[extropy-chat] Spam

[Brett Paatsch]

Spike wrote:

> As a thought experiment, ignore the means and list those
> who would have the motive to mess up the internet, or whose
> lives may have been better off without it:
> 
> Bricks'n'mortar merchants
> 
> Anyone who sells primarily information, such as
> Ministers
> Publishers
> Real estate professionals
> Teachers (some of them)
> Stock and investment advisers (why pay for that which is free?)

> Others?

I've wondered about this too. What about government and major
media outlets which are the means by which most people decide
how to vote or perhaps even what to buy or ask their stock broker
about.

I'm pretty sure I read that there was an internet warfare section
that was active in the Iraq war. *If* the internet was a potent source
of non-manipulated media perhaps government (or agencies of it)
would want to act in accordance with the national interest (or 
rather how the national interest is perceived) by agencies - which
might in fact by the interests of the government of the day.

I don't know. I haven't checked in to this. But if psych warfare
and propaganda are worth anything (and historically they have
been) certain things like exploring the possibility of internet warfare
(taking out communications) not just of enemy combatants but
political adversaries if you can get away with it, seems to make
sense. Perhaps a lot of the crude stuff would be illegal (again I
haven't checked) but some of the technology of the net and
spamming may have jumped ahead of the law making a political
opportunity for a time. 

Regards.
Brett Paatsch