Reading over the Kuro5hin article, then perusing the Slashdot posts on same, I keep getting the nagging feeling that we need to change how we are approaching the fascinating topic of moderation.
Kuro5hin talks about a new system based on heavily classification of articles and posts, with moderation every step of the way. Slashdot talks about Karma caps, new kinds of moderation levels, "spendable" points. More numeric and/or technical solutions adding layers of complexity. Each one feels like a hack. MM was a hack, as was karma. When you keep having to add hacks onto hacks, isn't that a sign that you need to step back a level and look at the problem from a higher perspective?
I have no intention of offering forth yet another possible solution to the moderation problem. What I want to suggest is that we need to ask the right questions before we decide what the answers are. Allow me to submit that the very nature of discussion boards such as those on Slashdot is not entirely clear. For example...
What is the purpose of a discussion board?
For whom does a discussion board exist?
What function(s) does moderation serve on a discussion board?
What are possibly valid reasons for moderating something up? (Declared assumption: the concept of moderation "up" or "down")
What are possibly valid reasons for moderating something down? (Note: *not* simply the converse of the above question)
What are desirable qualities in a moderator?
I would submit that none of these are easy or straightforward questions - nor is this a definitve list. They are implicitly answered in every moderation system, but this doesn't mean that explicitly declaring them (both for Slashdot and in general) can't hurt - and it could quite possibly help.
Back before there was IP laws did people not invent things? Write poetry and literature? Perform music? Paint paintings?
The problem is that much of the production of "content" these days is underwritten by capital (read:corporate) interests. Prior systems of content creation relied on patronage or the willingness of the creator to live in poverty or make money doing other things. Patrons paid for the content they wanted - whether or not anyone else saw it, enjoyed it, forked over money for it was more or less irrelevant. Unauthorized duplication was not only hard but also a non-issue.
This takes us up to the advent of the publishing industry. Now, capital investment is necessary to pay for the presses, paper, and distribution. Upside: more opportunities for creators, more content for the audience. Downside: the involvement of business means making profit, which is (or has become) synonymous with maximizing profit.
The limitations of the medium acted as a natural check on how much unauthorized duplication could go on, but it suddenly became relevant on the radar of business interested and the content creators themselves.
Now fast forward again to today. Limitations on duplication no longer exist. A click of a button can produce any number of perfect copies, limited only by storage space. The current crop of IP laws (DCMA, SBCEA) attempt to replace the technical infeasability of yesteryear with legal punishment. (Other conspiracy theory arguments as to the purpose of the DCMA [perpetual content control, elimination of all sales in favor of rents] also exist, but let's put those aside).
If these IP laws do not stand, some sort of new method of funding content creation will need to be worked out. I have my doubts as to how effective a 'tip' based solution will be. The concept of elaborate online 'tipping' profiles advocated by some seems at issue with privacy and profiling concerns brought up by some members of that same faction. Grassroots creation and distribution may be feasible, but creates a 'gatekeeper' issue (how do you sort the crap from the cream in a crowded market? That's one of the functions that publishers/distributors served.).
Long story short: is IP law necessary for the creation and distribution of content? No. Will it be business as usual if IP is scaled back or left untouched? No.
Don't blame the courts. Given that Congress enacted the DMCA, the courts are doing their job.
Not yet - the courts will have done their job when the higher appellate judges give the DCMA, SBCEA, and the like a proper Constitutional once-over. Congress is free to pass boneheaded legislation (as they have done), but the courts serve as a vital check to smack Congress down.
Most likely scenerio is that the DCMA will survive, but it will get a limb or two knocked off in the process. It's pretty likely that the "non-infringing application" test will be used to rein in some of the more draconian restrictions on what you can and cannot do with technology (i.e. DeCSS).
Guess what? The defendants did raise the issue. However, oddly enough, the rules stipulate that the judge himself has the ultimate say in these matters, and in our case, he just refused to recuse himself...
Which is excellent grist for the appellate court mill. It is certainly grounds for a mistrial, if nothing else.
Just another reason why this whole thing is far from over...case law doesn't mean shit until an appellate court (and, in this case, more than one) gives a stamp of approval. Whether or not you win or lose at trial is, while not irrelevant, certainly not the be all and end all fo the fight.
