On the one end you say this has little to do with Perl and in the next I read, "...maybe enhance our search-fu...". If you are used to using Perl and the web are these not inter-related? I can guess that your retort might be, 'but I don't use Perl to search/surf/look up things on the web'...and that is precisely my point. I don't either. I use search engines. However, due to the great push to compete for mindshare on search engines computing information is becoming hopelessly cluttered. We need tools to help us unclutter the clutter. Would you rather we write those tools in Rexx?

...However, the relevant issues here are economics, business (mores || ethics || practices) and human nature..."

I kind of saw them as 'freedom, peace of mind, ability to find cogent data first and useless data second' but we can go with yours too.

"Which funding source (aka "advertiser") will support (aka "buy advertising") the internet ..."

Let me quickly say that I am somewhat appalled by this statement. The web was created as a knowledge sharing tool. True, the perverse reality is that advertising has taken over and perhaps in many cases that is okay -- until you start looking for something important/useful on the web. Now all of a sudden you must dig through pages worth of crapola. Search engines are primarily supposed to give us the information we are asking for first and stuff that we might be interested in second. It can do it the other way around if it is clear that you are still basically getting what you want. When a search tool returns completely wrong data but I get a full dose of advertising 'sugar' I'm a bit disgusted. I would think you would be too.

What I'm saying here is that search engines get their money from advertisers, so they are never going to add a -minus::Advertisements to their listings. We have to do it. Welcome to the new digital democracy.

"perverse reality" ?!

My understanding is that any perversity associated with "reality" is in the eye of the beholder.

As for the rest of your argument, idealistic though it may be, consider:

• These tools you want to build must somehow filter out what you regard as objectionable material. How are you going to define that? Seems to me it's pretty much the same problem alluded to many decades ago by the Justice of the US Supreme Court, who threw up his hands over an attempt to distinguish between protected content (words, images, et al) and pornography: he said he couldn't define the distinction with words (law) but that "I know it when I see it."
• Are your tools going to replace the bots from Google, Bing and Yahoo (inter alia) to index the parts of the internet that satisfy your definition of sites which act "as a knowledge sharing tool?" (Where will you keep your server farm? How will you pay for the pipes, the electricity and the real estate? Will everyone seeking your www.nirvana need to pay you or do you plan to make your results available at your own expense, for the right to be the sole judge of what to include (Now, there's a notion that appalls me).
• You also say you are somewhat appalled" and "a bit disgusted" by the notion (paraphrasing myself) that advertising revenue makes the web go 'round. I'm not inclined to get upset (at least, not after thinking about it) over the fact that apples fall down; life is unpredictable; and economic gain is often a driving motivation for members of homo sap.

"..."reality" is in the eye of the beholder..."

Hahaha. Go stand in front of a bus and tell me how long that theory holds up.

"...I know it when I see it..."

People often misunderstand this quote and misuse it which is the main reason for my response. The judicial system oftentimes eludes to its own function, use, and purpose in its rulings. In the quote you cite from a ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court, the justice was simply eluding to the Court's function -- to resolve questions of morality, etc. as they apply to statuatory and case law presented to them. You see, what was once lewd and disgusting in the year 1900 (case law dates back further than this) could actually be written into the laws by local governments as exactly that, 'behavior unspeakable by moral gentlemen.' There are cases with exactly that kind of wording. Over time as people became more sophisticated and wordly these standards weakened and rulings followed suit. What the judge was saying could be better interpreted like this: 'in cases that come before this court we will decide, according to relevant Constitutional law, case law, jurisprudence, and international legal standards, what is or is not to be considered lewd in the United States of America and lands which it governs.'

Most people are very ignorant of the law's workings. They foolishly think that judges just sit up there and make pronouncements. In fact, there is a large body of case law and legal theory going on before and after a ruling. It is very doubtful that the justice you mention 'threw up his hands,' as you say. It was more like took a deep look at existing case law, considered the overall effects of a ruling (the jurisprudence part), and considered the U.S. Constitution (cases brought before the highest court must have some relevance to this beloved document to be heard) before ruling thus. There's always the court system to handle variances in the future, so a ruling like this makes complete sense if you understand how the courts make rulings and review legal standards.

But your point helps make my point -- unless there is a way to differentiate the main content of a web page from irrelevant, but included, advertisements we can get search results that foolishly return them as one and the same. In newspapers the word 'advertisement' is provided at the top of a look-alike news story for convenience. In television, radio, and other mediums there is something that tells us we are about to hear a commercial. I reject the idea that the search engine cannot do something similar. They can immediately raise the search engine ranking of any site that adheres to a policy that differentiates the two, in which case SEO consultants and developers will scamper to conform. The question is how to convince the search engines to do such a thing? My guess is by providing them with things that they want -- things that will improve their ability to identify and provide information to others. Something like new protocols and tools...

Celebrate Intellectual Diversity