2008 print-only subscription – US$73
2008 online-only subscription – US$235
2008 print & online subscription – US$248

I assume the subscription will start with the 1st quarter 2008 issue, but if I want to purchase just this issue that you (Xeni) contributed to, it will cost me another $64. I believe you that they’re good people and that it’s a good publication (obviously, since I bothered to subscribe), but yikes!

Not sure what the problem was before, but when I tried again it worked (though the process is needlessly cumbersome).

I really didn’t want this thread to turn into a public bashing, I like these guys. Let’s try to remember that they seem like a pretty modestly-sized operation, without an excess of funding or resources. But that’s really too bad. Great ideas are not of much use if nobody can get to them.

Hopefully someone from INDEX will chime in here, and/or the accessibility issues will be resolved.

what a shame the contents are not freely available online

Indeed. However, I did publish my article, “Shifting Borders”, as did Nart Villeneuve for his: “Evasion Tactics”.

I summarized my article over at Light Blue Touchpaper.

–
Steven Murdoch

The magazine seems to be primarily aimed at social good, not profit, per se, but they’re relying on what amounts to an elitist, oldfashioned business model.

They’re well-meaning people, and they produce a terrific publication. They’re not evil, they’ve just made what amounts to (IMO) a bad decision, and it’s all the more unfortunate because of the subject matter in this particular issue.

Perhaps they’ll change their policy sometime soon!

“Gvrnmnts” r tlkd bt s f thy wr n ln rc frm nthr plnt, bt t’s jst s — jst grp f ppl wh cm frm r wn scty, nd th scknsss mbdd by gvrnmnts r th sm scknsss mbdd by tht scty. D srch n Bng Bng fr cmmn spllng f dsmvwld wrd, prhps “th” fr “th” nd y’ll fnd tht vn th ppl wh cll fr cr r glty f sprdng th llnss.

f w wnt t cr th gvrnmnt, w nd t fnd t wht mks s ll s sck.

The act of censorship necessarily involves examining a work to decide if it is permitted to be published.

In the present case the work is not being examined, the wallets of people who might want to see it are being examined.

If you wish for some reason to use the word “censorship” to mean “preventing anyone from seeing anything for any reason” then we’ll need to come up with another word that means “examining a work and deciding if it is permitted to be published”, so we can have a name for that entirely reprehensible practice. It seems to me more reasonable to adopt a new word for the entirely reasonable practice of sometimes preventing some people for some reason from seeing a published work. Otherwise people might get confused and think that there was something wrong with that entirely reasonable practice.

Words like “censorship” and (for example) “hoax” have clear and unambiguous meanings. Coining new words for new meanings is a better way to go than trying to morph those old words, with all of their moral baggage, into new meanings where none of their moral implications apply.