THE OLD PUPPET MASTERS: CONTENT MODERATION ON COMPUTER BULLETIN BOARD SYSTEMS A Thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences of Georgetown University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Arts in Communication, Culture and Technology By Kevin Ackermann, B.J. Washington, DC August 12, 2020 Copyright 2020 by Kevin Ackermann All Rights Reserved ii THE OLD PUPPET MASTERS: CONTENT MODERATION ON COMPUTER BULLETIN BOARD SYSTEMS Kevin Ackermann, B.J. Thesis Advisor: Meg Leta Jones, Ph.D. ABSTRACT As monopolistic digital platforms have seized enough power over speech to become the “new governors” of speech, a robust discourse surrounding the contemporary legal and market forces that shape content moderation has emerged. However, this discourse is missing solid historical roots in the earliest days of digitally mediated moderation on hobbyist computer bulletin board systems. Building off the work of Kevin Driscoll, using oral histories and archival research, I examined what regulatory forces impacted how system operators and BBS callers practiced content moderation. This research found that on hobbyist computer bulletin board systems, content moderation was viewed more as an act of community formation than through the lens of balancing censorship and free speech rights. SysOps were the puppet masters who had ultimate control over how code and normative forces could regulate the content and community that was allowed on their bulletin boards. Each BBS could be entirely different depending on the whims of the SysOp. but many BBSs treated the expectations of speech and civility as directly analogous to having real people in one’s home. Ultimately, this thesis endeavors to be part of the tide of new scholarship that aims to complicate existing narratives of networked histories so that we might begin to understand the contemporary regulatory forces shaping our digital world. iii I truly could write another thesis chronicling my appreciation for those who have helped me achieve this goal. As a compromise, here’s a collection of little notes to the ones who have pushed, inspired and lifted me up over the last few years. To Dr. Jones: If there is one person who has made my graduate school experience worth it, it’s you. Not only did you push me with the literal constant opportunities and ideas that you threw my way, you also were there to help me back up when I bit off more than I could chew. Most importantly, in our countless meetings over the last couple years, you showed me that I didn’t have to sacrifice fun or creativity to be a successful academic. Everyone in my life could tell when I left one of our meetings because they always left me feeling genuinely inspired and confident in my ability to add to this world. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. To my mom, dad, sister and brother in law: You have always loved and supported me, even when that’s not been an easy thing to do. Thanks for letting me call and talk about random tech policy and the importance of old computer networks. Thanks for always accompanying me on my walks to and from campus. I love you all so so much. To Will: You make me feel so lucky. Thank you for being patient with me and for always supporting me. There is literally no other person with whom I would rather (or would be able to) be quarantined in a one-bedroom apartment for (at least) six months. To Leslie Harris: Thank you for being a reader on my thesis. More than that, thank you for providing me with such a strong, critical baseline of knowledge about speech. I never left your class feeling that I hadn’t sufficiently exhausted my brain. To Dan Bouk: Thank you for being a super fun person to work with, for being a reader on this project, and for helping me feel comfortable and confident to try new things in my beginning academic career. To all of my friends: ily so much. :’) xoxo After writing these little messages none of them feel worthy to express how truly grateful I am for all of you. The poverty of language will never cease to hold me back, I say, prefacing a gigantic written project. I wish I could telepathically beam a stream of pure happiness and warmth directly to each and every one of you. Love, Kevin iv Table of Contents CHAPTER 1 – LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................ 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1 Digital Speech and Public Discourse ........................................................................... 2 Section 230 ................................................................................................................. 4 Platform Governance ................................................................................................... 6 Content Moderation..................................................................................................... 8 Content Moderation and Scale ................................................................................... 11 Historiography of the Net .......................................................................................... 14 Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 16 CHAPTER 2 – METHODS ........................................................................................... 17 How the Work Was Approached ............................................................................... 17 Archival Documents .................................................................................................. 18 Oral Histories ............................................................................................................ 20 How Analysis Was Conducted .................................................................................. 21 CHAPTER 3 – RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS ............................................................ 23 What Are Bulletin Board Systems? ........................................................................... 23 Content Moderation = Community Formation ........................................................... 24 The Fluidity of Code as a Regulatory Force ............................................................... 25 Not Platform Governance but Home Rules ................................................................ 26 Digital World Is the Real World ................................................................................ 27 v SysOps Are the Puppet Masters ................................................................................. 30 Puppet Masters, but Kind Puppet Masters.................................................................. 31 Differing Expectations of Behavior ........................................................................... 32 The Part about Written Norms ................................................................................... 33 You Must Be This Technologically Minded to Ride This BBS .................................. 40 What Is AOL? ........................................................................................................... 41 Cathy Chandler and Harold Curtice ........................................................................... 42 Areas of Future Research .......................................................................................... 44 CHAPTER 4 – CONCLUSION .................................................................................... 45 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 46 vi Chapter 1 Literature Review Introduction The current conversation around digital content moderation is largely focused on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The conversation swirls incessantly between the need to eliminate Section 230, the need to reform Section 230, and the need to protect Section 230 at all costs. The landscape of digital networks today is drastically different than it was when computer bulletin board systems (BBSs) were the main source of civilian networking, but examining this time before Section 230 provided legislated immunity to internet service providers will allow us to, at a minimum, stop myopically focusing on legal forces as the only thing that can regulate a conversation in cyberspace. Historical research around early computer networks contains a unique tension between feast and famine. While looking for literature within academia for critical analysis of computer bulletin board systems, one is met with almost exclusively no information save for a paragraph or two recognizing the network’s existence. Kevin Driscoll is one of the only scholars doing work to recontextualize alternative early computer networks. Because there is so little existing literature on the subject, each interview and archival document I’ve found has felt like a feast of information. Even when I’m unsure of exactly what to do with the information, there’s a euphoria of discovery in which I have to stop and tell someone about a cool new (admittedly mundane in the grand scheme of things) fact I’ve learned. While there is little critical conversation around alternative early networks, the conversation around content moderation and digital governance is bountiful. This 1 literature review will first survey work that is being done to contextualize digital speech’s role in the broader public discourse. Then, I will