dc@gcm (Dave Caswell) (06/08/88)
In article <1101@micomvax.UUCP> ray@micomvax.UUCP (Ray Dunn) writes:
.Why should we as a community, allow individual sites to profit from this
.otherwise altruistic network while showing *no* control over how their
^^^^^^^^^^
Condemn your own site with that word; not everyone else.
.customers use it.
.It would not seem unreasonable for an organisation profitting *directly*
.from USENET to at least be required to monitor the output from their
.fee-paying customers (and to be charged by the USENET community for their
.use ???).
.How about a filter to look for excessive posting or cross-posting which
.would cause system administration to be flagged prior to the articles going
.out?
Design it and post it to the appropriate news group.
.Censorship? Perhaps, but we must create accountability. If these articles
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Why? The new-users bulletins explicitly deny any responsibility a
site has for its users postings. Create it out of what?
.had been truly seditious, or incitement to whatever, who would have been
.responsible? Only the poster? The host site as the "publisher"? Each site
.on which the sedition was "published"?
Try none of the above. I'm sure for the general case you can't prove where
a particular aritcle originated; even if you could I can't see why you
would care.
.How about *all* users being required to sign a contract acknowledging their
.legal obligations, plus a few additional obligations and responsibilities
.that we as a network community could stipulate?
Sign a blank sheet of paper; there are no legal obligations, or
responsibilites.
If the net can't continue to survive with the current means of "control" of
its members; it can't survive with signed contracts.
--
Dave Caswell
Greenwich Capital Markets uunet!philabs!gcm!dc
If it could mean something, I wouldn't have posted about it! -- Brian Case