[net.news.stargate] Misunderstanding of moderated newsgroups

mark@cbosgd.UUCP (Mark Horton) (01/19/85)

There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding of what stargate and moderated
newsgroups hope to accomplish.  I hope to clear some of this misunderstanding
up here.

There are two basic goals: (1) higher quality news [with the repeats, mistakes,
and the like filtered out or moved to the appropriate place], and (2) lower
phone bills.

Personally, I'm not concerned about phone bills.  Our bills on cbosgd are
within what is considered reasonable here.  I suspect this is true of a
lot of the net - I have not gotten any flak from backbone sites saying
that they are having trouble with their phone bills or that they are
looking for a way to cut them.  (If administrators on backbone sites
would care to send me mail telling what their situation is, or to post
it here, I'd be happy to hear.)

The sites having phone bill problems right now seem to be the secondary
hub sites - typically these are the single machine in a city that gets
all the news and passes it along to everybody else locally.  For example,
hasmed in Cincinnati only gets a fraction of the groups because they can't
afford the phone bills for everything.  I think this is true of mcvax in
Europe as well.  These places have already cut back because they have to.
As traffic continues to grow, more newsgroups are cut out.

My problem is that there are a lot of newsgroups I would really like to
read, but I simply don't have the time.  net.unix-wizards, net.micro,
the various Apple MacIntosh newsgroups.  There is some good stuff in
there, but there's so much junk that I can't plow through it all.
Software doesn't do the job - a lot of the junk is original postings
that won't be caught by even a keyword matcher.  I would LOVE to see a
moderated version of some of these high volume but interesting groups.

The existence of moderated groups, simply for quality reasons, does not
preclude having the unmoderated groups around as well.  As long as the
backbone sites are willing to pay the phone bills, or as long as somebody
will step in as a backbone when one has to bail out, the net.all groups
will continue to exist.  Many individual sites may choose not to get them,
but they should be available on the backbone.

The cost cutting goal is so that secondary machines, and others that are
having phone bill problems, can choose to get only moderated groups, or
only stargate groups.  Since the choice for these sites is between getting
some news and getting none, it's clear that the existence of moderated
groups isn't hurting anybody there.  The lack of moderated groups may
cause these sites to delay dropping off a bit longer (since they won't
have any alternative to getting everything) but it won't keep them on
for long.

People are concerned that ALL newsgroups will be moderated, and that
it will be possible to squelch all news about a certain topic if the
moderators want to keep the public in the dark.  I don't see this
happening.  For one thing, it's very unlikely that all the unmoderated
newsgroups would go away.  If nothing else, there would almost certainly
be a net.free-speech where anyone who was turned down elsewhere could
post an unmoderated message.  (This newsgroup probably couldn't be sent
over Stargate, for legal reasons, but if the volume stays low, I assume
it would continue to go everywhere via phone lines.)  But there are a
great many newsgroups which are low in volume and not causing anybody
any problems, these newsgroups will probably remain exactly as they are.

The future of net.flame, net.politics, net.jokes, and other such high
volume newsgroups is unclear to me.  I don't read them, so they don't
bother me, except when my machine gets bogged down shipping news around,
or my filesystems fill up.  However, I don't know if there is a way to
cut the volume in these down.  Perhaps they can become moderated.  Perhaps
there can be some amount of "bandwidth" that they are allocated each
month.  Perhaps the current backbone hosts do not mind carrying this
traffic.  Or perhaps the participants can form their own backbone network,
paying their own bills.  I leave this up to those who participate in
these newsgroups and those who pay the bills.

Again, moderators will not be under any central authority (other than
the laws about Obscenity, Libel and Slander.)  Each moderator will decide
what is appropriate for their newsgroup.  If there are really more people
who want to be moderators than there are newsgroups, elections can be held.
However, my experience so far is that being a moderator is hard work, and
that few people are willing to do it.  I suspect that there will be a
shortage of moderators.  This implies that someone who feels they are
being censored can probably become a moderator of some other newsgroup.
It's hard to imagine a person who is being silenced and unable to tell
others about it.  There are just too many ways to get the word out.

	Mark Horton

henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (01/20/85)

> ... I have not gotten any flak from backbone sites saying
> that they are having trouble with their phone bills or that they are
> looking for a way to cut them.  ...

Speaking as the sys admin of a backbone site, I find our phone bills
frightening -- and we are 50% of the news feed for Eastern Canada.
I am deeply worried, and hope devoutly that Stargate can turn into a
"production" system quite soon.  Our phone bills keep climbing, and
even the current level is much too high.  This can't last.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry