mark@cbosgd.UUCP (Mark Horton) (01/14/85)
In article <1942@sun.uucp> gnu@sun.uucp (John Gilmore) writes: >I agree that lots of Usenet submissions are trash. Everything is trash >to somebody. What I don't want is centralized control. It is important that there be some control over a significant part of what goes out, in order to keep the quality up. There is no reason, however, for this control to be CENTRALIZED. In fact, I view the moderation process as a way to distribute the control - each moderator controls only one newsgroup, and there are lots of newsgroups. While there will be some communication between the moderators, there won't be anyone twisting a moderators arm. Indeed, if there is really a significant demand, there could even be elections of moderators. My experience so far has been that there aren't enough people willing to be moderators to cover everything, must less a surplus to decide between. But if someone feels a moderator has become a censor and wants to take over that moderators job, there is no reason we couldn't hold an election. >For example, I submitted a message to the Arpanet >mailing list corresponding to "fa.telecom" describing the temporary >shutdown of a telecom-related magazine (TAP). It was rejected by the >"moderator" who would not publish it because he was afraid DARPA would >object -- because the magazine was "out of favor" with the government. For those of us who have seen TAP (it's the publication by the phone phreaks, the ones who tell you how to make free phone calls - hardly what I would call a "magazine", more like a xeroxed newsletter) and the ARPANET (whose inhabitants live in mortal fear of being yanked off if they misuse what is really a military network), this is hardly surprising. My guess is that such a posting (telling that it's suspended publication because it's been torched) would make it past a Usenet moderator. On the other hand, if it contained excerpts from TAP telling how to build a blue box, chances are it would not get past. Mark Horton
smk@axiom.UUCP (Steven M. Kramer) (01/20/85)
>mark@cbosgd.UUCP Message-ID: <703@cbosgd.UUCP> >For those of us who have seen TAP (it's the publication by the phone phreaks, >the ones who tell you how to make free phone calls - hardly what I would >call a "magazine", more like a xeroxed newsletter) and the ARPANET (whose >inhabitants live in mortal fear of being yanked off if they misuse what >is really a military network), this is hardly surprising. My guess is that Good point. >such a posting (telling that it's suspended publication because it's been >torched) would make it past a Usenet moderator. On the other hand, >if it contained excerpts from TAP telling how to build a blue box, chances >are it would not get past. Interesting. Considering the bulk of USENET sites are ATT, I guess this is true :) I couldn't resist. Actually, I'm for moderated groups too. From what I've seem the past 2-3 years, the net is in good hands. The unmoderated net itself will collapse from dribble and new users getting a `feel' for the net. I really sense paranoia out there. If the net does turn into fascism, those of us who perceive it as such can simply take the software and run a parallel net. I think, however, both apathy and a realization that some control is required will make the moderated net the mainstream for many of us. -- --steve kramer {allegra,genrad,ihnp4,utzoo,philabs,uw-beaver}!linus!axiom!smk (UUCP) linus!axiom!smk@mitre-bedford (MIL)
bsa@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery (the tame hacker on the North Coast)) (01/20/85)
(Parent message by Mark Horton commented that there isn't exactly a surplus
of willing moderators.)
I, for one, *am* willing to be a moderator of a newsgroup. (Does a FW
for a Conference Tree count as experience?) But is ncoast! close enough
to the backbone of the net to be host to a moderated newsgroup?
Perhaps others feel this way. It's a big net. (Which is, in the end,
what caused all this.)
--bsa
--
Brandon Allbery @ decvax!cwruecmp!ncoast!bsa (..ncoast!tdi1!bsa business)
6504 Chestnut Road, Independence, Ohio 44131 +1 216 524 1416 (or what have you)
Who said you had to be (a) a poor programmer or (b) a security hazard
to be a hacker?