Who is a Community?

Absolute and Relative Identity

For those of us wishing to protect our privacy upon the open circuits that so dominate the Internet, absolute identity is not a choice. We prefer relative identity.

The basic doctrine of relative identity states that - All I need to know about you is that you are not me! And visa versa.

Relative identity works fine for two people. But what do you do when it's time to expand? If three people are to identify themselves relatively there is an immediate problem. A and B both know that they are not the other but neither knows that C is not the other.

Absolute identity is only as credible as the other absolute identities that are associated with it. In other words, I am suppose to believe your absolute identity because it is confirmed by another supposed absolute identity. Of course, I only need to continue tracing the line back and we will find that the genealogy is not rooted in an absolute identity. It must be rooted in the first pair who recognized the relative identity of each. The one looked at the other and thought "You are not me." And that was a very correct judgement.

Relative identity allows users the freedom to be whoever they want to be, enabling them to use any mode that they want to use, including the expository, narrative and dramatic modes.

Michael Welsh video 56:00

What is a Community?
When is a Community?
Why is a Community?
Where is a Community?
How is a Community?

Register here for the Discussion Workshop Blog

My Rights and Responsibilities in Groups

Right to speak

Right to hear and be heard

Responsibility to respond

Responsibility to listen

Right to Privacy do not need to reveal one iota of personal info on an open circuit. The right to privacy includes the right to anonymity. The practice of banning users is unethical because it utilizes IP checking. New users are having their privacy invaded. IP checking is a threat to the security and privacy of the individual members.

Right to Equality begins with being able to count the membership as a whole number allowing relative quanities like equality, majority and minority to be accurately measured. The right to equality includes the right to discuss, deliberate and decide using traditional rational forms.

Freedom of Speech includes the right to communicate using all modes; expository, narrative and dramatic.

Register here for the Discussion Workshop Blog

Talking Nasty on the Net

The problem with netiquette is that it is difficult to objectively evaluate what is appropriate. What is "nasty"?

The word "bloody" is very bad in British English but not even the slightest bit in American English. Likewise, the word "nigger" is extremely offensive in Northerna nd Western U.S., slightly offensive in the Southern U.S. and is completely acceptable in Latin America, as is the word "negroe". In Portuguese, the words "nigger" and "negro" are acceptable but you must never say "preto".

Just ask Artificial Gripe about this type of misunderstanding.

There are many other offensive words and phrases that would be considered "nasty" and should avoid using. If I should include a list, I would start it off with: "Go fuck yourself with your atom bomb" America by Allen Ginsburg and the beat goes on.

I'll tell you what I find to be very offensive and nasty on the web. You have all of these jokers who completely ignore standard discussion form and democratic organizational procedure yet they want to pull out their little book of netiquette and cite you for your grammar or rhetoric or mode of speech.

We still need to address the nature of the Internet and the legitimate use of the dramatic mode. We are not having a real discussion here on the web.

Talking Nasty on the Net

There’s a factor to be considered: posting on a web
site, blog, forum, etc. has a certain “my 15 minutes” touch to it, it’s not
equivalent to just chatting with friends; it’s speaking in public, a

performance. People view their posts as public acts, and, just like artists can
be hyper-sensitive and defensive about thier performance even when (or
especially when?) it’s really bad, so people get extreme about defending their
opinions. Additionally, and because of the same perception, the very opinions
expressed over the “Net are more extreme than those expressed in a face-to-face
communicaiton. Then there’s the anonymity factor, when meaningless screen names
are used, that does away with the cultural inhibitions that limit the vitriol,
as you call it, in the “real life.” Here, no venom, just a thought.

Right. It's not only a discussion but a stage. It's television and that means acting, drama and conflict. The dramatic mode is a valid avenue of expression in the context of the web. The "discussion" is being broadcast. We are on a stage using a form called "random". Random form promotes dramatic improvision because the "discussion" is out of form.

Someone acting on the web is as legitimate as someone acting in a movie. If the actor in a movie says "Fuck y'all. I'm gonna find ya an' kill ya" we don't get on the cell phone and call the police. It's acting. It's stage. It's dramatic. It's television. If Anthony Hopkins can act like a killer in "Silence of the Lambs", then what's wrong with someone doing that where "discussion" or "community" is disorganized and clearly for exhibitionistic purposes?

Trolls are very intelligent and expressive people. Likewise, what is the use of dramatic form on the Internet? It must be evauated for it's own strengths and weaknesses. The argument that dramatic form should meet the standards for an expository discussion are weak since the expository posters themselves refuse to apply expository form to their "discussions".

The lose of control over mode, and resultant accusations of "trolling" usually occur in the context of an expository discussion turned toward the dramatic mode. The responsibility for the mode falls upon the membership for failure to follow the rules of expository form in maintaining the mode. Many posters are fully capable of maintaining this expository mode in their individual posts. You may also find a small collection of posters capable of accumulating a collection of expository posts. But a collection of expository posts do not an expository discussion make. The mode is best advanced by use of expository form.

Talking Nasty on the Net

The Future of Reputation

Privacy and Social Networks

ownership of platform = ownership of content = ownership of community and people = slavery

Boycott W-k-p-d-a

From the To Do list for Blogs:

1. Look at the Wikipedia entry for Blogosphere and pay particular attention to the
See Also section. Read up on one of the listed blogospheres in that section and
write a post to your blog that explains in your own words what a Blogging
Network is and can be - cite examples.

I am not interested in reading any of those articles because I am boycotting Wikipedia. It began when I registered as a "member" of this "community". I found an Edit button and deleted a page that promoted a forum that I am boycotting. They replaced the page and I deleted it again. this went on all day until I was banned for being a "vandal"!

That was only the 200th time I'd been banned from some "community" on the web!

If I put up a wall and write on the wall "Write Here!" and someone comes along and writes "Fu-ck You" on the wall, is that person a vandal? What's the etiquette with an open circuit? As an administrator, I am the operator of a machine and therefore it is my responsibility to yield the right of way to pedestrians. If I seek rational discourse, I should use a rational (closed) circuit. The membership can then elect each member according to whatever qualifications.

Virginia Anti-Spam Law Overturned, Spammer Walks

The Virginia Supreme Court today struck down a state anti-spam law, saying the statute violated the First Amendment right to free and anonymous speech. The decision also tossed out the conviction of a North Carolina man once described as one of the most prolific spammers.

A copy of the court's decision is available at this link here.

What this ruling means is that anyone posting personal messages in a forum who is banned and persists in "spamming" the forum cannot be prosecuted as a spammer. This sure be confirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court. It will help communities to organize along traditional lines because the only defense against unwanted members is to close the circuit. I think that closed circuits encourage the use of rational form to elect the membership.

As long as we are going to be going to court, I would like to organize all Internet trolls to make it a criminal act to spy on people's IP numbers.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=10277

We need a new etiqutte that respects the right to privacy and administrative disclosure.

And that's not all...