debenedi@yale-com.UUCP (Robert DeBenedictis) (12/13/83)
* THIS IS BEING RE-POSTED. IT SEEMS THAT IT DID NOT MAKE IT TO SOME SITES.
USENET Decides
Earlier in this paper I mentioned that some members of USENET wanted to
form a newsgroup to discuss gay issues. After some heavy electronic
debating the group was formed. The rest of this section will carefully
look at this controversy. As an object of study it is interesting
because it reflects how this medium affects group decision making.
Several issues were raised during the discussions regarding a net.gay.
On the broadest level there were people who were in favor of a gay
newsgroup and those who where against it. For those who wanted net.gay
there were still several undecided issues. The discussions took place
in net.news.group; a newsgroup created for discussing newsgroups.
When Robert Wahl proposed creating net.gay he suggested that it be
moderated. (#10) A moderated group is one in which a some designated
person reviews the articles before they are presented to everyone
else. If the moderator decides that an article is inappropriate for
some reason, he prevents it from being sent to everyone else.
Currently there is only one moderated group on USENET, net.announce.
The chief advantage of a moderated group would be that the moderator
could remove the addresses from the articles, thereby ensuring
anonymity. Also, the moderator could filter out the cranks. Others,
notably Prentiss Riddle, felt that the net already provided enough
anonymity. He also expressed concern that the moderator would be a
censor; something he considered to be an unattractive precedent. (#11)
Some felt that users should be responsible for their postings and that
this was best done by having an unmoderated group. This issue was
settled by making the group unmoderated. However, for those who
preferred a greater degree of anonymity, many netters set themselves up
as forwarders. These people agreed to forward articles after removing
the identifying information.
Encryption was an issue that was briefly raised. Mark Horton suggested
that the contents of net.gay be encrypted. (#12) This would mean that
the articles would have to be run through a filter after being
received. This technique is commonly used in net.jokes to prevent
people from accidently reading offensive articles. Mark's suggestion
was quickly countered by Steve Dyer. He said "I strongly oppose any
encryption or `rotation' on its contents simply because a mature
discussion of gay issues of interest to ALL members of the net should
not require encryption." (#13) Hours after Steve sent his article
Lauren Weinstein stated "encryption would be a must, assuming that
primarily sexual topics would be discussed." (#14) After Steve
explained "NET.GAY ISN'T ABOUT SEX!!!!" (#15) the encryption issue
faded away. I should add here that it is simple for users who might be
offended by a given newsgroup to not subscribe to it. One is only
presented with articles from the groups to which one subscribes.
A seemingly compelling argument against the formation of net.gay was
that its mere existence would endanger the whole net. User eric at
aplvax was the chief exponent of this fear. "Sure, we are free to
unsubscribe to net.gay, but management doesn't look at it as a
net.gay/!net.gay issue, but rather USENET/!USENET." (#16) (The
exclamation point is slang for `not.') This view was supported by
Vince Vaillancourt who claimed that his supervisor would "pull the
plug" on netnews as soon as something controversial comes along. (#17)
These "endangering the net" arguments were squelched by people who
pointed out that USENET already had many "dangerous" groups. For
starters, there was net.jokes and net.rec.nude (nude sunbathing).
Beyond these, though, many volatile topics were being discussed across
the net. (#18) As one netter pointed out: "Is this net so chickenshit
it can't handle topics seen daily by six year olds on network TV?" (#19)
Finally, a name had to be chosen. "Net.gay" seemed liked the most
natural name. Lauren Weinstein was the first to point out that a more
obtuse name be chosen. His concern was to avoid the proliferation of
many similar groups, e.g., net.lesbians, net.bondage, net.s&m, etc.
(#20) It was explained that these groups would probably not appear
since net.gay wasn't going to be about sex. However, the name issue
lived on. Lauren felt that since he thought net.gay implied sex others
might also. He suggested that a name be selected "that is less likely
to be misinterpreted." (#21) Roughly at the same time two people,
James Carbin and Michael Ellis, suggested calling the group
"net.motss." MOTSS "is an acronym for `members of the same sex,'
coined by contributors to net.singles as an analogue to MOTOS--`member
of the opposite sex.'" (#22)
Soon after the name "net.motss" was suggested Robert Wahl withdrew his
support for a gay newsgroup.
Due to the lack of overwhelming response for "net.gay", and the
concerns which have been voiced over its creation, I have
decided to defer its creation until a true need for it has been
demonstrated. (#23)
Within 30 hours Steve Dyer sent out an article asking that the decision
of whether to create a gay newsgroup be given a few more days. (#24)
Things were now getting to the point where net.news.group readers were
tired of seeing the ceaseless debate. "Oh for goodness sake! Enough
already! Create net.gay and be done with it." (#25) Then, without an
announcement, net.motss was created. The first article, the charter,
was posted on October 7th. This was almost a month after Robert Wahl's
article that proposed the idea. No other group had required such
discussion. Anyone with the proper privileges on a given machine can
create a new group for all the machines on USENET. A user with such
privileges is referred to as a `super-user.' The danger in creating a
newsgroup without first soliciting opinions is that other sites will
refuse to forward the group to still other sites. (#26)
This however was not the end of the story. On October 12th, the user
root (the standard name for the super-user) on a machine called
rocksvax sent out a `remove group' message. (#27) Just as the
super-user on a machine can create a group for the whole net, he or she
can also remove a group from the whole net. (Both of these acts are no
longer possible in the current version of the news software; however,
many sites have not yet updated their software.) The action was
universally condemned. Greg Woods summarized the mood of the net when
he half-seriously asked "who are you (rocksvax!root) to be playing God
of USENET just because you are a super-user!" (#28)
----- End of Part 3 -----
"Now, You're Never Alone"
Another Message In The Bottle from
Robert DeBenedictis