parks@noao.UUCP (Jay Parks) (01/15/85)
I think discussion of whether we *should* moderate articles should be
unrelated to discussion about how it could be accomplished through
software. They are entirely different questions.
(Oh, everyone is going to hate this!) A record of past performance
would be almost indispensable to the checker program. Most people
publishing articles have sent previous submissions, and submissions which
get through the check routine, but are questionable will be noticed and
pointed out by the net residents (hey, it happens now). It should not be
difficult to create a routine which keeps track of who puts through
questionable articles, and how often. Based on this, it could give
itself a "sensitivity" threshold for the articles it screens. For
example: Fred has never yet sent through a bad article, so don't spend
too much processor time checking his article, send it through. On the
other hand, Ethel always sends through copywrited (copywritten?)
material, so send her article to the human editor without even scanning
it (along with an explanation of its suspicions).
Problems: Well, it has been pointed out in the "kremvax" affair just
how easy it is to forge signatures. I have no idea how to solve this
problem. Suggestions?
And now, for the considerations of the ethics of all. I realize that
many people will see a file that monitors and records a person's
submissions over Usenet as being one step down from the CIA. Honestly, I
can't agree. There is no need (and it would be immensely wasteful, as
well) to keep a record of exactly who said what to whom about what when.
All you want to know is that John Smith has, in the past three months,
made a dozen vicious attacks on other people, and one condemnation of the
"Banana Computer Co.". You might not even want to know that much. Any
newsgroup moderator is going to have this information stashed away in his
neuron storage anyway. I am truly astounded that so many people on
usenet calmly accept information being remembered by people, but if it
goes into A COMPUTER -- it's Big Brother time.
It seems plain to me that Stargate will have to be moderated. I read
with extreme cynicism accounts like:
"It hasn't been PROVED in court yet that Stargate will be libel. Why
don't we all show a little backbone? Until there is a legal
precedent set, we should have unmoderated newsgroups on Stargate."
(No one said that, exactly. It is a paraphrase of many different sources.)
Seems to me that it's pretty safe to make statements like that when:
1) You are in no way connected to the Stargate project
2) You are not connected to the uplink or broadcast companies
3) You don't intend to post anything libelous
so that
4) Your hind section is not on the line.
The people who wish to wait for a court precedent are plainly saying,
"Hey, let's wait until Lauren and Stargate get sued, and if they do, then
we'll know better next time."
Lastly, I want to talk about ALTERNATIVES to Stargate. As Lauren so
often points out, Stargate is not the final word about how Usenet is
going to develop. Now is the time to look at the future and where this
community might go. As I see it, some of the possibilities are:
1) Existing entirely on a Stargate feed. Members of the net would only
send news to the uplink, and only receive news over Stargate. I think
this is extremely unlikely, by the way.
2) Existing entirely on the net in its current phone-relay system. All
of the software exists. Stargate is certainly not SUBTRACTING from our
present capabilities. While this is as unlikely as course 1), it would
be entirely possible for radical sites to form SUB-NETS of their own,
relaying news back and forth among a few select machines in a sort of
underground network. In fact, do we know for sure that there are no
underground networks RIGHT NOW?
3) This is sort of an extension of 2). More and more personal computers
have the capabilities of running Unix-like systems now, or even true
Unix. Those who desire to do so should be capable of running their own
network and paying their own phone bills. Most of you will (rightly)
cringe at the thought of paying thousands each month just to read usenet,
but consider:
4) The ultimate software/hardware improvements: Data compression,
header compression, and quick reference to referred articles (to get rid
of that 55% waste factor), along with 2400 or higher baud modems, and
software which aids moderators in trimming redundant messages (into
summaries, perhaps?) and spotting obnoxious or libelous messages (so that
being a moderator in the net of the future is not a full time job). We
will also need better version of "readnews" and "vnews" to enable
ourselves to get through the increased volume of postings on the net.
This should allow our old friend Usenet to continue in something like
its current state without centralized control, dictatorial monitoring, or
censorship.
I think the ultimate end of all of this will be a combination of all of
the above. There will be mini-computer links getting news from a
combination of phone-usenet and Stargate. The mini's will act as feeds
for smaller micro-computer bulletin boards, which will give net access to
anyone that has a modem.
That is my idea of what the net will be like in 5 (or fewer) years.
Any other predictions out there?
Jay Parks
(decvax!hao!ihnp4!seismo)!noao!aquila!parks :uucp
Kitt Peak National Observatory :U.S. Snail
950 N. Cherry, Tucson, AZ 85726hollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (Jerry Hollombe) (01/17/85)
>From: parks@noao.UUCP (Jay Parks) >Subject: software moderation, the future of the net >Message-ID: <455@aquila.noao.UUCP> > >neuron storage anyway. I am truly astounded that so many people on >usenet calmly accept information being remembered by people, but if it >goes into A COMPUTER -- it's Big Brother time. Old saying: "The faintest ink is clearer than the sharpest memory." Perhaps this needs to be updated to include electronic "ink". -- ============================================================================== ... sitting in a pile of junk on the runway, wondering what happened ... The Polymath (Jerry Hollombe) Citicorp TTI If thy CRT offend thee, pluck 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. it out and cast it from thee. Santa Monica, California 90405 (213) 450-9111, ext. 2483 {vortex,philabs}!ttidca!ttidcc!hollombe