| Forum Home | | Log in | | Signup | | My Page  | |
Rules | | FAQ | | Boards | | Members | | Search |
|
|
Board info for The Trust Matrix (ALEA)
Board name: The Trust Matrix (ALEA)
Board owned by: Cactus Flower Date Created: Tue, 26 Feb 08 8:31 PM Total Posts: 47530 Average Posts per day: 9 Board category: Tech/Communications Board info, rules and other information: What's the difference between freedom and anarchy? Only the former contemplates the need for restrictions. Only the former operates on the principle that your freedom only extends as far as it is harmless to others. Virtues compete. My wish for peace and quiet contrasts with your wish to rock it, baby. My wish to build a factory may conflict with the wish of others to create a community park. We've learned the need to strike a balance, draw limits and make hard choices where necessary. Certain kinds of restriction make freedom not only possible, but also, paradoxically, more extensive. The liberty to buy and sell, own and exchange valuable things is considered an intrinsic principle of freedom. Yet these commercial freedoms are capable of existence only within a framework of practical, ethical and legal exclusion: the need for a key allows me to enter my home and prevents you from doing so; the Eighth Commandment prohibits theft; and the law defines its points of ownership which give me rights and may limit yours. Indeed, the essence of property is the stuff of scarcity, possession, regulation, and security: it cannot exist where there is no restriction and a large society without property necessarily fails. As a practical matter, freedom isn't viable absent the rule of law and a people willing to abide by it. So in the world of things, while we like to think of freedom as an open-ended universe in which anything is possible, in practice we find it is necessary to regulate many of our activities and our interactions. Freedom is distinct from anarchy precisely because it defines its own limits. Of course, it is a leap from the world of things, to the world of ideas. Some conditions change. Some of the scarcities of the tangible world do not apply in the vast and empty reaches of cyberspace, except insofar as our imagination has an end. We promote the principle that the realm of ideas should, as far as possible, be free of restriction. Indeed, amongst all social values, this one is probably the one held by many as the most precious, and is enshrined in the First Amendment of the US Constitution. All the same, in the sphere of ideas, conditions remain: lawyers and economists have long recognised the incentive value of intellectual monopolies to inventors and authors, and have crystallised these into patent and copyright law; we protect certain kinds of secrets - especially those kind of governmental secrets affecting our privacy and our common security; we prohibit the creation of a counterfeit digital currency. The world of speech and information is abridged in all kinds of practical ways which tend to enrich rather than impoverish society. The necessity to constitute encompassing rules precedes all other principles in the same way Magna Carta precedes habeas corpus and the Bill of Rights: only once we have established a society of laws are freedoms conceivable. In cyberspace, I describe this sort of defined and restrictive construction as 'the trust matrix'. It's a pragmatic architecture designed to offer the network's users security and assurance of their identity, to protect valuable information from loss and misuse, to restrict harmful information from dispersion, to make online commercial transactions authoritative and to make the converged network a healthy place to operate. I believe we are seeing the invisible hand shaping the trust matrix under our noses. It's in the distribution of hardened security frameworks through the cloud and out to the edge of the network. It's in the design of many kinds of equipment and software. It's in the arguments between information producers and users. It's in the dictates of government in a world without frontiers. And it's the topic of this board. Rule 1: This isn't a dumbocracy. It's a managed conversation space. You are not free to pollute this board with word garbage. The conversation is subject to a set of rules interpreted by a board manager (aka censor). See above for rationale. If you think you have a right to say what you wish in a rule-framed setting, read the introduction again. Freedom from tiresome and obnoxious commentary makes a richer and more friendly space for others. Wild, unsupported assertions waste everyone's time. There's no obligation for me to have to put up with you if you peddle nonsense. On the other hand, I welcome thoughtful posts regardless of whether I agree with them. There's plenty of other space online for you to post if you just wish to vomit letters some place. If you make yourself unmanageable, I will remove you. Before blaming me for it, use a mirror. Rule 2: This is the necessary corollary of Rule 1. I don't welcome posters with freshly-minted or little-used handles. These are regularly abused by trolls and folks who have been previously banned. Develop a track record somewhere else: a hundred posts is an investment of your time; zero posts isn't. That way I can research your posts to see if you are a poster of substance. Or not. And then you have something to lose, which means perhaps you will bother to post thoughtfully. Rule 3: Conformity with the law is on you as a poster, not on me as a moderator. AB makes it clear that the site is not responsible for what you post either, so be careful and act legally. For your own sake.
TO ALL OTHERS. Welcome. Nice to have you here.
[only if you are a board moderator] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
© Webpage Design Copyright 2003-2011 http://www.atomicbobs.com/
|