radford@calgary.UUCP (Radford Neal) (02/07/85)
Regarding the recent discussions of moderating all new groups sent via
what may become the only means of transmitting non-local news:
There are two reasons to moderate. One is to avoid legal problems with
libel, obscenity, etc. The only way I can see to overcome this without
human moderation is to acquire an exemption for usenet from these laws.
This is probably difficult, but clearly not impossible - I'm sure the
telephone companies have things worked out so they aren't liable for libel
committed using their lines.
The second reason to moderate is to cut down on junk, duplicate replies,
mindless flames, items inappropriate to their group, etc. A lot might
be done here with *automatic* moderation via a program. This would eliminate
censorship fears, since clearly the program isn't going to really know
what the item is about.
Some attributes which could cause automatic rejection of an article:
1) Obviously brain-damaged format.
If people expect others to read and pay for the transmission of
their item, the least they can do is format it in a readable way.
The automatic moderator could eliminate items suffering from
the following for instance:
a) All upper case text.
b) No capitalization of sentences.
c) More than 80 columns of text (there could be an exemption
for net.sources).
d) Right justification of text, particularly in less than
sixty columns.
I can see the flames from those who habitually post such items.
Fortunately I won't be reading them since I value my eyesight.
2) Bad subject line.
This would include extremely short subject lines and N'th repetitions
of "Re: BCD and accountants". Entering a meaningfull subject
description is not that difficult for an author.
3) Excessively long signatures.
I'm not sure how to detect this one, but there is probably a way.
Some might view these restrictions as an attempt to impose my personal
aesthetic standards on everyone. I see it as a way of eliminating postings
by people who don't care enough to make them readable. Surely a lot of the
junk that gets posted now wouldn't be if the authors had to expend some
effort of making them presentable. I think this is less objectionable than
censors based on *content* as proposed currently.
Radford Neal
The University of Calgary