audience of people who stand up and say "I used your filtering software last year and read about donkeys fucking little girls! You said you made your filters better, but I can still see that goddamn link!" is an audience ready to get my proposed meme:

    Filterware isn't about protecting the children. It's a scam that can never work. The companies that write it and sell it are lying to you.

    Unlike "You're blocking good sites too", where our idea of "good" is just as bad as pr0n to our enemies, this is a useful meme.

    Consider: It appeals on the gut level - to paranoia, by accusing "big business" of running a scam on "the little guy", and describes a world in which Godless Amoral Corporations are trying to pull the wool over Your Preshus Chilldrun's eyes by hawking snake oil that can never work. They're not really for Jesus, they're just trying to make a buck in His name. (The fact that this is true isn't relevant -- it's that it's easily believed to be true that counts.)

    More importantly - this meme gives its holder a sense of superiority. "I know censorware doesn't work. I know it's a crock. I know something other people don't know, which makes me better than other people!".

    Finally - it doesn't conflict with their existing memeset. Our whining about the First Amendment makes us feel superior, because most of us realize that there are principles at stake beyond religious bickering. But it conflicts directly with the "God Uber Alles" meme that so heavily infects the fundie set. To these people, a theocracy is a Good Thing, and the First Amendment is a threat. But even the most diehard theocrat can see that "Being a Sucker" is a bad thing.

    To summarize -- if you wanna do memetic warfare, pick memes that are easily reproduced. Pick memes that make their holders happy by reinforcing their propagators' self-esteem. And make sure you pick a meme that doesn't require modification to the existing memes held by your target audience.

    It's what they've done to us so successfully with "We're for God, the children, and apple pie. They're for porn and using the first amendment as a lame excuse." When we whine about the First Amendment - it's taken for whining, because our argument says "there are things more important than your religious beliefs" - our meme conflicts with theirs and gets thrown out.

    My proposed "You're being sold snake oil. Don't be a sucker" meme is every bit as true as our arguement about the First Amendment, but unlike the constitutional argument, it doesn't conflict with their existing complex of religious memes. You can go on thumping the bible and beatin' up faggutz and lezzbein' femminizt radikulz or whatever the hell else it is that hardcore fundies get off on - but you can do it without censorware.

    Because You're Not A Sucker. And Censorware is for Suckers. Because it doesn't work. Because it never will work. And because it's all a scam being run by people who are invoking the name of God to make a quick buck. May they burn in hell, Amen.

  • This does not bode well for freedom of press (Score:3)

    by Shadok8 ( 58859 ) on Tuesday February 15, 2000 @08:16AM (#1271900)
    Jamie and his group seem caught up on technicalities and words which most people don't understand. That is not a good way to sway the public to one's viewpoint.

    Many parents believe the internet contains threats to their children. These parents feel the library should be a safe place. They will vote to protect their children. The instinct to protect one's offspring is far more powerful than the love of liberty (short sighted as that may be).

    The only way the anti-censoreware movement will succeed is to address the fears of these parents/voters. They can scream censorhip until they are blue in the face. It seems they will.

    Jamie needs to stop mocking the voters in his town and start listening to them. They will vote and they will make the decision, unless Jamie persuades them to do otherwise.

  • Meme warfare (Score:3)

    by chaosgrrl ( 62807 ) on Tuesday February 15, 2000 @08:09AM (#1271901) Homepage
    Memes are terribly hard to shove back in the wrapper after someone takes them out exposes them to the meme collecting sheeple who get sucked in by the meme de jour.
    Memes that tend to corkscrew into the brain of J.Random Citizen faster than anything usually include references to children, family, religion, morals (not ethics), sex and violence.
    Actual numbers are inconsequential as long as the writer can show that they are in the majority and on the same side of the issue as the readers (or rather convincing the reader that they would be a foul beast for disagreeing with the author.) What kind of monster would allow harm to befall children? These memes are replicated in churches, schools, television, newspaper and anywhere that two or more people get together to try and shock each other with horror stories from the trenches.
    J.Random Public doesn't want to be confused by the facts. They don't want someone telling them that politicians trying to peddle their own agenda duped them. They want to feel good about their actions and this only serve to reinforce the meme. The more the spread it and get approval and agreement from other citizens, the more justified they feel in holding this meme, nurturing it, cuddling it, stroking its fur, naming it George. They'll only discard it if enough people whom they respect laugh at them and tell them what fools they were for buying the meme in the first place.
    The only answer I can think of is for us to go out and laugh at anyone we hear propagating these inaccuracies. Memes don't just die, they must be terminated with extreme prejudice.

