Carr's article advocating regulation of the Internet is not just wrong, it's far, far wrong. I will put it simply.

First, given a choice between government regulation and corporate, which one do you think has a greater chance of getting it very wrong -- badly enough to stifle the Internet and free speech in general? Is his memory so short that he has forgotten the Alien and Sedition Acts of World War I? Or the break-ins and harassment that Vietnam-era dissenters had to face? The list of government tramplings on free speech is so long that it should be a fair warning to him. This one should be automatic for him -- he's an author.

Second, show us why the Internet is different from a book or a magazine. The author writes it, I read it; that should make both of them totally immune from any sort of regulation. You don't need a license to print books -- why should you need a license to communicate over the Internet? Or is the coming of the Internet just an excuse to regulate more than the Internet?

Third, we have plenty of corporate attempts to stifle individuality and free speech now; they are not working very well, and I'm not worried about the state of communications in the USA. It's people like Carr who worry me.

-- Jim Rivera

As the federal Internet monitor for all online journals beginning with the letter S, I hereby notify you that I have applied to the director of FITAA (Federal Internet Truth and Accuracy Administration) for legal and injunctive relief against Salon for publishing an article titled "Information Poisoning" by one Caleb Carr.

Pursuant to statute, this article was reviewed for truth and accuracy and found to be in violation of the law in numerous respects, to wit:

1. Carr states that the Internet is "making people dumber" and that "people assume what they read on the Net is true." He does not cite, even in passing, any facts, studies or surveys that support these assertions, which I find to be untrue, inaccurate, misleading and in violation of law.

2. Carr states that the Internet provides people with "massive amounts of information" but does not teach them "how to assemble those bits of information into integrated bodies of knowledge." Although these statements are technically true, I find that they are reasonably likely to mislead the public into believing that it is the responsibility of the Internet, rather than of educational institutions, to teach how knowledge may be extracted from information. Such misleading statements are proscribed by the consumer protection portions of the statute.

3. Carr argues that the Internet therefore encourages preoccupation with "material appetites" and undermines civil society. As above, the author offers no facts in support of these claims, which are belied by substantial evidence of material appetitiveness predating the Internet and by the flourishing of civil society in the United States today. Accordingly, I again find these statements to be false and misleading, in violation of federal law.

4. In addition, the article did not contain the required limitation coding necessary to prevent it from being read by unlicensed and/or underage Internet users, again in violation of law.

Be advised that in reviewing this matter and its disposition, the director of FITAA may take into account the prompt and good-faith action of Salon in removing the above-referenced article from its server.

Hereof fail not.

-- James F. Trumm

Carr's proposals will turn people into what he appears to fear most, "machines." People do not need an external agency to tell them whether a piece of information is true or not. Unlike machines, humans have the ability to determine the validity and accuracy of pieces of information on their own (through a variety of methods).

As for corporate control, perhaps Carr should actually try surfing the Web.

-- Nadeeem Riaz

So much of what the Internet contains is untrue and socially damaging! Therefore, we must regulate it for the good of the people -- for they are not capable of discerning falsehood from truth; nor can they properly discern between socially progressive values and their own narrow interests. No, it's not Red China (though we don't blame you for thinking so), but the future as brought to you by Caleb Carr!

And who, you ask, will determine truth? Who will decide what is socially redeeming? The government, of course! Sure, the government may have fed plutonium to school kids, deceived black males about their syphilis treatments, sank us into Vietnam and bungled a recent election -- but fear not, it's still perfectly competent to decide what you can and cannot read online. Carr assures us of this, and we, as dutiful citizens, ought to transcend our own narrow interests and believe him.

After all, it's a choice between government and corporate control, isn't it? That's it, says Carr, and we shouldn't let the uncountable majority of independently operated and individually controlled Web sites contradict his inescapable truth. Thank you for realizing what is best for your fellow man; I salute your determination not to let facts interfere with your bold vision.

Once Carr's regime of licensing and verification is in place, we can at last begin cracking down on the rumor-mongers and liars who deceive the public and slander our well-meaning government. Like the editors of Salon, for example.

-- Joshua Trevino

In his article Carr worries about the increasing power of corporations. While I share his concern, his argument for government regulation of Internet content seems highly dubious.

Carr's reference to the role of the FCC in regulating content on television is ironic, as for the most part television presents a more sanitized and corporate-controlled environment than the unregulated print or online domains. In fact it was this magazine that discovered that the government (leveraging on these rules) used its power to hinder honest communication about drugs on television. There is no reason to believe similar violations would not occur if the Internet was regulated. In fact if content was regulated for truthfulness we should expect the government to suppress the "false" scientific and social information disagreeing with its claims.

Secondly there is a general trend that a higher cost of expression increases corporate power. When most communication was by word of mouth or speech the influence of corporations was low compared to that of friends and society at large, but with the advent of television and mass distribution print media, only corporations and very rich individuals could communicate with enough people to significantly affect society. The Internet, with its broad distribution and low publication cost, is finally allowing private citizens the same powers as major corporations. Any attempt to regulate the veracity of online content will necessarily increase this publishing cost (through either red tape or the risk of a fine) and thereby discourage individual citizens from offering their own alternative content.

-- Peter Gerdes

Maya Angelou reads from "The Heart of a Woman"