Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mit-eddie.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!smh From: smh@mit-eddie.UUCP (Steven M. Haflich) Newsgroups: net.news,net.ai,net.motss Subject: Re: The cost of moderating satellite News Message-ID: <3412@mit-eddie.UUCP> Date: Sat, 12-Jan-85 09:57:22 EST Article-I.D.: mit-eddi.3412 Posted: Sat Jan 12 09:57:22 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 13-Jan-85 08:53:06 EST References: <312@flame.UUCP> <1256@bbncca.ARPA> Reply-To: smh@mit-eddie.UUCP (Steven M. Haflich) Organization: MIT, Cambridge, MA Lines: 36 Xref: watmath net.news:2952 net.ai:2466 net.motss:1418 Have I missed something? The ongoing discussion on detecting `libelous' postings addresses only certain kinds of libel -- scurrilous or obscene descriptions of persons with defamatory intent -- but misses entirely kinds of libel rather more likely in this environment. Suppose I were to write: In his recent posting, Toby Robinson (not Robison!) wrote: I feel the future of AI programming lies in assembly language, since only by using assembly language can the careful programmer attain those important last few percent of available machine performance, so important to successful AI applications. I would not work for any company that insisted on my writing code in inefficient languages like Lisp or Prolog. I cannot agree with Toby on this point. ... Note that my `posting' is about a valid technical subject and is written in neutral terms of the technical field. Unless the fictional Robinson had actually made such a statement, such a posting would (I believe) be libel. With flagrant disregard for the truth, it clearly damages Robinson's reputation and presumably could also damage his employment opportunities. It is *not* necessary for me to claim someone practices nonconsentual sex with laser printers in order to libel him. He would have legal recourse against me and my employer. It might be possible, I suppose, for the automatic censor to verify quoted inclusions against the article database, but what about: At the recent SIGAI meeting in Nepal Toby Robinson (not Robison!) told me he felt the future of AI ... ... ... I cannot agree with Toby on this point. ... There is no way for a machine to verify this one. If the automatic censor must kick out any quoted or paraphrased citation for review by a human, almost *everything* will have to be reviewed! So why bother? Steve Haflich, MIT