Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

internetworkers - Re: clash of the titans

internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Childers.Paula AT epamail.epa.gov
  • To: InterNetWorkers <internetworkers AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: clash of the titans
  • Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 12:49:36 -0400



OK, lets see how many topics I can link in one message:
- The MSNBC article is simply another example of sensationalism passing
for legitimate journalism. The fact that they didn't discuss *why* pro-drug
sites show up more, but merely attempted to shift blame for drug use to the
"Evil Internet," only goes to show how far into pro-police-state-propaganda
the media is willing to go for ratings. (Shut down the web! Fingerprint
everyone! Install a subcutaneous GPS in everyone at birth! That'll
eliminate crime! Then you'll be safe!)
- Getting & keeping your site onto a topically-indexed search engine can
be inordinately painful. Understanding metadata and "working" the
non-topical engines is somewhat easier in my opinion, but still possibly
beyond the average user of FrontPage or DreamWeaver. I'd be willing to bet
that the dudes writing & maintaining the little freaker sites know a lot
more about web technology of all types than compartmentalized web designers
in any major company (not just the govt) who are limited by their job
scope to pasting pre-written content into some edit-&-post tool.
- As far as filtering in general, some very worthwhile drug harm-reduction
sites are often "blocked" by filtering software, as are sites that give out
legitimate information on other controversial topics, such as gay & lesbian
teens. How many administrators who buy filters with configurable
blacklists are going to take the time to see what is really in the
vendor-supplied blacklist? And how many times will subtle prejudice cloud
entries into those lists? Even AI-based filters would need some
seed/starting point; who chooses what that point is?
- and may I just remind everyone that "information" on illegal drugs, like
any other "information" provided through the media OR the web, should
always be evaluated with an eye to the provider's ulterior motives. And
that includes govt info and news shows.

Paula C., waiting for the 2am knock.





Thomas

Beckett To: InterNetWorkers

<thomas@tbeck
<internetworkers AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
ett.com> cc:

Subject: [internetworkers] Re:
clash of
08/15/01 the titans

11:23 AM

Please

respond to

InterNetWorke

rs









My point is that the lead paragraphs of the article apparently blame
search engines for making "unofficial" drug information more prominent
than the Word from the Man. And the reason for that, apparently, is
that "there was no filtering but that
the surfers themselves effect the rankings by their choices". In the
information economy, the invisible hand of the market is alive and
well.

And yes, some gub'mint web designers don't know shit about search
engines.

TaB

Paul Jones wrote:
>
> this particular article focuses entirely on drugs, legal and illegal. the
> questions raised here is: should people be allowed to talk about drugs
> (unless they are the gubermint)? and what if they get it wrong or promote
> illegal drugs? all in all this article raises some pretty complex issues
> that have little or nothing to do with the current filtering discussion
> (altho you could argue that 'bad' drug sites should be filtered; they
> rarely are).
>
> it also points out the gubermint sites don't know how to work the search
> engines -- freevibe is a case in point. lacking metadata, it is
invisible.
>






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page