You can build just-as-effective slashdot moderation stuff into the aggregator 
as you could in the central site.  The way in which the system collects 
metadata has no effect on this.

> There is no "us" and "them".  We are all on the same team.

I am not accusing DFA of having bad intentions.  I am sure they would do the 
best job they could.  I am pointing out that there are very unfortunate and 
inflammatory problems with having DMT control the vetting of nodes media 
repositories.

The vetting of a nodes media should be controlled by the node, not DFA nor any 
third party.

-Zack



Date: 8/2/2003 00:39:34 -0700
From: Ka-Ping Yee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-to: Ka-Ping Yee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Zack Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: "'Jon Lebkowsky'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [hackers] Edge-to-Edge Principle / Reed's Law  All headers  
Zack & Jon -- i'm not sure it's a good idea to copy David Reed and
Larry Lessig on these huge e-mail messages.  It might be impolite to
ask their opinion Without giving them the context of the discussion.

(And for God's sake i finally had to fix the spelling in the subject.
I couldn't take it any more...)

Anyway, i just wanted to address one thing for now --

On Sat, 2 Aug 2003, Zack Rosen wrote:
> So either the media-network intelligence goes in the nodes of the
> network, or it goes straight to the center of the Dean Media Team
> mother-ship.

A few times now you've talked about "having to get permission from DMT"
or being "controlled by DMT", and now the "DMT mother-ship".  It's clear
that you don't like the idea of someone else telling us what to do.
But it's unfair to describe DMT so adversarially, as though they were
some sort of independent controlling entity.

There is no "us" and "them".  We are all on the same team.

We're in this together.  Would you feel different if we were talking
about america.fordean.net as the search hub instead?  Why does it matter?

Slashdot has a reasonably open moderation system, where they hand out
moderator access to lots of people.  The end result of the moderation
is a pretty good consensus on which comments are informative and which
ones are pointless flames.  And i don't have a sense that the discussion
there is being stifled or censored by single-minded moderation.  (The
discussions may be biased because of the user population, but that's a
different thing).

Would you be so unhappy with a system that worked as well as Slashdot?
It would probably be better, since (a) we wouldn't be relying on a
couple of dictators to select all the articles, and (b) our user
population would probably be better-behaved.


-- ?!ng




Reply via email to