lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein) (04/14/87)
Regardless of whether or not such "try-out trials" exist in the U.S., I personally would have no interest in Stargate "sending out everything" in any case. My opinions on this subject are pretty well known--I think that a large proportion of netnews is a waste--repeated messages (how many times do we need to see different people answering the same question in the same ways or repostings of the same game programs?), "vanity" postings, flames that really should be sent as private mail (if sent at all), etc. Overall traffic on Usenet continues to grow at what can honestly be called an alarming rate, and traffic volume can fluctuate fairly widely over short periods due to the actions of even a few prolific posters. This isn't to begrudge anyone their "rights" to "get everything" if they want to. As always, sites can get whatever Usenet newsgroups they desire from any other site willing to provide them. But I frequently wonder how many people really have the sheer time or mental "stamina" to wade through all that stuff--surely most people have better things to do with their time than read 100 messages all informing us that Bullwinkle's middle initial is "J". The quality issue applies regardless of the monetary cost of receiving netnews. Even if everyone could receive all netnews for free (and disk space and CPU cycles also were freely available and not needed for other purposes) I strongly believe that the provision of "quality" materials is a useful and desired service. I've had many people tell me that one of their primary interests in Stargate is our desire to provide quality materials that would provide more value for the time spent reading them. As I've discussed in the past, quality can range from relatively straightforward removal of obviously inappropriate or repetitious messages up to professional journal quality, depending on the situation and information involved. Stargate views a netnews subset as but one element of a useful information service, but we want to go far beyond that. We've already received queries from persons interested in providing specialized information for Stargate, and it appears likely that organizations unrelated to Usenet, but with a lot of useful information and talents, are interested in participating. Stargate's ability to get any given information to essentially all direct subscribers at the same time, at any hour of the day or night, opens up a range of information possibilities that can be very exciting. By the way, on the issue of common carriers... Simply declaring yourself to be a common carrier means nothing. In fact, even organizations who behave as common carriers can get sued. Even entities such as phone companies have been sued over issues such as knowingly allowing pornographic materials (as defined in any given state--there are wide variations!) to be sent by phone. In the netnews context, it seems likely that any organization that promotes itself as a central netnews distribution site for uncontrolled (unmoderated) materials is setting themselves up as a potential target--particularly if they are collecting money for such services. They will be the obvious entity to attack by any party who feels certain material made available was unlawful, damaging, etc. This is especially true with material coming from Usenet, where the authenticity of articles and authors is generally impossible to verify--so blaming the author of the article can be difficult or impossible. So who can they blame?--the entity that centralized and made widely available the material. How the courts will deal with such situations is unclear--similar cases involving BBS's have gone both ways with wide variation from case to case and locale to locale. Anyway, that's my two cents worth. Stargate's focus on "quality" relates not only to technical and legal issues but also, very importantly, to the inherent worth of quality material itself. As for the issues discussed above, I am not a lawyer, but I do follow this area as closely as I can. Finally, I'd like to point out that I am but one of 5 persons on the Stargate governing board. I do not have administrative authority over the project--the money (such as it is), orders, etc. are handled by another board member. While I still of course want to see the project succeed, it is no longer a one man operation. Thanks much for reading through all this. --Lauren--
jsol@bu-cs.UUCP (04/16/87)
I can't agree more with Lauren's comments. One thing that always
made me sick of usenet was the repetitive comments. Moderated
newsgroups like TELECOM (a moderated group) takes on the following
role:
1) pick the best submission to post ("Bullwinkle's middle initial was "J.")
2) Thank everybody else who posted
"Thanks go to Saul Jaffe <Jaffe@BLUE>
Mel Pleasant <Pleasant@RED>
Liz Sommers <Sommers@USENIX>
and Jerry Price <JP@YOURFAVORITEHOST.UUCP>
for saying the same thing".
The ARPANET has much experience with moderated groups, and most of us
agree that they are far superior to immediate (shout) lists for most
high volume applications. I have been a moderator for 6 years or
so, and have seen enough of the ARPANET traffic to know that moderation
is best for large volume lists.
--jsolmangler@cit-vax.UUCP (04/19/87)
In article <6582@bu-cs.BU.EDU>, jsol@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Jon Solomon)
describes how ARPAnet moderated groups deal with repetitive submissions
by posting the best one, with a list of authors who said the same thing.
Of course, to do this, the moderator can't send out anything until
the definitive reply arrives. He has to add *delay*.
Isn't timelyness one of the stated goals of Stargate?
