I didn't get into this level of detail in the article because I already had to trim it so much (yes, what you're looking at is the *trimmed* version:) ). However, I had the spammer call me on a special phone number where the first thing they hear is a recording saying "Thank you for calling blah blah blah company. Due to company policy, calls may be monitored or recorded." Then the caller presses 1. When they press 1, it rings through to my home phone with a special ring. There is no blah blah company, of course; the whole thing is just set up to catch people if I expect them to perjure themselves in court.
I pointed out that the move was announced before Media3 had ever heard from MAPS. So much for the "human shield" theory.
Furthermore, there is a quote in the article from someone at MAPS saying that they could unblock our site if they wanted to, but they weren't going to. It was their decision.
The period when people were "telling me to go to some other host", was after AboveNet had unblocked our site as a result of the embarrassing publicity on Slashdot. We also did not use our server to send any mail, so there was no point in trying to get off the RBL then.
My original title was:
Yes Virginia, ISPs have silently blocked Web sites
For some reason they changed it to:
Virginia ISPs Silently Blocking Websites
which makes no sense.
My title was in the sense of "Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Clause", i.e. trying to convince people of something that a lot of people seem to think is a myth:)
My original title was:
Yes Virginia, ISPs have silently blocked Web sites
Somehow it got changed to:
Virginia ISPs Silently Blocking Websites
which makes no sense.
My title was in the sense of "Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Clause", i.e. trying to convince people of something that a lot of people seem to think is a myth:)
Re:You've shown why the article is very poor advoc
on
From Bess to Worse
·
· Score: 1
(From the writer.)
In general, I agree with you. However, advocating less censorship is a very special case of an issue where many people agree with the premise but are shy about speaking out, and (unusually for advocacy work) I think it is productive to whip up support, as you put it, among people who already agree.
Having talked with lots of people about it, I think that a large percentage of people actually do agree that uncensored Internet access is not harmful to people under 18. (After all, many parents don't use blocking software, for one thing.) But they're timid about saying so, which I think is why, for example, this plurality viewpoint is not reflected by any politician's official position.
Even if the hosting company gets a law passed giving them a monopoly, they might still provide the hosting in the most cost-effective way possible (that's still in their best interest, after all, since it saves them money). Assuming the hosting company provides hosting cost-efficiently, the money that the customer pays them is indeed a lost opportunity for the customer, however it now represents spending opportunities for the hosting company.
IF the hosting company is not providing the hosting cost-effectively, then indeed the world is poorer when you're rewarding the inefficient hosting. And then the broken window fallacy does definitely apply, because the money lost by the customer, is not offset by a gain to the hosting company -- because they've burned up an inefficiently large portion of that money to finance the hosting.
However, it's true that even if the monopolist market leader is providing services efficiently, there is still some deadweight loss occurring because other companies, who could provide the same services more cheaply to people who can't afford the monopolist's higher prices, can't get their foot in the door. Therefore, transactions that will benefit both sides, never end up taking place. But even in that case, the losses are occurring because mutually beneficial transactions are blocked, not because the monopolist's customers are overpaying.
Originally I mentioned that in the relevant paragraph in the article (yes, "he" is me:) ). It looks like I took it out and forgot to put it back in. I think if I mention the importance of "meritocracies" again I'd better make sure not to miss anything!
If the seller is providing the hosting inefficiently, that's a separate problem, and the world is indeed poorer if someone set up their hosting company in a way that makes an inefficient use of resources. However if the hosting company has set up their hosting efficiently to minimize the cost to them, and they've simply gamed the system so that they can charge $79 for it and the customer won't find cheaper offers elsewhere, then the world isn't poorer.
(It is of course true that when you're paying for more expensive hosting, there's a greater chance they've set it up inefficiently.)