    -chaosgrrl

  • Re:information (Score:3)

    by barleyguy ( 64202 ) on Tuesday February 15, 2000 @09:11AM (#1271902)
    I say we throw in the towel on the concept of promoting change from within the system and focus on civil disobedience. The hacker ethic is antitheical to this New World Order of information control... this is the real war - it's not one of politics or mimes.. it's about the right to the truth.. the freedom of information, and the right to be left alone.

    I agree with you on this, however it goes even deeper than that. It's about free thought, and freewill. The first thing each of us needs to focus on is achieving personal awareness, free thought, and free will - i.e. liberty - the ability to get up each morning (or night), do what you believe in all day (or night), and go to bed at night (or morning) knowing you did what you believed in.

    The second thing to do is to help other people do what they believe in. Of course this is a personal thing, and if you try to change people's views too much from the direction they are naturally inclined, what you get is divided loyalties. The last thing you want in a tense situation is people questioning their loyalties. So with five billion people on the earth, and the mass of communications, the goal should be to connect people who naturally believe in freewill and liberty. After this happens, the "system" will never be able to get these people back on their side, so the only option they'll have is to try to keep our ideas from spreading to the sheep.

    This is the information age. The greatest tool of the status quo is ignorance of any other way of going about things. So they will continue to try to keep their ideas flowing to those people who they think they can control. But awareness is usually a one way journey - once you've seen it, you won't just give in to ignorance.

    But anyhow.....

  • Why do we need this word "meme"? (Score:3)

    by Tim Behrendsen ( 89573 ) on Tuesday February 15, 2000 @07:34AM (#1271903)

    What's wrong with the word that has meant the same thing since English began: idea?

    Is it just to be extra l33t, or is there some hidden meaning that has escaped me?


    --

  • Re:Misunderstanding of morality (Score:3)

    by Dirtside ( 91468 ) on Tuesday February 15, 2000 @10:28AM (#1271904) Journal
    Morality is entirely subjective -- unless you accept the existence of an absolute moral lawgiver like God (which I don't), then the only morality that means anything to you is the one that you follow. If I have a set of morals and I am the ONLY PERSON IN THE WORLD WITH THOSE MORALS, that does NOT mean that they are not morals. Obviously if I have morals I think everyone should have the same morals -- but I also think it's wrong for me to FORCE them to follow my morals. These are not mutually exclusive ideas; what you're saying is that if someone has morals, they are morally obligated (!) to force their morals on everyone else, which is not the case. What if my morals preclude me from telling anyone about my morals?

  • information (Score:4)

    by Signal 11 ( 7608 ) on Tuesday February 15, 2000 @07:43AM (#1271905)
    Sounds to me like if you open the communications channels to the masses, you lose that control.. and the war never happens.

    This is not about the internet. This is not about pornography, it is not about copyright, it is not about piracy, it is not about cryptography. It's about information control.

    Information is power. The internet has an unfettered flow of information. Therefore the internet is the ultimate powerbase. The people who control it effectively do what they've been doing for the past two thousand years: they control you, your reality, your neighbors, everything. The worst part is, because you don't know what is and is not truly going on, you don't even know this is occuring.

    We got a fleeting glance of the empowerment this medium can provide when the ISP boom occurred alittle over a year ago - and before the letters "AUP" came into being. This was a time when everybody was getting online and seeing that the world is very different depending on who you talk to...