If you really think it's splitting hairs, why don't you accuse CNRI of the hair-splitting... they could easily take it out if it's so insignificant as to be hair-splitting...
The reason I (and others) are casting a caution eye towards RMS et al is because I think that CNRI is trying to address a legitimate concern and (dare I say it!) flaw in the GPL.
The GPL does not state under what jurisdiction it shall be interpreted, and jurisdiction will effect interpretation. Read CNRI's discussion of the license, in particular item #11 and the concerns regarding general disclaimers of liability. I'd say this is a valid concern - I'm surprised it hasn't been raised sooner.
My gut says that this has more than a little something to do with UCITA. I'm looking forward to what RMS and the FSF have to say about this issue. Right now, CNRI has a valid concern that is going to have to be resolved, one way or another. Just don't be shocked if it doesn't go the way GPL supporters want - vague wording in the original license may cost you later.
Slashdot Mirror
I have no intention of offering forth yet another possible solution to the moderation problem. What I want to suggest is that we need to ask the right questions before we decide what the answers are. Allow me to submit that the very nature of discussion boards such as those on Slashdot is not entirely clear. For example...
- What is the purpose of a discussion board?
- For whom does a discussion board exist?
- What function(s) does moderation serve on a discussion board?
- What are possibly valid reasons for moderating something up? (Declared assumption: the concept of moderation "up" or "down")
- What are possibly valid reasons for moderating something down? (Note: *not* simply the converse of the above question)
- What are desirable qualities in a moderator?
I would submit that none of these are easy or straightforward questions - nor is this a definitve list. They are implicitly answered in every moderation system, but this doesn't mean that explicitly declaring them (both for Slashdot and in general) can't hurt - and it could quite possibly help.This takes us up to the advent of the publishing industry. Now, capital investment is necessary to pay for the presses, paper, and distribution. Upside: more opportunities for creators, more content for the audience. Downside: the involvement of business means making profit, which is (or has become) synonymous with maximizing profit.
The limitations of the medium acted as a natural check on how much unauthorized duplication could go on, but it suddenly became relevant on the radar of business interested and the content creators themselves.
Now fast forward again to today. Limitations on duplication no longer exist. A click of a button can produce any number of perfect copies, limited only by storage space. The current crop of IP laws (DCMA, SBCEA) attempt to replace the technical infeasability of yesteryear with legal punishment. (Other conspiracy theory arguments as to the purpose of the DCMA [perpetual content control, elimination of all sales in favor of rents] also exist, but let's put those aside).
If these IP laws do not stand, some sort of new method of funding content creation will need to be worked out. I have my doubts as to how effective a 'tip' based solution will be. The concept of elaborate online 'tipping' profiles advocated by some seems at issue with privacy and profiling concerns brought up by some members of that same faction. Grassroots creation and distribution may be feasible, but creates a 'gatekeeper' issue (how do you sort the crap from the cream in a crowded market? That's one of the functions that publishers/distributors served.). Long story short: is IP law necessary for the creation and distribution of content? No. Will it be business as usual if IP is scaled back or left untouched? No.
Most likely scenerio is that the DCMA will survive, but it will get a limb or two knocked off in the process. It's pretty likely that the "non-infringing application" test will be used to rein in some of the more draconian restrictions on what you can and cannot do with technology (i.e. DeCSS).
Just another reason why this whole thing is far from over...case law doesn't mean shit until an appellate court (and, in this case, more than one) gives a stamp of approval. Whether or not you win or lose at trial is, while not irrelevant, certainly not the be all and end all fo the fight.
The GPL does not state under what jurisdiction it shall be interpreted, and jurisdiction will effect interpretation. Read CNRI's discussion of the license, in particular item #11 and the concerns regarding general disclaimers of liability. I'd say this is a valid concern - I'm surprised it hasn't been raised sooner.
My gut says that this has more than a little something to do with UCITA. I'm looking forward to what RMS and the FSF have to say about this issue. Right now, CNRI has a valid concern that is going to have to be resolved, one way or another. Just don't be shocked if it doesn't go the way GPL supporters want - vague wording in the original license may cost you later.