oleg@gryphon.CTS.COM (Oleg Kiselev) (09/24/88)
Those who have been on the NET for any length of time have grown accustomed to the regular calls for some form of censorship on the NET. It seems the time for another such call has arived. In article <Sep.22.21.50.15.1988.14407@NET.BIO.NET> lear@NET.BIO.NET (Eliot Lear) writes: >Oleg Kiselev argues that setting minimum standards for language and >conduct violates some form of freedom of speech. He then goes on to >explain that there are tools to help a user avoid the cruft. >What Oleg is missing is that we all agree there is cruft out there. >The point at which an article is not cruft is hazy but we all agree >that it is out there. What I would like to see is a moderator who has >a good idea of what most people consider cruft. That way, only one >person has to wade through the garbage, as opposed to all of us. That is what moderated groups are for. Introducing moderation into a number of groups has failed -- notably, some groups had DIED because of moderation. The usual USENET policy has been to allow a news.group to determine its "cruft" tolerance. No single moderator can successfully scan all the megabytes of postings in all groups every day. Nor can any one moderator be capable of justly detemining what is allowable for all groups. There is, by the way, a number of mechainsms for fitering out the offending material. one could, for instance, suffer a one-time horror of typing all offending words into a KILL file and flushing any and all articles that contain those words. Personally, I would like to see words like "boobies" and "discombabulation" purged from the NET -- they greatly offend me. Yet words like "fuck" etc. do not at all bother me. Go figure... >As to whether this inhibits someone's freedom of speech, there is such >a thing as disturbing the peace. Through moderation, a person who >thinks he has an important point to make, WHO MIGHT OTHERWISE FLAME >HIS POINT THROUGH will have an incentive to keep his posting in line >with (at least) the minimum guidelines of the group. ( Hallelujah ;-) USENET is a very broad set of forums, with varying purposes and linguistic borders. If you are poroposing moderation of ANY ONE group -- why not ask the posters and readers of that group to VOTE on that proposal? If you are merely trying to crussade for your personal agenda and your personal sense of "propriety" -- something tells me you will find precious little support. -- Oleg Kiselev "No regrets, no apologies" -- Ronald Reagan (213)337-5230 ARPA: lcc.oleg@seas.ucla.edu, oleg@gryphon.cts.com UUCP:...!ucla-cs!lcc!oleg Copyright 1988 by Oleg Kiselev. All rights reserved. Quoting is allowed only if attributed.
lear@NET.BIO.NET (Eliot Lear) (09/25/88)
Apparently, Oleg, you missed my other message. I am calling for the moderation of a particular group - this one. I have asked for discussion on the subject. I think you should get a copy of that message and get back to me before I reply. Kill files are nice when it comes to individuals who are offended by particular people. There are two arguments, still to use moderation. One is mentioned in my other article, the other is that not all news readers have facilities to handle kill files. Would you believe me if I told you that not all those people out there read these groups using UNIX? This is a lesser argument, however, as in the long run, better software should be developed, so again, go read my first article. I do not argue for stringent moderation. That is - I want to see articles not posted that are CLEARLY out of place in this news group. Specifically: I would like to see messages that are NOT abusive and somewhat germane to the subject of news administration. I think we can come up with a set of rules for a moderator. The other idea that was posted which I think is interesting is the monthly posting of such rules. I am not sure how effective that solution is, however, so I hesitate to endorse it completely. -- Eliot Lear [lear@net.bio.net]
oleg@gryphon.CTS.COM (Oleg Kiselev) (09/25/88)
lear@NET.BIO.NET (Eliot Lear) writes: >Apparently, Oleg, you missed my other message. I am calling for the >moderation of a particular group - this one. I have asked for >discussion on the subject. I think you should get a copy of that >message and get back to me before I reply. Eliot is probably right. If his "other article" was one of "Moderation of news.admin" series, I have indeed missed it. That is because I have not been reading those articles -- I exercised my "k" key. WHY? Because I have no problem with this group being moderated -- iff the group votes for moderation. Next time, Eliot, please be more specific. -- Oleg Kiselev "No regrets, no apologies" -- Ronald Reagan (213)337-5230 ARPA: lcc.oleg@seas.ucla.edu, oleg@gryphon.cts.com UUCP:...!ucla-cs!lcc!oleg Copyright 1988 by Oleg Kiselev. All rights reserved. Quoting is allowed only if attributed.