In either case though I don't think this falls under the Broken Window Fallacy, which states that money changing hands is something good (the boy broke the shop window, thus generating business for the window fixer -- but ignoring the costs to the shopkeeper). My example didn't involve a window being broken -- the hosting company may be overcharging, but they didn't create the problem that their service is attempting to solve.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't get into this level of detail in the article because I already had to trim it so much (yes, what you're looking at is the *trimmed* version :) ). However, I had the spammer call me on a special phone number where the first thing they hear is a recording saying "Thank you for calling blah blah blah company. Due to company policy, calls may be monitored or recorded." Then the caller presses 1. When they press 1, it rings through to my home phone with a special ring. There is no blah blah company, of course; the whole thing is just set up to catch people if I expect them to perjure themselves in court.
The full details are at the link given in the story:
http://www.judgejokes.com/karlie-jorgensen.html
Without that disclaimer, you would have been correct though.
Read the article.
I pointed out that the move was announced before Media3 had ever heard from MAPS. So much for the "human shield" theory.
Furthermore, there is a quote in the article from someone at MAPS saying that they could unblock our site if they wanted to, but they weren't going to. It was their decision.
The period when people were "telling me to go to some other host", was after AboveNet had unblocked our site as a result of the embarrassing publicity on Slashdot. We also did not use our server to send any mail, so there was no point in trying to get off the RBL then.
My original title was: Yes Virginia, ISPs have silently blocked Web sites For some reason they changed it to: Virginia ISPs Silently Blocking Websites which makes no sense. My title was in the sense of "Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Clause", i.e. trying to convince people of something that a lot of people seem to think is a myth :)
My original title was: Yes Virginia, ISPs have silently blocked Web sites Somehow it got changed to: Virginia ISPs Silently Blocking Websites which makes no sense. My title was in the sense of "Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Clause", i.e. trying to convince people of something that a lot of people seem to think is a myth :)
(From the writer.) In general, I agree with you. However, advocating less censorship is a very special case of an issue where many people agree with the premise but are shy about speaking out, and (unusually for advocacy work) I think it is productive to whip up support, as you put it, among people who already agree. Having talked with lots of people about it, I think that a large percentage of people actually do agree that uncensored Internet access is not harmful to people under 18. (After all, many parents don't use blocking software, for one thing.) But they're timid about saying so, which I think is why, for example, this plurality viewpoint is not reflected by any politician's official position.
Even if the hosting company gets a law passed giving them a monopoly, they might still provide the hosting in the most cost-effective way possible (that's still in their best interest, after all, since it saves them money). Assuming the hosting company provides hosting cost-efficiently, the money that the customer pays them is indeed a lost opportunity for the customer, however it now represents spending opportunities for the hosting company. IF the hosting company is not providing the hosting cost-effectively, then indeed the world is poorer when you're rewarding the inefficient hosting. And then the broken window fallacy does definitely apply, because the money lost by the customer, is not offset by a gain to the hosting company -- because they've burned up an inefficiently large portion of that money to finance the hosting. However, it's true that even if the monopolist market leader is providing services efficiently, there is still some deadweight loss occurring because other companies, who could provide the same services more cheaply to people who can't afford the monopolist's higher prices, can't get their foot in the door. Therefore, transactions that will benefit both sides, never end up taking place. But even in that case, the losses are occurring because mutually beneficial transactions are blocked, not because the monopolist's customers are overpaying. Originally I mentioned that in the relevant paragraph in the article (yes, "he" is me :) ). It looks like I took it out and forgot to put it back in. I think if I mention the importance of "meritocracies" again I'd better make sure not to miss anything!
If the seller is providing the hosting inefficiently, that's a separate problem, and the world is indeed poorer if someone set up their hosting company in a way that makes an inefficient use of resources. However if the hosting company has set up their hosting efficiently to minimize the cost to them, and they've simply gamed the system so that they can charge $79 for it and the customer won't find cheaper offers elsewhere, then the world isn't poorer.
(It is of course true that when you're paying for more expensive hosting, there's a greater chance they've set it up inefficiently.)
In either case though I don't think this falls under the Broken Window Fallacy, which states that money changing hands is something good (the boy broke the shop window, thus generating business for the window fixer -- but ignoring the costs to the shopkeeper). My example didn't involve a window being broken -- the hosting company may be overcharging, but they didn't create the problem that their service is attempting to solve.