    As a result, cultural barriers collapsed, people started judging by ideas instead of the color of your skin or your age, and a private revolution took off in the homes of the average joe.

    This is going to come to a screeching halt. It MUST come to a halt for society to preserve it's integrity - the RIAA, the DMCA, piracy, privacy and democracy are all intertwined. This is the ultimate battle, and right now they have 40 frags, and the home team is -1.

    I say we throw in the towel on the concept of promoting change from within the system and focus on civil disobedience. The hacker ethic is antitheical to this New World Order of information control... this is the real war - it's not one of politics or mimes.. it's about the right to the truth.. the freedom of information, and the right to be left alone.

  • American Decency Association? (Score:4)

    by cje ( 33931 ) on Tuesday February 15, 2000 @08:14AM (#1271906) Homepage
    Is it just me, or is the number of self-appointed groups crusading to promote "decency" on the rise? "American Decency Association?" Some would claim that title is a joke. Still others would claim it's an oxymoron. It's hard to tell. Their home page [americandecency.org] is pretty typical; Bible verses mixed with warnings about pornography addiction and the other evils of the Internet. Yawn. (No, I have no problem with the Bible, and I have no problem with people and/or families basing their morality on it. What I do have a problem with is groups that point their fingers at my family and say, "All right, now we'll set your moral standards for you.")

    Why isn't there more vocal opposition to groups like this? Sure, on Slashdot, they get raked over the coals, but you would expect it: the average Slashdot reader is a little bit more concerned about his or her freedom than the average person on the street. But this ought to be bigger than Slashdot and a few other forums. I don't care if you're the most rabid of the rabid religious fundamentalists or the most die-hard of the die-hard atheists. If you value personal freedom, then you must be morally opposed to a single group attempting to establish their moral standard as the compulsory baseline for everyone! This certainly includes filtering; by definition filtering consists of a single person or group of people unilaterally deciding that a particular site is inappropriate for everybody.

    So start letting people know that you're not going to accept this. Start letting people know that you are more than capable of deciding what you and your children can and cannot see. Start letting people know that it is you, not some fundamentalist group with a three-letter acronym name, that is ultimately responsible for raising your children. Because I'll tell you what folks: what we really need to be protected from are the folks who think they know better than anybody else what's best for us. So to the ADA, the FRC, the CC, and any other "moral watchdog" organization, I say "Thanks, but no thanks." This is something that families can handle by themselves.

  • Re:Why do we need this word "meme"? (Score:4)

    by seligman ( 58880 ) on Tuesday February 15, 2000 @07:48AM (#1271907) Homepage
    What's wrong with the word that has meant the same thing since English began: idea? Is it just to be extra l33t, or is there some hidden meaning that has escaped me?

    I actually had to look this one up, but the definition prooves rather intresting, and imo, quite different from just "idea": (from our friends at www.dictionary.com [dictionary.com])

    meme

    /meem/ [By analogy with "gene"] Richard Dawkins's term for an idea considered as a replicator [dictionary.com], especially with the connotation that memes parasitise people into propagating them much as viruses do.

    Memes can be considered the unit of cultural evolution. Ideas can evolve in a way analogous to biological evolution. Some ideas survive better than others; ideas can mutate through, for example, misunderstandings; and two ideas can recombine to produce a new idea involving elements of each parent idea.

    The term is used especially in the phrase "meme complex" denoting a group of mutually supporting memes that form an organised belief system, such as a religion. However, "meme" is often misused to mean "meme complex".

    Use of the term connotes acceptance of the idea that in humans (and presumably other tool- and language-using sophonts) cultural evolution by selection of adaptive ideas has become more important than biological evolution by selection of hereditary traits. Hackers find this idea congenial for tolerably obvious reasons.

    See also memetic algorithm [dictionary.com].

    (1996-08-11)


    Source: The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing, © 1993-2000 Denis Howe [dictionary.com]

Slashdot Top Deals

How many hardware guys does it take to change a light bulb? "Well the diagnostics say it's fine buddy, so it's a software problem."

Close