On Thursday 11 December 2003 9:43 pm, Philipp Morger wrote:
On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 21:55:42 +0000, Dan Boresjo wrote:
On Tuesday 09 December 2003 7:14 pm, Philipp Morger wrote:
On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 01:56:00 +0000, Dan Boresjo wrote:
a lot of starving people may decide that their online reputation is
less important than food they can by with Joe's bribe.
no offense meant, but this is BS.
It's an extreme example. Ever noticed how crime tends to cluster in poorer
neighbourhoods and poorer parts of the world?
That's not true - that only a sympthom of a capitalistic culture.
How can it be untrue and a symptom of a capitalistic culture at the same time?
Certainly the concentration of unprivileged crime amongst the disenfranchised
is structured by accidents of birth, prior distributions of wealth, poverty
of opportunity and aspects of the underlying social and economic order.
It is clearly beyond the scope of a sender reputation system to 'fix' this
order. I was simply pointing out that it may reinforce the process of
disenfranchisement as a side-effect.
In Johnathan Swift's "Gullivers Travels", the Laputian elite are each
accompanied by one or more "flappers", whose job is to determine whether a
person presuming to speak to their employer is of sufficiently high rank to
be deemed worthy of conversation. This is a parody of the fact that important
people worldwide have the equivalent today. Try contacting your nation's
leader and you are unlikely to get past one of the 'flappers' surrounding
them. The flappers have great influence because they control access to the
powerful. Many of the people making decisions that affect you are out of the
range of your speech.
Any mail blocking system is basically an automated flapper - it's design
determines who gets to speak to the recipient (or what content they receive).
In the case of unsolicited commercial mail the power being appealed to is the
economic power of the recipient's wealth.
But the autoflapper must process all incoming mail, must it not?
On Thursday 11 December 2003 9:43 pm, Philipp Morger wrote:
There are known cultures that don't have a sense for money - as did the
native americans... once upon a time... but this is also quite extreme.
They practised trade aplenty and understood the economic concepts of value,
exchange and profit. They simply did not have coinage or banking. What really
made a difference was the weak real estate tradition - in the examples I've
read they could only 'claim' a small area around the domecile and the claim
expired when personal habitation ceased.
- Dan
-------
Sender Permitted From: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
Latest draft at http://spf.pobox.com/draft-mengwong-spf-02.9.3.txt
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname(_at_)©#«Mo\¯HÝÜîU;±¤Ö¤Íµø?¡