From: "Richard Singer" <ricinger-AT-inch.com>
Subject: AUT: Re: bozo filters, signal to noise ratio and collaborative filtering
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 12:25:04 -0500


Hi.  Ben Seattle makes some interesting points...  It seems to me that
bannings, censorship, and group censure tend to be particularly common when
individuals challenge a group or list's general way of seeing things or
doing things.  In other words, there are a lot of people who can be
particularly nasty, vicious, unpleasant, etc. -- especially in e-mail -- but
who will usually be pretty safe as long as they fit in with the crowd (in
social, cliquish kinds of ways as well as in political outlook).

While we're on the subject of shameless plugs, a project that I'm working
on, the Collective Book on Collective Process
(http://www.geocities.com/collectivebook), deals a lot with the issue of
bannings, from groups as well as from e-mail lists.  (See, especially,
http://geocities.com/collectivebook/pariahs and
http://geocities.com/collectivebook/freespeech.)  This is a project of the
Common Wheel Collective, but it's mostly been a two-person collaboration
between myself and one other member, Delfina, which we began after some
reflection on our own bad experiences with, and observations of, some
undemocratic bannings or attempts at banning within "egalitarian" groups.
Since we started this project, we got a bunch of positive feedback from
people at Indymedia, who have been struggling with issues of process and
conflict resolution in addition to the perceived increase in a need for
moderation versus the problem of censorship.  Most recently, some people
from NYC Indymedia who themsleves have suffered the consequences of banning
and censorship have begun to collaborate with us.

I've also been in some debate with good friends from Indymedia who are
advocating greater "moderation" of the forum.  I tend to feel that freedom
of expression and free forums in general should be preserved whenever
possible, especially at a time when the mainstream culture and media are
subjected increasingly to market or government censorship.

Regarding the rating systems that Ben describes, my main problem here is
that people will be encouraged only to read posts that they just about
completely agree with and to filter out anything that might upset them.
Even in a group with a very specific political focus (which Indymedia is
not), it is good for people to at least occasionally be exposed to, and
surprised by, very different points of view.

The best solutions to most listserv annoyances (or perceived annoyances) are
simple individual acts, such as vigorous counterargument (if one so chooses)
or usuing a delete key.  Also, it is nice when people can come to some
agreement or compromise about list behaviors -- which seems to be what has
happened here.

Richard S.
Common Wheel Collective
Staten Island, NY

----- Original Message -----
From: Ben Seattle <left-transparency-AT-leninism.org>
To: <aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
Cc: <davgraham-AT-merseymail.com>; <haraldba-AT-online.no>;
<anterotesis-AT-yahoo.co.uk>; <messmer-AT-endpage.com>; Perry
<perevodchik-AT-proletarism.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 1:44 AM
Subject: AUT: bozo filters, signal to noise ratio and collaborative
filtering


