Text 44258, 165 rader
Skriven 2006-12-20 15:32:00 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
  Kommentar till text 44214 av Jeff Smith (1:14/0)
Ärende: Your Fidonews Website
=============================
Hello Jeff!

On Tuesday December 19 2006 18:38, you wrote to me:

 JS>>>      Several of those same people have stated that they would
 JS>>> accept being moderated by someone that they respect.

 MV>> And the lion will lay next to the lamb. Yeah right...

 JS>      The bottom line here is that many have liitle or no respect for
 JS> Björn as moderator and they show that by their actions and responses
 JS> to Bjorn as moderator.

Ah, the "respect" mantra again.

Bottom line is that some - all from Z1 , but of course that is just a
coincidence.. - refuse to be moderated or to moderate themselves. "Lack of
respect" is just a label you stick on it.

 JS>      Saying something is impossible just puts limits on one's self.

Saying something is impossible is facing reality.

 JS> There is almost always a way that something can done.

Typical American stubborness. Putting your head in the sand never solved any
problem.

 JS> Given the desire or the thought to see it through to it's conclusion.
 JS> It is true that we often don't succeed at something. That is the
 JS> reality of life. But to give up and use the excuse that it is
 JS> impossible to me is a way of trying to shift the blame to someone or
 JS> something else.

Face reality. Fido over IP has freed us from the dictatorship of the
distributors. On the flip side it has made it impossible to moderate echos like
this. It is just to easy to get an alternate feed when the moderator orders a
feed cut. And some just won't be moderated if the do not have to fear the
consequence of a feed cut.

That is the reality.

 JS>      My interpretation of Björn and his words is that he has chosen to
 JS> give up because he no longer has the ambition to act as moderator.

Interpret what you want, the reality is that what you want - moderation 1995
style - is impossible today.

This did not start with Björn being the moderator, it was already a fact over
five years ago. When I entered the global scene around 1999, FN_SYSOP was
already unmoderatable.

We shall just have to live with that fact.

 MV>> Nonsense. When *I* put something on my website it is *my*
 MV>> responsibility and my responsibility alone. If I were to put
 MV>> something about you on my website that you disagree with, I would
 MV>> have a good reason for that. And so I would not remove it merely
 MV>> because you asked. Consequently you have no control over what I
 MV>> put on my website and therefore you can never be responsible.
 MV>> Period.

 JS>      You do have a thing for control don't you Michiel?

On the contrary. I do however have a problem with being saddled with
responsibility without being given to means to do something about it.

 JS>      If you listed me as a contact for your website that I had nothing
 JS> to do with and no control over. It would befall me to inquire as to
 JS> why you placed my name there and to see that you removed it.

Why?

 JS> Could you refuse? Of course you could. But it would only make you
 JS> look inept in the control of your website. In this case your
 JS> hypothetical situation does make much sense.

It is the flip side of free speech. As many have pointed out, it is a free
country. Someone with a web site has the freedom to fill it with whatever he
likes. Including misinformation.

 JS> Other than to show that you like to be in control and like to control
 JS> others as much as possible.

You are totally wrong. I am merely pointing out that whatever is on someone
else's website is not you responsibility.

 MV>> Anyway, it is not the job of the Fidonews editor to spider the web
 MV>> for false or misleading information and attempt to correct it.

 JS>      Then whose would it be? Who else would be responsible for
 JS> maintianing the integrety and accuracy of the information regarding
 JS> Fidonews?

Those who provide the information of course.

As I said, misinformation this is the flip side of free speech.

 JS>>> It would make me responsible at least in the eyes of those that
 JS>>> visited the website and had little or no prior knowledge of the
 JS>>> reality of the situation.

 MV>> Then you are accepting responsibility for something that you do
 MV>> not control. Not a smart move.

 JS>      No. Using your scenario YOU would be making me responsible by
 JS> putting my name and/or contact info on YOUR website.

You can never be responsible for the actions of someone else.

 JS> Based on your actions others would look at me as being responsible for
 JS> your website.

I can see how that can happen, but it would still not make you responsible.

 JS> See how senseless doing something like that would be?

It is the price for freedom.

 MV>> Right. So we agree that Björn is not responsible for what is on
 MV>> the fidonet.org web site. Now will you retract your statement
 MV>> about him not caring any more in relation to that web site?

 JS>      I will say that the condition, and accuracy of the Fidonews.org
 JS> website should not be used as an indication of Björn not caring.

Then no more needs to be said.

 JS>  It should instad be used as an indication of Jim not caring about his
 JS> website.

So address your rant to Jim.

 MV>> If you do not intend to do anything other than just make FidoNews
 MV>> available, what will be the added value of that web site? There
 MV>> are dozens of places where people can read or download FidoNews.
 MV>> What is the added value of yet another one?

You have not answered my question. What is the added value?

 JS>>> That would be what my personal website would be for.

 MV>> Fidonews.net *will* be your personal web site.

 JS>     No. I have a personal website that I would use to express my
 JS> personal views if I so choosed.

No one said you can have only one personal website.

 JS> I also have Fidonet regional and net websites with their own domains
 JS> and email servers.

If you registered the domains, those too are personal websites.

 MV>> You registered the domain name. It is your initiative, you are the
 MV>> one responsible. That the name has a resemblance to the official
 MV>> newsletter of the FidoNet community does not change that.

Now please answer my question: if you do not plan to editorialize or otherwise
do more than make FidoNews available, what is the added value of that website?

Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20060315
 * Origin: http://www.van.der.vlist.org (2:280/5555)