Re: moderation of abuse

From: Karl A. Krueger (kkrueger_at_example.edu)
Date: 02/06/04 

Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 18:06:01 +0000 (UTC)

Pascal Costanza <costanza@web.de> wrote:
> Daniel Barlow wrote:
>> Pascal Costanza <costanza@web.de> writes:
>>>If you don't like certain people, simply don't talk to them. If the
>>>majority agrees, the supposedly stupid and trollish people will leave
>>>anyway because everybody will stop talking to them. Why make things
>>>more complicated than that?
>>
>> Because it doesn't work? I get 5-10Mb of email spam a day, and do not
>> reply to any of it (or even read most of it; bayesian filtering knocks
>> it down to manageable levels) and I haven't noticed any of the
>> spammers leaving because I'm not responding to them. Why do you expect
>> trolls to be any more socially attuned than spammers?
>
> Spams are generated automatically, trolls not. ;)

Spam is a human action, just like trolling. It is recognized by the
characteristic choices of the humans who send it. Some of those choices
(such as writing "V`1,A-G.R~A" for "Viagra") involve choosing to use
certain automated processes, yes -- but they are recognizable as spam
characteristics because spammers choose to do these things and others
don't. (Just as spammers choose to steal other people's stuff to use
for advertising, and non-spammers do not.)

Spam is _not_ simply a byproduct of a technical system, the way that
(e.g.) packet collisions are a byproduct of shared-media Ethernets when
the utilization gets high. It is a human action; thus, amenable to
social rather than technical fixes. The solution to spam is to follow
the money, identify the human beings responsible, and deprive them
through due process of law of their ability to continue to choose to
misuse the property of others. 

-- 
Karl A. Krueger <kkrueger@example.edu>
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Email address is spamtrapped.  s/example/whoi/
"Outlook not so good." -- Magic 8-Ball Software Reviews