> Hi folks,
>
> Yes, I have been lurking recently.  The reason is that I have
> been intending for some time to post installments here from the
> anarcho-leninist debate on the state.  It turns out that
> formatting a lengthy post for email distribution takes time and I
> have been quite busy ... hence the delay.  But I might as well
> use this occasion to make a shameless plug for the debate site at
> http://struggle.net/ALDS .  Visit it today.  It represents one of
> the more advanced theoretical collaborations I have seen between
> activists with radically different ideologies (this is not saying
> much because the quality of theoretical collaboration is
> generally extremely poor).  It is also intended to help set a new
> standard for calm and scientific debate over revolutionary ideas.
>
> Now--on to the topic of the day:
>
> I do not have much of an opinion about the Scott Hamilton matter
> other than to note that it appears the correct solution has been
> arrived at: Scott has suggested and agreed to reduce the volume
> of his posts (ie: the number of times he posts per week).  This
> will assist those who get tired of having their movies
> interrupted with commercials (I like that analogy) while also
> making it possible for those who like Scott's posts here to
> continue to read them.  I have found some of Scott's posts useful
> to me but the interest of developing a thriving list suggests
> that a compromise be developed.  I have no idea how many posts
> per week would be appropriate but I think that when situations
> like this come up it would be better to think in terms of
> voluntary agreements and compromises over issues such as post
> volume rather than a binary yes/no decision on whether someone is
> allowed to post at all.
>
> I have been expelled from a number of lists.  Usually the
> expulsion has been silent (ie: the list members were not
> uninformed that I was no longer allowed to post).  In my opinion
> it was because I presented my arguments carefully and effectively
> and the people who ran the list found themselves unable to oppose
> me with scientific argument.  Nor did the list owners want to
> make it obvious that they were censoring me.  So discussing the
> matter, as is being done here, may be a much better practice.
> The problem with discussing "meta" matters (ie: such as list
> expulsions) on the list is that the list volume tends to spike
> and some of the better subscribers (those with less time to spend
> analyzing what is part of the movie and what is a commercial)
> tend to leave.  No one trying to develop a useful list wants to
> see that happen.
>
> I have approached this problem in my proletarian democracy list
> by using a separate list, pof-200, as kind of an overflow list
> where topics such as moderation can be discussed.  This is
> necessary because the proldem list is very tightly focused and
> "general discussion" there is strongly discouraged.  The idea
> here is that the proldem list will have a larger number of
> subscribers than pof-200 but the pof-200 list will have a more
> active subscriber base with a higher proportion of subscribers
> posting.  In February 2001 I prepared a proposal for setting up a
> system of two lists to a group in Russia as part of a suggestion
> for how to develop a list that they had asked me to help moderate
> (you can see it at: http://struggle.net/proletarism ).
> Unfortunately the proposal went nowhere for reasons I have never
> been able to find out.
>
> But I am getting off-topic.
>
> Filtering and rating systems, in the long run, are an
> inevitability.  The need for filtering/rating systems is
> gradually becoming more apparent.  For example the local
> "affiliate sites" of http://indymedia.org are discovering that
> without some kind of filtering--the public response part of the
> sites are increasingly being overrun with comments from
> right-wing types mobilized from sites like the FreeRepublic.
> Gradually these public response sections are becoming more
> useless.  But developing and using a rating/filtering system is
> non-trivial.
>
> The issue in developing these systems is that they be democratic
> and this includes a political as well as technical dimension.
> Svejk's post here mentioned http://slashdot.org and
> http://slash.autonomedia.org/ and these are probably two of the
> more developed or well-known sites that give readers a
> opportunity to leverage the rating decisions of others.  For
> example on slashdot, most readers, most of the time, will only
> look at the posts that have been highly rated.  On certain topics
> however, you might have an interest in seeing a greater number of
> posts.  But the rating decisions themselves are made by a small
> number of readers who are selected randomly (ie: kind of like a
> jury).
>
> The next logical (and inevitable) step is what is sometimes
> called "collaborative filtering".  Collaborative filtering is
> destined, in my view, to eventually be used just about
> everywhere.  The way this would work is that everyone has a right
> to rate everything--and you then have a choice of looking at
> material that has been highly rated by that subset of the
> audience that has tended to agree with your ratings in the past.
> So, using collaborative filtering, the right-wingers visiting
> Indymedia could look at posts and comments that have been
> favorably rated by other right wingers--while everybody else
> would find it easy to filter them out.  The whole process would
> be very democratic.  The mathematical algorithms are trivial (as
> these things go).  I have not seen much use of collaborative
> filtering on the web.  The closest I have seen is the system at
> amazon.com where if you buy a book it will show you a list of
> book bought by people who have also bought the same book.
>
> But if you want to know more about how rating/filtering works (in
