phil@titan.rice.edu (William LeFebvre) (02/10/89)
In article <3850@cbnews.ATT.COM> wbt@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) writes: >This issue is bigger than rec.humor.funny alone. My opinion is that every >moderator on Usenet runs an risk of being sued for anything posted in his >group. Brad has come closer to this than any of us, so has the dubious >honor of being our test case. As a moderator, this really has me worried. It is something that I had never thought of before, but this whole thing with Brad Templeton has brought it to my attention. If someone were to use the advice posted to, say, comp.sys.sun, and as a result lose vast amounts of data (because the advice was wrong, misleading or not appropriate for his environment), could that person sue ME (the moderator of the group) and have a good chance of winning? Does he have a valid claim in saying that I was negligent by not verifying the message's correctness? You and I know how impossible such a task would be, but would a judge/jury comprehend that? This is really scary. (Yes I know that anyone can sue anyone else at any time over anything. I'm asking if it would stand up in court.) >What steps *do* a moderator need to take to protect him/herself ? What >are the moderator's legal liabilities ? Is the moderator liable for >statements made by posters (for example, libel) ? I would like to regularly post a very loud and clear disclaimer on comp.sys.sun (and also attach one to every digest). Something like: "neither the authors nor the moderator assume any responsibility for any actions taken as a result of the advice conveyed in this forum. Everything distributed here is done so with the understanding that it may or may not be correct or appropriate for anyone." How does that sound? Should all of us moderators start consulting attorneys? After the typhoon of messages produced by Mr. Templeton's recent move, I feel that I have to watch my step here. Who knows what strange objections some people might have! (-: >Whether the measures Brad is taking are appropriate remains to be >proven; but I'm not going to disagree with him without something >stronger than "This violates the spirit of Usenet." Let's face it: Usenet is changing. The original "spirit of Usenet" may very easily get lost in the ocean of new subscribers. William LeFebvre Sun-Spots moderator Department of Computer Science Rice University <phil@Rice.edu>
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (02/10/89)
In article <2559@kalliope.rice.edu> phil@Rice.edu (William LeFebvre) writes: >>...."This violates the spirit of Usenet." > >Let's face it: Usenet is changing. The original "spirit of Usenet" may >very easily get lost in the ocean of new subscribers. Those of us who remember what Usenet was like six or seven years ago tend to feel that this happened long ago, and that the johnny-come-latelies whining about the loss of "the spirit of Usenet" don't know what they're talking about. -- The Earth is our mother; | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology our nine months are up. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
phil@titan.rice.edu (William LeFebvre) (02/11/89)
In article <1989Feb10.034157.25972@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <2559@kalliope.rice.edu> phil@Rice.edu (William LeFebvre) writes: >>>...."This violates the spirit of Usenet." >> >>Let's face it: Usenet is changing. The original "spirit of Usenet" may >>very easily get lost in the ocean of new subscribers. > >Those of us who remember what Usenet was like six or seven years ago >tend to feel that this happened long ago, and that the johnny-come-latelies >whining about the loss of "the spirit of Usenet" don't know what they're >talking about. I see. Or to put it another way, I don't know what I'm talking about? Thank you very much. William LeFebvre Sun-Spots moderator Department of Computer Science Rice University <phil@Rice.edu>
amanda@lts.UUCP (Amanda Walker) (02/11/89)
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
Those of us who remember what Usenet was like six or seven years ago
tend to feel that this happened long ago, and that the johnny-come-latelies
whining about the loss of "the spirit of Usenet" don't know what they're
talking about.
--
The Earth is our mother; | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
our nine months are up. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
What he said. As of this month I've been reading Usenet for 8 years.
There are a lot of us out here that actually were *there* for most of
the history of this thing, even (or especially?) if we don't post very
many articles about how to "fix" the net...
Usenet is not what it once was; this has both good and bad aspects. I
can remember leaving for a two-week vacation and being able to catch
up on my news in afternoon. This is back when I read every article...
Usenet is a lot bigger, which means there's a lot more <expletive
deleted> to wade through--a whole lot more. Then again, 'rn' makes
reading modern news almost as manageable as 'readnews' did back when
News B came out (anyone else remember the A->B conversion?). In some
ways it's a lot less informal, but that's partly due to sheer size,
I think, and also to the fact that there are a lot more people talking
about a lot more things than there used to be.
One nice thing is that as Usenet has expanded, the technology has so
far managed to keep up, even though we tend to push it. In these days
of Trailblazers and up-to-the-minute NNTP feeds across NSFnet, it can
be easy to forget that a well-connected site once could have consisted
of a VAX or PDP-11 that got a news feed once a *week*. In this sense,
the thing that most approaches what Usenet was like back then is
probably FidoNet...
Today's Usenet isn't the same thing that I used back in 1981. There's
a family resemblance, but that's about as far as it goes. Some things
about it I like better, some I like less. One of the strongest part
of the resemblances is that, when you get right down to it, Usenet is
what we make it. Look at the name for a few minutes. Usenet is what
it is because it was built by the people who use it. People like
Mark Horton, sjb (I forget his real name now <blush>), Henry Spencer,
Larry Wall, Gene Spafford, and a proverbial case of thousands... It's
always had commercial use, and it's always had user-group stuff, and
yes, it's always had bozos who annoy the rest of the net.
