Each column is written independently by a staff member and reflects the views of that individual. Comments about a particular column should be addressed to its author.
With the proliferation of online services and the new obsession with avoiding the “offensive” and “objectionable”, it is not surprising that the two often merge. By this I mean that many online services have adopted restrictions designed to prevent anything “offensive” or “objectionable” from appearing online. In this article I will be using the restrictions of Apple’s eWorld service as a basis for discussion. Apple’s eWorld was selected because I happened to have a printout of Apple’s subscriber agreement on hand. It should not be assumed that Apple’s eWorld is especially restrictive. In fact, eWorld’s restrictions are similar to those of many other online services. The main purpose of this article is to discuss the general issue of online restrictions and not to take shots at Apple (that would be far too easy...).
The following is stated in Apple’s Online Service Subscriber Agreement: “You are expressly prohibited from posting on eWorld any unlawful, inaccurate, threatening, libelous, obscene, profane, sexually offensive, or objectionable information of any kind, including encouraging use of controlled substances, that would constitute a criminal offense, give rise to civil liability, or otherwise violate any local, state, national, or international law.” Needless to say, violation of these restrictions can result in suspension or termination of a person’s subscription.
Restrictions against unlawful and libelous information seem quite reasonable (assuming that the laws and definition of “libel” are reasonable). After all, all commercial online services (at least American ones) have to conform to the standards of the law. The restriction against inaccurate information is somewhat understandable. After all, the main purpose of communication is (or should be) the exchange of accurate information. However, an online service that places such restrictions should take the time to clearly specify what it is to violate such restrictions. Common sense indicates that it would hardly be fair to terminate a person’s account for simple factual errors. For example, if a person accidentally misstated the RAM requirements of her program it would be unjust to terminate her account. Needless to say, I am not suggesting that an online service would actually be so heavy handed and arbitrary, but it would be preferable to have some clear guidelines in this matter in order to avoid potential misunderstandings. Perhaps it would be better to place restrictions on intentional deception and not simply on inaccuracy. It is evident that there is a significant difference between a minor factual error and a deliberate attempt to deceive people. Errors should be corrected, not punished. Deliberate deception should, of course, be punished.
The restriction against threatening information is also understandable. After all, threatening people is not something that is particularly commendable and it can often be illegal. However, an online service that places such a restriction should be careful to detail what is meant by “threatening.” For example, a person might find a scholarly article arguing against something he believes in to be threatening. However, it would hardly seem correct to restrict the distribution of such material. What would be needed would be a clear definition of “threatening” which would restrict the types of threatening information that has no place in the civilized exchange of information. For example, threats of violence would clearly be out of place and should be curbed.
The restrictions regarding encouraging people to use controlled substances seems reasonable, if a bit odd (why single out controlled substances...). However, it would be unreasonable to prevent people from discussing such issues as whether or not said substances should be legal. Presumably, other types of information might come under similar restrictions restrictions, such as information about weapons, explosives, controversial religious and political views, and so forth. Needless to say, all such restrictions should be carefully considered to avoid placing unnecessary and burdensome restrictions on the free exchange of information.
The restrictions that are especially complex and bound to be controversial are those that apply to obscene information, profane information, sexually offensive information , and objectionable information. Each of these restricted areas will be considered in turn.
One of the problems with restricting obscenity and profanity is that adequate definitions of “obscene” and “profane” are simply not available. In some cases, people do have a firm grasp of obscenity and profanity. This is made evident by the ease with which people employ four letter words and their kin in everyday life. It seems quite reasonable to require people to use civilized language when participating in a public forum. As a professor, I do not tolerate pointless obscenity in my classroom, since it contributes nothing to the exchange of information and can often have a detrimental effect on such exchanges. I believe that, in most cases, there is nothing that can be said with profane language that cannot be said better without such language. The gratuitous use of such language often indicates a lack of respect and careful thought on the user’s part. In the case of online services, I believe that the same principles should apply. While it seems preferable to have people police themselves in this matter rather than imposing external restrictions, people paying for a service do have the right to not be subjected to such language without their explicit consent.
While certain types of obscenity and profanity are clearly out of place, it does seem that they do have a place in certain forms of literature and other forms of art. Certain stories, including fiction and non-fiction, simply cannot be adequately told without such elements. A quick look back through the history of art will reveal many works of superb art and literature that were classified of obscene. Some works of art may cross the border into this region, but that might well be part of their power. Hence, it would be somewhat unreasonable for an online service to restrict such material across the board. What would make far more sense is to have such material in a clearly labeled online “areas.” That way people could chose whether they wish to access such information or not. Since it would be a mater of free choice, if people become offended, they can only blame themselves. Online services might also wish to restrict such areas to adults. One way to do this is, as Apple does, limit accounts to adults (18 or older) but allow parents and guardians to permit their children to use their accounts. That way it would be up to the parents to decide whether their kids get online or not. If the parents let the kids get online and fail to supervise their activity, they would only be able to blame themselves if little Billy downloaded a copy of 365 DAYS or THE ISLAND. Such policies would place responsibility squarely on the individual, which is where it should be. If people can’t handle such responsibility, they probably shouldn’t be allowed to play with a computer.
The topic of sexually offensive information is a particularly complex and controversial topic. One general problem is providing an adequate account of what it is to be sexually offensive. It is quite evident that what counts as sexually offensive will vary from individual to individual (even among “normal” individuals). If such restrictions are to be fair, it must be made clear what is meant by “sexually offensive.” Unfortunately, there does not appear to be a substantive definition that would even be acceptable to most people. However, there do appear to be rational ways to approach the topic.
Online services that are intended to be open to people of all ages should probably have a restriction against sexually explicit material, be it text, graphics or software. Such services should be considered “G” rated services. They would be the type of services that a parent could allow a child to freely use without a great deal of supervision. It would also make sense to have such areas on online services that offer a wider variety. After all, parents should not have to constantly monitor their children when they go online and having a way to guarantee that a child is not going to blunder into XXX material on a general online service is certainly a good idea. After all, if people have a right to see such material, they also have a right to not see such material. Ideally, an online service could be set up with rated zones which would suggest to parents and other users just what they could expect to find in such areas. Parents could also have ways to lock their children out of certain zones and people would be able to avoid things they would rather not see, read, or hear. The use of such zones would enable online services to offer a wide variety of material in a responsible manner. Thus, people would have to intentionally enter an area and access the material. Hence, they would have no one to blame but themselves should they be offended by what they find.
There is some material that should probably not be distributed or even produced. Material that debases human beings, advocates dangerous practices, advocates clearly immoral activities (child molestation, rape, and so forth) should be restricted on moral grounds. Of course, this position is my opinion, but I am quite capable of backing it up (at great length).
The last restriction is the broadest and hence even more difficult to define than the others. This is the restriction against objectionable information. Once again, one serious problem with such a restriction is providing an adequate account of what it is to be objectionable. While it is evident that something is objectionable if some one can object to it, this sort of position will hardly do. After all, for nearly every piece of information there is probably someone who could object to it on some grounds. With this sort of position, nothing would be acceptable. It is evident that this will not do.
It may be suggested that the account of “objectionability” be tightened up a bit by adding that a person has to provide reasons in order to claim that something is objectionable. However, it seems evident that people could present reasons that something is objectionable, yet it would be unreasonable to restrict such material. For example, an atheist might find Christian material objectionable and be able to provide reasons that support his position (he might consider it an attack on his beliefs). A homosexual might find a discussion of heterosexual marriage objectionable and be able to provide reasons for his position (he might see it as an attempt to preach heterosexuality). A radical feminist might find a online romance novel objectionable (she might see it as a tool of the patriarchy), and so forth. The point is that a great deal of material can be classified as objectionable.
One way to deal with this situation is to simply remove any material that anyone finds objectionable. This would effectively curtail the free exchange of information by giving everyone a veto over what sort of information anyone else is permitted to exchange. Since the purpose of online services is, typically, to enhance the exchange of information, such a policy would be undesirable.
A more desirable procedure would be to have clearly designated online areas which are dedicated to certain types of material. Most online services already do this anyway. Specific files, discussion groups, forums, and so forth could all be clearly labeled as to content and general guidelines (perhaps developed by the participants) would be provided. Controversial areas could be designed to allow parents to lock their kids out of such regions. This way people would know what they would be getting into and would not be able to blame others if they encountered something offensive. This is because where they went and what they chose to examine would be up to them. For example, an atheist who finds religious discussions objectionable could simply steer clear of all such material.
Overall, it makes much more sense to organize an online service in such a way that people can clearly recognize areas and material they do not want to have anything to do with instead of imposing external restrictions. It also makes sense to allow parents to lock out certain areas. These methods place responsibility squarely on the individuals (and the parents). Thus, a user of a well run online service would have no one else to blame if something upset his delicate sensibilities. Of course, there would also be a need for laws that would protect online services from people who lack responsibility (since these people might be prone to launch lawsuits if they blunder into something they do not like), but that would be the subject of another article.
 
60 SECOND WINDOWS...
DeskPaint... a must for all Macs!
Fred Showker
People are always asking me: “which paint program do you recommend?” Well, let me say, that’s not an easy question to answer. I always retort with, “it depends on what you’re planning to do... tell me.”
There is one overall comment I can make, however. Every Mac user’s DA menu should have Zedcor’s DeskPaint. You can have this little gem for as low as $49.00 from the mail order houses, and someday, you’ll thank the stars you bought it.
It’s not so much the “painting” that you can do with DeskPaint that’s important, although it does have a fairly full selection of tools and operations. DeskPaint’s real value comes in when accessing Paint or PICT docs from within other programs.
DeskPaint’s “Browse” feature is well worth the price alone. With this you can sample a “slide-show” style view of all the paint (or PICT) docs in a folder, or on a disk. Browse forward or backward and when you find the one you’re looking for, move into paint mode, touch-up, flip, or modify the image! It browses scrapbooks equally well, and makes a wonderful “manual” screen saver! Just keep a folder of your favorite graphics handy, and if you’re planning to be away from your Mac for a while, “browse” that folder. It’s great!
This program also works beautifully in the finder. So, for organizing paint/Pict docs it’s a real time saver. Did I mention it also accesses TIFF files? Well, it does, and it’s one of the few programs that gives you a look at these files quickly and easily. You can then convert the TIFF to other formats, or modify it in any way you please.
DeskPaint comes with stand-alone applications, clip-art samples, and DeskDraw - another favorite - which has one of the best “Auto-Trace” capabilities in the entire industry. But that’s another story.
Pick up the phone, call your favorite software vendor, and order Zedcor’s DeskPaint today. Have them ship it overnight. You’ll be glad you did!
Fred Showker, nationally recognized designer author and speaker, is a twentytwo-year veteran of the graphic arts an publishing industry, with his own firm Showker Graphic Arts & Design. He is editor and publisher of DT&G: The Electronic Journal of Design, Type & Graphics as well as associate editor for both the Mug News Service (MNS) and Home & School Mac. You can see Fred in action at any of his Design & Graphics workshops around the country sponsored by Dynamic Graphics Educational Foundation, InHouse Graphics, PrintFest and others. You can chat with him directly on America OnLine, where he is “AFA Shwkr”, forum advisor to the User Group Forum (UGF), or in eWorld (SHOWKER) as co-host of the WORKING SOLO forum.
---------
It's a New Year
by Dennis The MacMenace
It's 1995!! Here are somethings I want to see from the Macintosh developers:
1) More viruses. Face it. If you pit the DOS platform and the Mac platform, the DOS platform clearly wins with over a billion different viruses. Something has to be done about this inequality.
2) More PDAs! I want to see a Newton like device that has a built in credit card reader, a built-in beeper/pager, a built in celluar phone, a built in answering machine, and an optional artificial defibulator (in case you go into a coronary such as seeing it recognize your writing 100%).
3) CRT/Microwave ovens. Face it. Monitors/CRT's generate a lot of heat. Why can we redirect this heat so that instead of being lost, it can be used positively to defrost or cook things???
4) More CREATIVE portable storage devices. A perfect example would be a Casio watch with 1 gig of storage and an infra-red port. You could send data back and forth between your Casio watch and your Newton. Is that phat or what?
5) Submerge-able PowerBooks and QuickTake cameras. Say your Jacque Cousteu. What if you wanted to create a FileMaker Pro database of underwater sea aneomeas on the spot. You can't do it with the current technology. Also, you could use these new PowerBooks while you in the SHOWER saving you precious time!
6) GeoPort controlled lawn sprinklers. The GeoPort has great potential. Lawn sprinklers would be the perfect... no KILLER application!! Just call your Macintosh and say "Sprinkler. Activate. 2 hours." and your lawn would be guarranteed to be well watered. An optional rain-sensor (via FireWire) would be available.
7) PowerBook and PDA is a serious potential problem. I think that they should have LoJack for Computers. What is LoJack? LoJack is a stolen car recovery service available in NY and NJ. It costs about $1000 and it simply is a tiny transmitter hidden in the body of your car. A routine theft report to the police will send out a special signal that will activate the homing device on the LoJack of you car. Police then follow it to find your car. With LoJack in your PowerBook, you could recover it before it is stripped for parts!