> the simple sense, not the "collaborative" sense), the quickest
> and easiest way is to go to http://slashdot.org and actually use
> the system that exists there.  A few minutes browsing is worth
> more than this kind of dry exposition.
>
> Bozo filtering (in relation to the web or email) would require
> something more complex than the filter suggested by Tom.  The
> reason is that, to truely be useful, you want to filter out as
> well all replies to the bozo (and replies to the replies, etc).
> In any list, the tendency tends to be the "give attention to
> Bozos syndrome" (ie: GABS) as opposed to "deny attention to
> Bozos" (ie: DAB).  This is because the easiest way to make a
> contribution to a list is often to criticize the posts that are
> the most stupid--and there will also be a percentage who do this
> in the same way as there will always be a percentage of people
> who reply to spam.  So list technology will need to give the user
> the ability to apply a bozo filter "with prejudice" to eliminate
> all posts which originate with a reply to a bozo.  But even this
> will eventually have to be developed further because what if
> someone whose posts you always read replies to a post in the
> bozo-stream?  You would want to know about that post.
>
> I hope to eventually help to develop systems along these lines. A
> friend of mine and myself write scripts and he has a machine that
> can receive and process email.  I think it would be cool to
> create an email list system that allows readers to use bozo
> filters with prejudice.  The result would be that lists could
> grow larger and have a higher signal-to-noise ratio that is
> presently possible.
>
> I believe that such a system would also be a powerful influence
> on what people post.  Political activists who want to be
> influential will pay close attention to their ratings and
> remember with pain some of the stupid or careless posts that hurt
> their reputations.
>
> There are plenty of opportunities to experiment and determine
> what readers find useful.  For example at the debate on the state
> at http://struggle.net/ALDS (commercial interuption: Visit the
> site!  Do so today!  You'll be glad you did!) readers can rate
> relevant essays using what I call a "bullshit meter".  The
> bullshit meter has not turned out to be as popular as I thought
> it might be.  So lots more experimentation will be necessary.
>
> That's it for now.
>
> Anyone interested in my work: you are welcome to visit the index
> of my work and sign up for twice-a-year email messages with
> updates on my technical and political projects and adventures.
>
> Sincerely and with revolutionary regards,
> Ben Seattle
> ----//-// 12.Feb.2003
> http://struggle.net/Ben (my elists / theory / infrastructure)
>
> Send email to: pof-100-subscribe-AT-yahoogroups.com
> No Spam!--Just 2 emails a year to keep you updated about my work
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harald Beyer-Arnesen <>
> To: aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> Date: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 5:47 PM
> Subject: Re: AUT: Remove Scott from this list!
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dave Graham" <>
> To: "Harald Beyer-Arnesen" <haraldba-AT-online.no>
> Cc: <aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
> Sent: 12. februar 2003 22.08
> Subject: Re: AUT: Remove Scott from this list!
>
> Gra and all
>
> I find this a discussion of interest also outside of the context
> of aut-op-sy and this particular dispute. Obviously I agree with
> Rata and Ilan on this (whatever their disagrements concerning
> a-infos). Anyway Rata articulated my thoughts better than me:
>
> << Defending ones social space (even virtual) from
> authoritarian/Stalinist
> intrusion is not what I would call censorship... Mailing lists
> are made with
> different names, statements and goals because there is a need for
> setting up
> the space for discussion of certain subject and in certain ways
> too. If you
> are questioning this I don't see the reason to make any specific
> mailing
> lists. Mailing list called "left wing" or something similar could
> get all
> kind of loonies that do describe themselves as left-wingers
> together with
> anarchist/communists and other revolutionary left and I would
> like to see
> how constructive discussion you could have there.... >>
>
> My experience is that 'bozo filter' seldom works, and
> it is all to easy for one or two people to be disruptive and
> drive those the list was intended for away. More often
> than not, this is also what happens. We have a limited
> time and energy -- and a life outside of cyberspace --
> and I for one get frustrated by to too many intruding
> commericials during a film. Of course also in that context
> the "delete/switch channels buttons" is used.
> There something else if I -- in a masochistic mood -- should
> deliberately seek out that stuff. But to have spaces
> guaranteed free from such intruding mental noise is also
> very much to conquer a bit of freedom,--  part of the struggle
> against the new enclosures one might say.
>     If I go to the disco, that is free choice, but I want to have
> the freedom to have spaces  where the sound of "mother
> nature" is all that can be heard.
>         The censorship argument -- not used by you but by
> Thomas -- I do not buy at all. It would have been valid if
> there was only one channel. But when you put out a
> libertarian communist journal for instance, it is is not for
> to fill it with Leninst; Social Democratic, Christian Democratic
> etc articles. You have an editorial collective that picks
> and refuses articles depending on if they subjectively
> find them interesting in relation to what was the purpose
> of issuing such an journal in the first place. In this, you put
> no restrictions on Leninst; Social Democrats, or Christian
> Democrats in publising their favorite nonsense elsewhere.
>          On a whole other level, while I am not a vegetarian
> myself, and never am likely to become one, I do not
> demand meat in the name of freedom if visit a vegetarian
> restaurant. I respect their freedom to have a space where
> only vegetarian food gets served. Closer to home, it is helpful
> to have particular lists for platformist anarchist and anarcho-
> syndicalist, as well as a class struggle, pro-organizational
> space where they can meet . Personally I find anybody-that
> defines-themselves as anarchist lists a waste of time and
> energy, but for those who might  think otherwise such
> spaces are available.
>         I  would not mind at all if I was "censored" on this
> list for going too much outside of the framework those
> who set it up intended.
>         What has been great with this list is that it had
> provided
> a space for libertarian communist whether they have marxist
> anarchist or whatever roots. That I might agree more with
> you than many who define themselves as anarchists comes
> as no surprise to me.
>
> Does this at all make sense to you?
>
> At last, I do have friends that come out of a more or less
> trotskyist tradition, but they have still always been
> libertarian bent, had a real democratic practice, critical,
> and never defended the authoritarian
> and instrumental rubbish. That generally produces one of
> two results, "left social democrats" or just-about-
> anarchists/libertarian communist but a bit more "pragmatic".
>         I even have a good friend who was a member of
> the Maoist party here for about 20 years. Though being
> among the "core proletariat," also by family background
> for generations, he was allowed a greater degree of
> of heterodoxy. Although they wanted him to take self-
> critique for playing cards rather than talking politics in
> the lunch breaks at job, he always somehow managed
> to keep his sanity; and has nothing good to say about
> the party he was part of and its lunatic and authorian
> ways today. His stand now is pretty much that the
> anarchist have all the right ideas but are not pragmatic
> enough.
>
> At the moment I will wait and see how things develops
> before deciding on staying or quitting the list.
>
> Harald
>
> PS.
>
> "... is it possible that Scott has simply tried your patience
> too much and goaded you into this latest response," you
> ask. He certainly has. It brings back the memories of that
> surreal world when the Maoist here where discussing the
> percentage of Stalins good and bad sides, (the "good" was
> of course dominant) while defining the support for Stalin
> as the watershed that divided "communists" from the
> "petty bourgeoisie" .  Or more recent "discussion" with
> "International Socialists" explaing how it was necessary to
> massacre workers when they did not understood their
> own good. That is what they called "socialism from below".
> It males me puke. It does not help that they all sound like
> tape recorders (with a few exceptions).  And I do not
> accept that it is just a difference of opinion, or the claim
> that we are struggling for the same ends. Well maybe if
> they refind themselves prior to being brainwashed by this
> instrumental capitalist thought, placing them politically and
> in human terms far to the right of almost any liberal or
> social democrat. The only cure is either time or to
> confront them. Part of that confrontation is saying that
> simple truth that we have nothing in common. If socialism/
> communism can mean anything at all, including the defence
> of "workers states" as North Korea; of Pakistani and
> Indian ruling classes "right" to nuclear arms -- so better
> put fear or worse into the working classes of the named
> countries whose sweat and toil also were exploited
> to produce these "liberatory means,"-- and so on, then
> it becomes meaningless. Anybody able to see anything
> emancipatory at all in North Korea belongs to a radical
> different "party" than I do, and in my book are lightyears
> away from anything to do with self-emancipatory
> working class project. This extreme form of capitalist
> alienation in the name of  sociaism/communism has
> done enough harm. When people start sounding like
> tape-recordings or Jehova's Witnesses  then a
> warning signal should chime, likewise and generally linked,
> when all real living human beings seem to have been
> dissolved into the great vacuum of instrumental thought.
>
>
>
>
> > Dear Harald [and everyone else]
> >
> > A long time ago Ben Seattle made a very interesting argument
> about how a
> > new movement would clarify its ideas - using cyberspace. One of
> his
> > proposals was what he called a 'bozo filter' - people posting
> stuff that
> > most others disagreed with would after a while simply find
> their posts
> > ignored so that their social 'space' would become much reduced.
> >
> > If I recall correctly [and Ben may still be lurking on this
> list so he can
> > explain it better] he thought/argued that this was a necessary
> evil, part
> > of the process of self-clarification that any movement must do
> to shake of
> > 'the muck of ages' and renew itself.
> >
> > At the moment there is too much noise in the signal to noise
> ratio - but I
> > feel we cannot turn off the transmitter in the way you suggest.
> >
> > As a matter of interest how many people on the list are using
> the delete
> > button as the 'bozo filter'?
> >
> > I normally find myself in agreement with you Harald [and I say
> that never
> > having thought of myself as an anarchist nor an anarcho
> syndicalist] but
> > not this time - is it possible that Scott has simply tried your
> patience
> > too much and goaded you into this latest response?
> >
> > Gra
>
>
>      --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>




     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---