On 29 June 1999, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William X. Walsh) wrote:
>On Tue, 29 Jun 1999 11:00:26 -0700, "Cthulhu's Little Helper"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>>On 29 June 1999, "Richard J. Sexton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>>>The Internet and many other things are not biological systems like
>>>>>a salamander is. People of good well and with public interest can and
>>>>>should exert what effort they can to help direct the growth and =
>development
>>>>>of social institutions like the Internet into socially valuable =
>directions.
>>>
>>>How can a communications media have a socially valuable direction?
>>>
>>>Does the phone system have a socially valuable direction?
>>>
>>>Methinks you're talking about content, not transpor
>>
>>Ahh, but Richard...couldn't the rules which govern transport be =
>constructed
>>in socially beneficial or socially detrimental ways? :)
>
>And who decides what is "socially beneficial or detrimental?"
>
>That is a dangerous path to tread down.
Society?
But I agree with you. I was just pointing out that the rules
that constrain a communications medium could aid or harm one or
more groups, just as the messages carried within the medium.
But then, as Richard reminds us, Mr. MacLuhan said as much, and
did a better job at it, too.
--
Mark C. Langston Let your voice be heard:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.idno.org
Systems Admin http://www.icann.org
San Jose, CA http://www.dnso.org