8) A more useful keyboard. Think about it. Sure the keyboard is useful, but it only has 1 function: as an input device. It should do more for the amount of space it takes up. If I were Apple, i'd build a keyboard with an LCD display at the top. It would receive news from a radio-newsfeed source. Wouldn't it be cool if you were in a chat room on AOL when suddenly your keyboard starts beeping and you look down and see that "World is comming to an end. No further information at this time...". You'd be the life of the party!
9) Crash detector. This one is real practial. Why can't someone make a hardware device that would simply detect if the Mac crashed or not? It could then be linked in the beeper/pager network. Imagine: You have to attend some long-winded affair (say your daughter or son's marriage) but you want to make sure that your 4 gig drive gets optimized by Speed Disk. Halfway through the wedding, your beeper goes nuts and you find out that your Mac has crashed. You run out of the church and go home to relaunch Speed Disk thus saving the day!
10) Airbags! What can be more frustrating that crashing in the middle of writing a 400 page doctoral thesis paper in MacWrite Pro and losing all your data (very possible)?? In instances such as this, an air bag should instantanously inflate out of your keyboard so that you do not harm the computer or yourself. This could be Volvo's first entry to the computer market!
Of course, none of these things will be built. Why? Because no one has vision like I do. Sad isn't it?
===========
Dennis T. Cheung would like to hear your visionary schemes and make fun of them. Send them to DTC@AOL.COM... or if you want to be brave, DTC@EZNETNY.COM.
Mak’•in•tosh
By Jim Hines
Attack of the killer infomercial . . .
OK, sports fan (and computer heads), listen up. Remember, if you will,
back to November, 1994 — just a few short months ago.
Think back… back through the Christmas fog and remember what I
wrote.
“… But, then again, Apple will probably just sit back and get some public-
domain celebrity to sell the world’s coolest computer.”
Heavens, I didn’t mean to be prophetic, but this is exactly what’s
happened. We have family X buying a Performa from somewhere and
expounding about how easy it was to setup, use and pay for. Geez, even
Grandpa gets into the act and meets some older cyberbabe on e•World. Now,
that’s a contradiction if I ever saw one, —why, the idea of running into another
person on e•World is simply amazing.
Anyway, many of my fellow computer support folks have chided me about
these infomercials. See, they all worship the Intel-flavor CPU and think that
Apple running infomercials is really funny. I usually counter with something
about those cheezoid “Intel Inside” commercials and that shuts ‘em up quickly.
See, I understand the need for a company to advertise. Hell, I work in the
advertising industry, but for the life of me I can’t figure out the reason Apple
resorted to an all out late-night infomercial blitz.
I can remember the show coming on after the new network “fx” signed off
the air, which is at 1 a.m. EST. I don’t know about you, but I’m sure most Moms
and Dads are in bed at that time snoozing away dreaming of anything but
shelling out hard-earned bucks for a Performa.
And no, I’m not being stereotypical and forgetting the folks who work
nights. I’ve done that and I can just about promise you that the nightshift folks
are not concerned about buying a computer.
Nope, seems as though Apple’s marketing folks seemed to think this was
a good idea.
Oh yeah, let’s run a spot after everyone is in bed telling the world how
great a Macintosh is. Brilliant plan. Does anyone else smell the remnants of the
infamous lemmings commercial?
See, way back when in the mid-1980s, Apple decided to run a commercial featuring a bunch of I.B.M.-type executives marching off the cliffs of Dover, or something like that. Anyway, the idea was that these folks were blindly following one another into oblivion.
The commercial was a total failure and Apple didn’t run TV spots for sometime after that. Like, years.
The point to this is that Apple can’t produce a TV spot worth a damn when it comes to actually selling computers.
Oh sure, they do concept ads really, really well.
Take for example the “1984” commercial (which, by the way, you can FTP a QuickTime copy of from ftp.demon.co.uk if you’re so inclined) and the Original
Quadra commercial. These were brilliant concept spots that sold the Macintosh itself and persona of how cool it was to use one.
Apple didn’t stoop to the point of selling an under-powered box with a goofy made-for-TV-family. Nope, they sold technology. Cool technology. Technology people didn’t know if they needed, could afford or really wanted, but Apple sold it to us nonetheless. And for that, fellow readers, I’ll be forever grateful.
P.S. This month’s column is mercifully short in observance of the holiday
season that’s just whizzed past. Hope yours was full of joy and happiness.
Mak’•In•Tosh is the sole creation of Jim Hines, of Louisville, KY.
All copyrights are the property of their respective owners.
