🚀 go-pugleaf

My two cents' worth on the importance of information transmission and
the effect of boycotts:

(1) USENET is a powerful communications form.  We're living in the Infor-
    mation Age, and the control of communications media is an integral
    component of political and economic power throughout the world.
    An information boycott is theoretically as potent as an economic
    boycott or blockade.
(2) The slippery-slope argument doesn't apply here (witness the postings
    suggesting that if one wants to get at AT&T, one would have to
    blockade comp.unix.*, and because AT&T just bought NCR, we'd have
    to blockade such-and-such, and because IBM does business with so-and-
    so, we'd have to...and on and on.)  Boycotts are *symbolic*.  Even
    the so-called "blockade" of Iraq is more symbolic than substantive;
    the important stuff gets through.  For example, when AIDS activists
    organized a boycott of Phillip Morris, a huge conglomerate which
    owns a vast number of brand-name consumer goods trademarks, they
    picked just two brands:  Coors and Marlboro.  The boycott was
    relatively effective, even though it made not a dent in the
    company's bottom line.

As for whether a newsgroup blockade is appropriate, I think not.  It
fails to meet a major criterion:  the ability to rouse public support.
If someone throws a boycott and no one joins, then it fails.  I don't
think USENET opinion will ever support an information blockade in
response to a company's or an individual's actions unless such actions
are directly related to the welfare of USENET itself.

-rich