Usenet has been changing for as long as it's been around, and will
keep doing so. What keeps it alive isn't some high-minded "Spirit of
Usenet," but the fact that it is worth enough to enough people that we
keep it working. Things that don't work (or present a direct threat
to the existence of net, such as that may be possible these days), we
stop doing. Things that do work we keep doing. It's kind of an
empirical approach, but Usenet isn't some research project, or product
being built to a set of specifications...
Anyway, I seem to be getting a little verbose tonight, so I'll stop.
Just remember that Usenet is not so fragile that Brad's actions will
destroy it or its "spirit..."
Peace,
--
Amanda Walker ...!uunet!lts!amanda / lts!amanda@uunet.uu.net
InterCon, 11732 Bowman Green Drive, Reston, VA 22090
--
Calm down; it's only ones and zeros...henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (02/12/89)
In article <2562@kalliope.rice.edu> phil@Rice.edu (William LeFebvre) writes: >>[old-timers] tend to feel... that the johnny-come-latelies >>whining about the loss of "the spirit of Usenet" don't know what they're >>talking about. > >I see. Or to put it another way, I don't know what I'm talking about? > >Thank you very much. > > William LeFebvre I can't say about you in particular, but any time somebody starts talking about the "spirit of Usenet" as if it were something sacred that will surely be destroyed if the net changes significantly... I have to wonder whether that person is aware of how much the net has changed already, and how much the "spirit of Usenet" has changed to match. Depending on what aspect of it you're interested in, the "spirit of Usenet" either is long dead or has proved remarkably resilient in the face of continued change and growth. -- The Earth is our mother; | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology our nine months are up. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
phil@titan.rice.edu (William LeFebvre) (02/15/89)
In article <1989Feb12.014406.22500@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <2562@kalliope.rice.edu> phil@Rice.edu (William LeFebvre) writes: >>>[old-timers] tend to feel... that the johnny-come-latelies >>>whining about the loss of "the spirit of Usenet" don't know what they're >>>talking about. >> >>I see. Or to put it another way, I don't know what I'm talking about? >... >I can't say about you in particular, but any time somebody starts talking >about the "spirit of Usenet" as if it were something sacred that will >surely be destroyed if the net changes significantly... I have to wonder >whether that person is aware of how much the net has changed already, >and how much the "spirit of Usenet" has changed to match. Depending on >what aspect of it you're interested in, the "spirit of Usenet" either is >long dead or has proved remarkably resilient in the face of continued >change and growth. Well, first and foremost, I felt that your initial response was unjustified, unprovoked, and unnecessary (and maybe a few other un* words). I haven't been around as long as you, but I didn't just start reading last fall! I never have and never will "whine" about the loss of the "spirit of Usenet". Change is inevitable in anything, whether we like it or not. I know that Usenet has undergone many changes already. As it continues to grow it will change even more. I was not "whining", merely commenting. The particular facet of the "spirit of Usenet" that I had in mind when I wrote that comment was the understanding that all information provided via Usenet is "as is". We are all doing this out of a sense of helpfulness and co-operation. And that the exchange is kind of like one huge drawn-out conversation. Along with that, everyone understands that what worked for me might not work for you, and that everyone makes mistakes, and that the statements made on Usenet are not necessarily correct, valid, or even useful. I think that "spirit" still exists to a large extent. But I fear that it will wane as many new sites and people "join up". Correct me if I am wrong, but Usenet readership is growing faster than ever, is it not? It seems like the delta-readership is itself always increasing: maybe delta-delta-readership is constant, but it might also be increasing ("delta" comes from calculus, y'all). I'm not saying "this is the end of Usenet". I'm just saying that it is changing even from what it is now (which is very different from what it was 5 years ago, etc.). I'm also saying that we need to seriously consider the ramifications of those changes: in this case, the increased likelihood that someone one the net will decide that a moderator, backbone manager, or poster is liable for incorrect or inappropriate information distributed via Usenet. Maybe my fears are unjustified. I've never worried about it before, because I wasn't in a position where it really mattered until about a year ago. William LeFebvre Sun-Spots moderator Department of Computer Science Rice University <phil@Rice.edu>
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (02/19/89)
In article <2583@kalliope.rice.edu> phil@Rice.edu (William LeFebvre) writes: >In article <1989Feb12.014406.22500@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >>>>[old-timers] tend to feel... that the johnny-come-latelies >>>>whining about the loss of "the spirit of Usenet" don't know what they're >>>>talking about. > >I never have and never will "whine" about the loss of the "spirit of >Usenet"... Actually, I must apologize for the rather harsh wording, and for accusing you in particular of being a johnny-come-lately and of whining. Not so. Sorry about that; you pushed one of my buttons. (This is being posted rather than mailed because I felt a public apology was in order.) -- The Earth is our mother; | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology our nine months are up. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu