kremen@aero.ARPA (Gary Kremen ) (11/07/85)
During the recent net discussion on the conversion of many groups from net.* to mod.*, the specter of moderator censorship was raised. Well, censorship seems to have started already. A new moderated group mod.computer.ibm-pc has filtered its way to sites. Close examination of the group's welcoming message reveals the moderators of this group will and do censor out all information with respect to copy-protection. They state: > Two topics are taboo and are routinely edited out: > (1) ..... > (2) anything about copy-protection I am not posting this to debate the merits of copy-protection. It is not the issue. The issue is whether the moderators of any USENET moderated group have the right to censor at will. With the conversion of many (and since many sites will most likely drop the unmoderated groups) groups from net.* to mod.*, you could have bet that the issue of censorship would have come up anyway in the future. It is always easier to discuss issues of this type before a full blown controversy erupts. So, what I am proposing this this statement should be made USENET policy: "Moderators are expressedly prohibited from making ANY changes on submitted articles except for the following: i) To eliminate spelling or grammer errors. ii) To format an article's text in a physically different form. iii) To combine repetitive questions, requests, or replies into a single question, request, or reply." What should be done now to stop net censorship, you ask? 1a) Discussion of this and all future censorship acts in the proper news group(s) following USENET practices and policy. I believe the proper groups in this case are net.news, net.news.group and because emotions may run high, net.flame. Do not send send your comment to me. 1b) Ask the moderators to change their censorship policies by sending them (and any other moderators who censor) this or a similar message: "The censorship of this newsgroup is wrong and contradictory to the spirit and policies of USENET. Please refrain from actions of this type now and in the future." In the mod.computers.ibm-pc case, you should send your comments on the censorship move to: Name Username Billy Brackenridge BRACKENRIDGE Eliot Moore ELMO Richard Nelson NELSON Koji Okataki KOJI Richard Gillmann GILLMANN All the above moderators are at a site on the ARPA Internet called usc-isib.ARPA. Through UUCP I believe they can be reached by: {}!decvax!decwrl!ucbvcax!usc-isib.arpa!username, where username is one of the above username. In case these addresses do not work, use the pathname from any censored mod.computers.ibm-pc news item. But PLEASE everyone send a message protesting this censorship to the above moderators in every way you can. PLEASE, EVERYONE DO THIS!!! 2) If moderators do not stop censorship in a reasonable amount of time: a) A discussion should be held in the proper newsgroups, following USENET practices and poles to discuss the moderators actions. Possible actions on our part might include, but not be limited to: i) replace the moderators. ii) RMGROUP the group(s). iii) send comments to those who submit to the offending group(s) asking them not to do so until the censorship has ended. iv) send comments to those who are upsite (and backbone sites) to the offending group, asking them not to forward the group's mail until the censorship stops. v) Other reasonable actions. I think it is VERY IMPORTANT to make a netwide policy regarding censorship NOW. I think there are advantages to moderated groups including a better signal/noise ratio, less repeat messages, and most important (to the systems administrators) saving on phone bills. But to insure the moderated group concept works in the long run, anti-censorship guidelines should be implemented now. Thank you for your time. -- Name: Gary Kremen Address 1: kremen@aerospace.ARPA Address 2: {sdcdcf,trwba,randvax}!aero!kremen Quote:"Everybody loves to see justice done...on someone else" - Bruce Cockburn Theory: "Computers suck, but they pay the bills" Contrapositive: "To Live and Die to live and die in LA" Disclaimer 1: "The company does not know what I am doing" Disclaimer 2: "Both the company and I have great lawyers"
mark@cbosgd.UUCP (Mark Horton) (11/11/85)
If there is going to be a Usenet policy on what moderators do, it should be that the moderators are accountable to the readers and are expected to act in the best interests of the readers. Telling a moderator that they are only allowed to act as a secretary will never work. There are so many things that a moderator might do that do not fall into the categories listed. At the top of the list is the outright refusal of an article. I reject about half of the submissions to net.announce, on the grounds that the message is too commercial, too long, a duplicate posting, not of worldwide interest, and so on. If I were to just correct spelling errors and pass everything through, we'd have another net.general and most of the net would unsubscribe. A poll taken of the readers has confirmed that this is exactly what the readers want. In the case of refusing to pass information about copy protection methods, the moderator may be protecting him/herself from possible criminal charges. An even better example is a credit card number - suppose someone sent a Visa number to net.announce along with the message "have fun!" According to your policy, it would have to be posted. Such posting would quickly land the moderator in jail. Your example, INFO-IBM-PC, is moot anyway. INFO-IBM-PC is an ARPANET mailing list, not a Usenet newsgroup. It's just gatewayed into Usenet after it gets moderated on the ARPANET. Insisting that it is subject to a Usenet policy on moderation is like typing in the letters-to-the- editor from your local newspaper (substitute "Dear Abby" or "Miss Manners" or any other moderated newspaper column if you prefer) into a Usenet newsgroup, then telling the newspaper they have to print everything that is sent to them because of a Usenet policy. Each moderated newsgroup does need to have a policy, and that policy probably should be stated up front. Many groups will pass everything through. Others have high standards. But the policies should be determined separately for each newsgroup. Mark Horton
ron@brl-sem.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (11/11/85)
> Well, acensorship seems to have started already. Damn it. It is not censorship. It is editing. You can still use net.micro.pc in it's glory. The moderated list is to provide sanity. > > A new moderated group mod.computer.ibm-pc has filtered its way to sites. > The issue is whether the moderators of any USENET moderated > group have the right to censor at will. mod.computer.ibm-pc is not a moderated USENET group. It is a replacement for fa.info-ibm. The editing comes from the ARPANET moderators who have decided that in the interest of not antagonizing their DARPA sponsors, will not publish things that could be construed as criminal activity. > > With the conversion of many (and since many sites will most likely drop > the unmoderated groups) groups from net.* to mod.*, you could have bet > that the issue of censorship would have come up anyway in the future. It > is always easier to discuss issues of this type before a full blown > controversy erupts. I don't think that there is a great move from net.* to mod.* for discussion groups. Many people, including myself have strong views on the subject. Some, like yourself, have a problem trusting the moderators not to become biased as to what needs to be posted. Personally, I fear that the moderation would make the conversational mode of these groups a little stilted. All those mod.computer groups that were created were a follow on for the fa groups. You are not permitted to post to fa groups because it makes no sense. They come out of the Arpanet. Since it was hopeless to get people to run a consistant version of the news software which would route postings to fa.* back to the appropriate ARPANET insertion point, they chose to move these to mod.* lists because, the mod.* mode of operation was already understood by most sites, and giving the path to the ARPANET insertion points as the mail address of the moderator solves all these problems. > "Moderators are expressedly prohibited from making ANY changes on > submitted articles except for the following: > i) To eliminate spelling or grammer errors. I have moderated lists, and if you think I'm going to fix your bad English, you have another thing coming. I prefer to let the original posters illiteracy come through so people can properly form an opinion on the quality of his posting. > 1b) Ask the moderators to change their censorship policies by sending > them (and any other moderators who censor) this or a similar message: > > "The censorship of this newsgroup is wrong and contradictory to the > spirit and policies of USENET. Please refrain from actions of this type > now and in the future." > > In the mod.computers.ibm-pc case, you should send your comments on the > censorship move to: > > Name Username > Billy Brackenridge BRACKENRIDGE > Eliot Moore ELMO > Richard Nelson NELSON > Koji Okataki KOJI > Richard Gillmann GILLMANN Frankly, these guys probably don't give a DAMN about the spirit and policies of the USENET. They run an ARPANET list. It is a service on their part and a part of the sites like UCBVAX and BRL to allow these to cross into the USENET at all. ALSO NOTE. MANY OF THE MOD GROUPS THAT WERE FA GROUPS ARE AUTOMATED. THE MODERATORR ADDRESS IS A DIRECT FEED INTO THE ARPANET LIST AND HENCE BACK INTO THE MOD GROUP. IF YOU POST COMPLAINTS TO THE MODERATOR YOU WILL DEMONSTRATE YOUR IGNORANCE TO THE ENTIRE ARPA AND USENET COMMUNITY. > > PLEASE, EVERYONE DO THIS!!! > PLEASE DON'T DO THIS. These guys have a hard time. INFO-IBMPC is one of the largest groups on the ARPANET, there is a lot of postings. Many of them come directly from net.micro.pc and are inserted in their digest. They do not do anymore editing than is necessary for such a digest to be viable in the ARPAnet community > 2) If moderators do not stop censorship in a reasonable amount of > time: > > a) A discussion should be held in the proper newsgroups, following USENET > practices and poles to discuss the moderators actions. Possible actions > on our part might include, but not be limited to: > > i) replace the moderators. > ii) RMGROUP the group(s). > iii) send comments to those who submit to the offending group(s) asking > them not to do so until the censorship has ended. > iv) send comments to those who are upsite (and backbone sites) to the > offending group, asking them not to forward the group's mail until the > censorship stops. > v) Other reasonable actions.> > I think it is VERY IMPORTANT to make a netwide policy regarding > censorship NOW. I think there are advantages to moderated groups > including a better signal/noise ratio, less repeat messages, and most > important (to the systems administrators) saving on phone bills. But to > insure the moderated group concept works in the long run, > anti-censorship guidelines should be implemented now. > PLEASE limit your discussions to lists that are moderated solely for the USENET and not the ones that are moderated on the ARPANET and merely forwarded into the USENET for you convenience. Note that many of the subjects dealt with in these groups are already available via unmoderated mod.* groups. So far, there has not been a big move to moderate regular USENET discussion groups. The only ones that there has been a big push for are the archival style groups such as the map, sources, and documentation. These groups have special restrictions on posting that no one seems to want to obey, and hence moderation is the only thing that saves them. You are free to discuss the merits of moderation, but please use some understanding about what has been going on in net.news.group for the last few months. -Ron
pwd@pid.UUCP (Philip W. Dalrymple) (11/11/85)
Followup-To: In article <530@aero.ARPA> kremen@aero.UUCP (Gary Kremen (5731)) writes: > >A new moderated group mod.computer.ibm-pc has filtered its way to sites. >Close examination of the group's welcoming message reveals the >moderators of this group will and do censor out all information with >respect to copy-protection. They state: >> Two topics are taboo and are routinely edited out: >> (1) ..... >> (2) anything about copy-protection > >I am not posting this to debate the merits of copy-protection. It is not >the issue. The issue is whether the moderators of any USENET moderated >group have the right to censor at will. > I am going to debate the merits of debating the merits of copy-protection. I assume (and know that that is a bad thing) that any debate about the use of copy-protection would be allowed in other words it you wanted to talk about why it was a good or bad thing. On the other hand and talk about how to break copy-protection would be a no-no and for good reason if this were not limited P&ID for one would not carry that group. We expect that the moderators or SA's at the posting sites will see to it that there are no legal problems with the submissions from there sites. I take care of that for pid. > > "Moderators are expressedly prohibited from making ANY changes on > submitted articles except for the following: > i) To eliminate spelling or grammer errors. > ii) To format an article's text in a physically different form. > iii) To combine repetitive questions, requests, or replies into a > single question, request, or reply." > As stated above the moderatore should not post any articles with legal problems. This should be added to the list of things that moderators should do. iv) To eliminate ANY questionable passages in the artical with respect to legal isues. (reference should be made in the article to the effect that text was removed and why.) -- Philip Dalrymple akgua!pid!pwd 404/429-8266 (voice)
lawrence@encore.UUCP (Scott Lawrence) (11/11/85)
In response to the recent posting calling for an end to all censorship on the
net in general, and the mod.computers.ibm-pc group in particular - I
disagree.
Moderated groups provide a great service to readers by filtering a lot of
noise and repetition, but in doing so the moderator is taking on some
responsiblity for the material which _is_ distributed. We should not ask
moderators to take any responsiblity which they are not comfortable with.
If the guidelines for a group are clearly and publicly stated ( as is
normally the case ), and you feel that some subject you wish to see covered
is being neglected - start a mailing list to cover it. No one is regulating
mailing lists, and there are plenty of un-moderated groups in which to
announce its existance and stimulate participation.
--
Scott Lawrence
UUCP: {decvax,allegra,linus,ihnp4}!encore!lawrence
ins_akaa@jhunix.UUCP (Kenneth Adam Arromdee) (11/14/85)
About whether moderators should not post articles that "may" cause legal
problems:
As far as I know, it is legal to copy any program whatsoever, for your
own use. It's giving away or selling the copy, while keeping an original,
that's prohibited. However, many companies make claims that any copying
at all of a program is illegal, when no court case has ever decided on
that subject. I think that moderators should not fail to post something
on the grounds that it is illegal whenever there is in fact considerable
doubt that it's illegal, just because a company makes a claim that it's
illegal. (This would not apply, of course, to things such as posting
stolen credit card numbers, because there is no significant controversy
that it's not illegal to use a stolen credit card number.)
--
If you know the alphabet up to 'k', you can teach it up to 'k'.
Kenneth Arromdee
BITNET: G46I4701 at JHUVM and INS_AKAA at JHUVMS
CSNET: ins_akaa@jhunix.CSNET ARPA: ins_akaa%jhunix@hopkins.ARPA
UUCP: ...{decvax,ihnp4,allegra}!seismo!umcp-cs!aplvax!aplcen!jhunix!ins_akaa
...allegra!hopkins!jhunix!ins_akaabobn@bmcg.UUCP (Bob Nebert) (11/14/85)
> Followup-To: > > >I am not posting this to debate the merits of copy-protection. It is not > >the issue. The issue is whether the moderators of any USENET moderated > >group have the right to censor at will. > > > > "Moderators are expressedly prohibited from making ANY changes on > > submitted articles except for the following: > > i) To eliminate spelling or grammer errors. > > ii) To format an article's text in a physically different form. > > iii) To combine repetitive questions, requests, or replies into a > > single question, request, or reply." > > > > As stated above the moderatore should not post any articles with legal > problems. This should be added to the list of things that moderators > should do. > > iv) To eliminate ANY questionable passages in the artical with respect > to legal isues. (reference should be made in the article to the > effect that text was removed and why.) > > akgua!pid!pwd > 404/429-8266 (voice) That would mean that the moderator should be lawyers so they can screen the articles. Because if they let a legal issue slip thru they would be responsible??? I don't know. Just a question.
bmg@mck-csc.UUCP (Bernard M. Gunther) (11/15/85)
> During the recent net discussion on the conversion of many groups from > net.* to mod.*, the specter of moderator censorship was raised. Well, > censorship seems to have started already. > > A new moderated group mod.computer.ibm-pc has filtered its way to sites. > Close examination of the group's welcoming message reveals the > moderators of this group will and do censor out all information with > respect to copy-protection. They state: > > Name: Gary Kremen They state they are going to censor out this info. If want to see this sort of info, start another group (or mailing list as this group started out as) and *just* carry info which they do not carry. I'm sure they would be more than willing to forward articles which are being censored to you so that you can post them. Censorship in a group like that only creates a problem when: A - you are un-aware that it's happening b - Even if you are aware, you can't do anything about it. You are aware, you can do something (other than bothering people who have been doing some very productive work over the last 3 years or so that I've been reading it.) Why don't you do it? Bernie Gunther
dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (11/17/85)
In article <166@mck-csc.UUCP> bmg@mck-csc.UUCP (Bernard M. Gunther) writes: ( Re. the censoring of info about copy protection from mod.computer.ibm-pc ) >They state they are going to censor out this info. If want to see this >sort of info, start another group (or mailing list as this group started >out as) and *just* carry info which they do not carry. I'm sure they would >be more than willing to forward articles which are being censored to you >so that you can post them. My impression is that mod.computer.ibm-pc is being censored to avoid getting sued. If the moderator could be sued for posting an article, couldn't he also be sued for making the article available to another person that he knows *will* post it? -- David Canzi "For every bloke who makes his mark, there's half a dozen waiting to rub it out." -- Andy Capp