If moderated groups are so great, then (as Brian Reid once asked)
why do they have poor readership?
Maybe the proper function of a moderator is to attach his recommendation
to the best articles, giving them priority in transmission and viewing,
rather than filtering out the worst articles. We want to encourage
the best quality, instead of merely enforcing a minimum quality level.
Don Speck speck@vlsi.caltech.edu {seismo,rutgers,ames}!cit-vax!speckimprint@orchid.UUCP (04/19/87)
It has been suggested that a moderator choosing the "best" items, and listing the names of others who said the same thing would cause a dealy while the moderator waited for the definitive piece. Not so. A Usenent Moderator and an ordinary Editor in print communication are essentially the same thing. The newspaper editor still gets a paper out every day, even though he has given you only 40% of what he had avaialable. The periodicity could be the same, just condensing repetitive stuff -- condensing it all the way to a list of names on occasion. You don't wait for definitive articles to publish a paper, you wait for the press deadline. Then you go with the best of what you've got. But unlike commercial publications who make money by serving the interests of specific populations newsgroups are essentially non-commercial, volunteer public service facilities. They are more reminiscent of the university student newspaper than commerical publishing. I know in Canada it is virtually pointless to sue a student paper for liable because they have no money to speak of, you'd never get damages even if you proved the intent of a piece was defamatory. I think *International* law is ultimately going to have to address the problem of communication media that span the world. I.E. there has to be some clear statements about what the international community considers appropriate to transmit between countries. Likewise, there will always be local controls on distrubution which cannot backfire on the foreign source. I would not carry a posting on my machine from anybody that advocated, for instance, burning Jews or encouraged people to blow up airplanes or plant bombs in railway cars. However there probably are countries where this would be acceptable. Let the site be governed by the laws of the area -- just like a newspaper -- and transmission be governed by the laws of the world. But really, libel law is not a big problem. Liable prosecutions are few and far between, convictions even rarer. If stargate's mandate is to facilitate discussion of ideas, extremely defamatory material can be justified as in "the public interest". For Stargate to be sued, the intent (on Stargate's part) to defame and libel an individual would have to be proven. If Stargate doesn't even read what goes through its transmission facilities, this would be quite unlikely. Newspapers carry a caveat on letters pages "The opinions expressed here are those of the author, not the paper". That defines the public interest of the letters page making it almost entirely immune from libel suits except in the case of systematic and repeated deliberate abuse. Let Common Sense rule over Common Paranoia. Newspapers very, very rarely get sued for libel even when deliberately defaming people -- because that's their job. I've never heard of a libel suit over a letter to the editor. And usenet is like a publication which exclusively carries letters to the editor. In order to increase quality, individuals might consider trying to run publictions on the net, just like a print periodical but with no presses. Mailing lists already work much like that. Is there any reason not to charge a subscription to the reader who wants a particular "magazine" type service delivered to him? The glory of the net is the fact of user-defined standards, rather than editor-mediated standards. Send e-mail to posters who annoy you and let them know how you feel, encourage them to improve their work if you can. Let's not try to make the net an exclusive club which lives up to "our" standards -- whoever "we" are. Lots of high quality media already exist (and will come to exist in electronic versions of some sort). But usenet is different. Its very open-ness opens new, as yet untapped possibilities. Let's not throw out those future possibilities because some jerk might sue somebody!
