Actually, we're far more aware of "who" our readers are, in terms of what kind of people they are and what types of interests they have, than any your average print publication is. Folks here are in regular communication with readers, across the board, including myself.
Never, in my experience working for print publications, did I observe anything remotely resembling the kind of active, ongoing dialogue and communication we have with our readership here.
Bear in mind that Salon in particular was founded by folks from the SF Chronicle.
What is interesting is to consider whether or not the application of traditional media thinking has helped or hindered the development of online media.
"And here's a heavily abridged list of the sites that cannot be accessed via AboveNet, or any of the other providers who use the RBL -- just a few of the sites on just one blacklisted Class C: "
This is untrue. Given the general level of articulation within the article, it is difficult to believe this is an honest and innocent omission, which leaves one to observe that it is most likely a simple, blatant lie. Any particular reason, guys?
Yes, I read the update. You're still confusing the issue and making a misrepresentation regarding the functional impact of implementing MAPS and ORBS. They are not one and the same. Vixie's comments aren't particularly relevant to your claims re: MAPS and M3, at all.
We use MAPS here. We can get to these sites just fine. We won't get any email from them, but the case is we most likely don't want it; this is among the reasons why we use the service.
Anyone who implements MAPS does so voluntarily, and is clear on the fact that this doesn't block HTTP traffic. Can the lookup database be used to accomplish that? Sure. Did AboveNet do that? I don't know. If they did, that's not relevant to a censorship question involving MAPS and/or ORBS, regardless. The issue lives with M3 and AboveNet. I'm sure MAPS looks like a much more viable legal target than AboveNet to M3, however. This isn't a new strategy. It's not entirely unlike WashTech going after ETown in order to build up a case against Amazon. Honest justification tends to get pushed aside in the pursuit of victory.
Anyway.
We bounce over a thousand messages a day using MAPS.
And I'm thankful for every damn one of them.
In the unlikely event that MAPS and/or ORBS are ever successfuly sued, you can be sure the capability will re-manifest itself in an evolved manner, probably with some form of distributed / de-centralized architecture and communications mechanism.
I don't believe one can stop people or organizations (or, eventually, agents) from black-holing mail exchanges any more than one can stop the practice of spamming itself.
We can argue about this article all we like, but the real subject is deeper still.
Benjamin Grant
VP, Technology
Salon
talas9 at well.com
Slashdot Mirror
Your are entirely wrong.
Actually, we're far more aware of "who" our readers are, in terms of what kind of people they are and what types of interests they have, than any your average print publication is. Folks here are in regular communication with readers, across the board, including myself.
Never, in my experience working for print publications, did I observe anything remotely resembling the kind of active, ongoing dialogue and communication we have with our readership here.
Bear in mind that Salon in particular was founded by folks from the SF Chronicle.
What is interesting is to consider whether or not the application of traditional media thinking has helped or hindered the development of online media.
Personally I think it's hindered it.
"And here's a heavily abridged list of the sites that cannot be accessed via AboveNet, or any of the other providers who use the RBL -- just a few of the sites on just one blacklisted Class C: " This is untrue. Given the general level of articulation within the article, it is difficult to believe this is an honest and innocent omission, which leaves one to observe that it is most likely a simple, blatant lie. Any particular reason, guys? Yes, I read the update. You're still confusing the issue and making a misrepresentation regarding the functional impact of implementing MAPS and ORBS. They are not one and the same. Vixie's comments aren't particularly relevant to your claims re: MAPS and M3, at all. We use MAPS here. We can get to these sites just fine. We won't get any email from them, but the case is we most likely don't want it; this is among the reasons why we use the service. Anyone who implements MAPS does so voluntarily, and is clear on the fact that this doesn't block HTTP traffic. Can the lookup database be used to accomplish that? Sure. Did AboveNet do that? I don't know. If they did, that's not relevant to a censorship question involving MAPS and/or ORBS, regardless. The issue lives with M3 and AboveNet. I'm sure MAPS looks like a much more viable legal target than AboveNet to M3, however. This isn't a new strategy. It's not entirely unlike WashTech going after ETown in order to build up a case against Amazon. Honest justification tends to get pushed aside in the pursuit of victory. Anyway. We bounce over a thousand messages a day using MAPS. And I'm thankful for every damn one of them. In the unlikely event that MAPS and/or ORBS are ever successfuly sued, you can be sure the capability will re-manifest itself in an evolved manner, probably with some form of distributed / de-centralized architecture and communications mechanism. I don't believe one can stop people or organizations (or, eventually, agents) from black-holing mail exchanges any more than one can stop the practice of spamming itself. We can argue about this article all we like, but the real subject is deeper still. Benjamin Grant VP, Technology Salon talas9 at well.com