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