webber@klinzhai.RUTGERS.EDU (Webber) (04/20/87)
In article <7041@orchid.UUCP>, imprint@orchid.UUCP writes: > It has been suggested that a moderator choosing the "best" > items, and listing the names of others who said the same > thing would cause a dealy while the moderator waited for the > definitive piece. > > Not so. A Usenent Moderator and an ordinary Editor in print > communication are essentially the same thing. The newspaper > editor still gets a paper out every day, even though he has > given you only 40% of what he had avaialable. >... Sure newspaper editors get papers out. But no newspaper maintains the breadth of opinion that an unmoderated newsgroup does. If you want a decent range of opinion, you end up having to go to a library and scan dozens of papers. Newsgroup moderators are walking illustrations of the problems of unchecked power. In order to make them comparable to newspaper editors there would have to be dozens of separate moderated newsgroups on the same subject. Sure there are some benevolent moderators, but there are also those who go on vacation for a month leaving their group in limbo, purposely delay messages to cut down on the flow of traffic, choose to edit away controversal signatures, or even drop on the floor copyrighted messages. Of course moderators are human and have their own problems of overwork and wanting to avoid legal complications. But this does not help the free flow of opinion. (For that matter, according to my cat Galileo, history shows it doesn't help the free flow of fact either.) In many ways, usenet was a unique utopian experiment. Twenty years from now, you will only find it in the history books (check next to the Oneida colony). You will tell your children about a free network where people all over the country/world discussed whatever they wanted to. Once they get over the shock of the concept, they will ask you why it was destroyed. I have no idea what you will reply. ---------------- BOB (webber@aramis.rutgers.edu ; BACKBONE!topaz!webber)
clyde@ut-ngp.UUCP (Head UNIX Hacquer) (04/21/87)
In article <181@brandx.klinzhai.RUTGERS.EDU>, webber@klinzhai.RUTGERS.EDU (Webber) writes: > In article <7041@orchid.UUCP>, imprint@orchid.UUCP writes: > > It has been suggested that a moderator choosing the "best" > > items, and listing the names of others who said the same > > thing would cause a dealy while the moderator waited for the > > definitive piece. > > > > Not so. A Usenent Moderator and an ordinary Editor in print > > communication are essentially the same thing. The newspaper > > editor still gets a paper out every day, even though he has > > given you only 40% of what he had avaialable. > >... > > In many ways, usenet was a unique utopian experiment. Twenty years > from now, you will only find it in the history books (check next to > the Oneida colony). You will tell your children about a free network > where people all over the country/world discussed whatever they wanted to. > Once they get over the shock of the concept, they will ask you why it > was destroyed. I have no idea what you will reply. > > ---------------- BOB (webber@aramis.rutgers.edu ; BACKBONE!topaz!webber) Gee, it seems to me that Usenet still 'is'. Here again we have the misperception that Usenet is free. To your particular site, it may be: for us it essentially is (the RM03 we use was bought with out PDP 11/70 over 8 years ago), but it isn't for everyone. How do you think Usenet stuff gets from Texas to Rutgers? Somebody makes either a long-distance phone call (and pays for it directly) or uses a wire that SOMEBODY ELSE is paying for (Arpanet, leased lines, etc). I recall that once upon a time that decvax had a phone bill of $100,000.00 per year (I think that was right). It's nice that DEC has that money. But sooner or later some beancounter at some backbone is going to wonder why so much tribute is being paid to AT&T - and boom goes Usenet, either in toto or the 'talk.*' and 'rec.*' groups. If Usenet 'collapses', it will be from its own sheer weight. I am fully in favor of the most personal freedom possible, but I also know that one cannot rely upon manna from heaven to pay the bills. Stargate is a good place to start searching for an alternative distribution method. Maybe we will find out just how important Usenet is to people when they start to consider its cost. Besides, Usenet isn't the only game in town BOB, if you want 'complete' freedom, then go out an buy yourself a PC/AT or some such box, a LOT of hard disk and a modem or two, and run the Usenet software in whatever fashion you wish. That is how Usenet has grown. If you don't like Stargate, then don't participate. I say lets give it a chance - and I thank Lauren and the others who have spent much time and effort to take a pie-in-the-sky idea and turn it into hard reality. -- Shouter-To-Dead-Parrots @ Univ. of Texas Computation Center; Austin, Texas clyde@ngp.utexas.edu; ...!ut-sally!ut-ngp!clyde "It's a sort of a threat, you see. I've never been very good at them myself, but I've told they can be very effective."
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (04/21/87)
> In many ways, usenet was a unique utopian experiment. Twenty years > from now, you will only find it in the history books (check next to > the Oneida colony). You will tell your children about a free network > where people all over the country/world discussed whatever they wanted to. > Once they get over the shock of the concept, they will ask you why it > was destroyed. I have no idea what you will reply. I do. I'll tell them that it self-destructed due to its inability to handle unlimited growth. It will, you know... "Every golden age carries the seeds of its own destruction." -- "If you want PL/I, you know Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology where to find it." -- DMR {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (04/21/87)
> ... You will tell your children about a free network > where people all over the country/world discussed whatever they wanted to. > Once they get over the shock of the concept, they will ask you why it > was destroyed... They will also ask "gee, didn't that get awfully boring at times, when people with nothing interesting to say nevertheless tried to say it?". I'll tell them "Yes, it certainly did. As the volume rose, we had to be more and more selective about what we read. Eventually it occurred to many people that being selective about what was sent out would make more sense. Wide realization of that was the beginning of the end." -- "If you want PL/I, you know Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology where to find it." -- DMR {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry