 |
 |
 |
|
Re: Woz and Spam
Geez, if we wanted the government to control the flow of content, then I'd love for them to stop spam. This is the typical liberal vs. libertarian argument: Liberal: "The government can benignly intervene on our behalf in certain spheres as long as we prevent them from overextending into our private areas. In this way, regulation will force change in behavior and outcome." Libertarian: "The government always goes too far and destroys both the good and the bad aspects of any regulated situation through expansion, because government never gets smaller, nor gives up regulatory authority once it gets it." Liberal: "The govt could solve spam by implementing regulations that would make it illegal to send spam, and then prosecure offenders." Libertarian: "Fed-up technologists and businesses would be better placed to create informal alliances that rejected spam through intelligence rather than fiat." Of course, I support CIVIL law banning spam, and I support government prosecution of fraud extending to spam that masquerades as something else (forged information, stolen services, etc). In practical fact, if spammers could buy bandwidth and send email with legitimate return addresses, I would still want to bounce their messages, but I would not want them legislated out of business, despite my distaste. Most of the spam problem has to do with fraud. If spammers were honest, they would easily be blocked, which is why all honest spammers disappear (if any existed). There are responses to this message:
|
