brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (01/29/85)
It's wondeful to hear all the proponents of our 'free' and 'unrestricted' anarchy net yell so much at the suggestion that Adrian's messages be blocked off. (I thought this message was a joke anyway, few would go to the trouble to actually modify the code in this way...) Get it through your heads what free and unresticted means. It means anybody on the net anywhere has the right to do anything. Block sites, block people, block groups. Even EDIT messages passing through to the side administrator's liking. It's what unrestricted means. Sure, if a site gets nasty, you try and convince people not to feed it, or try not to take your news from it, and that's all fair game, too. The only way you can assure consistent quality net service is to pay the people providing the service. This means "Usenet, Inc." or some variation. And we all know about all the flames directed towards Usenet, Inc. from all the defenders of the "free, unrestricted" net. The fact is that the only way to make sure that the net provides the services you want is to pay for them. Anything worth having is worth paying for to have it done right. But Usenet Inc will perhaps never come to be because all the advocates of the "free, unrestricted" net (which now costs various sites >$600,000 per year) shouted down the people who thought it might improve things. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
gam@amdahl.UUCP (gam) (02/01/85)
> = Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473 > Get it through your heads what free and unresticted means. It means > anybody on the net anywhere has the right to do anything. Block sites, > block people, block groups. Even EDIT messages passing through to the > side administrator's liking. It's what unrestricted means. I think everyone objecting to the qantel incident was aware of this. I am. The point was to make clear, and publicly, that this sort of thing (individual censorship) is not approved of (by a few people, anyway). What's that worth? Oh, I don't know ... > Sure, if a site gets nasty, you try and convince people not to feed it, > or try not to take your news from it, and that's all fair game, too. Yup, I agree. > The only way you can assure consistent quality net service is to pay the > people providing the service. This means "Usenet, Inc." or some variation. > And we all know about all the flames directed towards Usenet, Inc. from > all the defenders of the "free, unrestricted" net. The fact is that the > only way to make sure that the net provides the services you want is to > pay for them. Anything worth having is worth paying for to have it done > right. Probably right. It is interesting to consider what Usenet would be like if people paid by the hour for connect time. $5/hr? $10/hr? $25/hr? (or how about *per page*?!). I think people's writing *and* reading patterns on Usenet would change: less flames, less ego-dramas, better technical information, maybe even better jokes? I'd hope, though, that such a commercial enterprise would never have to refuse someone access (except for not paying the bill!) for political reasons. It would be better for users to have a "squelch site!user" command. The "offsensive" person would be ignored by those who don't want to hear their jabber, and those who don't mind/care can still listen and respond. The "offensive" one would eventually stop paying $25/hr if they were not being listened to. This, I feel, is a politically "free" system which maximizing both personal "right to speech" *and* the demands of paying customers who won't pay to see others' drivel. (It is incidentally economically efficient). > But Usenet Inc will perhaps never come to be because all the advocates of > the "free, unrestricted" net (which now costs various sites >$600,000 per year) > shouted down the people who thought it might improve things. Look, Brad, I am agreeing with you! %-) -- Gordon A. Moffett ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,sun}!amdahl!gam
jmc@ptsfb.UUCP (Jerry Carlin) (02/06/85)
Actually, Usenet, Inc exists now (at least for some groups). It is called Compuserve and The Source. I've noticed that at $5 or $7.75 per hour (respectively) people are less likely to post trash just for the fun of it.
rpw3@redwood.UUCP (Rob Warnock) (02/08/85)
+--------------- | Actually, Usenet, Inc exists now (at least for some groups). It is called | Compuserve and The Source. I've noticed that at $5 or $7.75 per hour | (respectively) people are less likely to post trash just for the fun of it. +--------------- And with AT&T's "Reach Out America" plan, real USENET costs $8.75/hr (late night and weekends), coast to coast! Rob Warnock Systems Architecture Consultant UUCP: {ihnp4,ucbvax!dual}!fortune!redwood!rpw3 DDD: (415)572-2607 USPS: 510 Trinidad Lane, Foster City, CA 94404
jim@timeinc.UUCP (Jim Scardelis) (02/10/85)
> Actually, Usenet, Inc exists now (at least for some groups). It is called > Compuserve and The Source. I've noticed that at $5 or $7.75 per hour > (respectively) people are less likely to post trash just for the fun of it. There's alot more "trash" on Compuserve than you might think...take the "netwits" group, or the games SIG, or the Hollywood gossip column, or the Multi-player games...people are just as willing to pay $6.00/hour offtime to play 'Adventure' as to write pleas for help... As for me, my Compuserve account is free, and I spend very little time online with them, finding the Usenet news to be alot more interesting than all the stuff on Compuserve. Jim Scardelis UUCP: {vax135|ihnp4}!timeinc!jim COMPUSERVE: [76703,1064] {Asst. Sysop, DRI Forum, GO-PCS13} ARPA: 1891@NJIT-EIES.MAILNET@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA "The opinions expressed herein are those of my computer, and are not necessarily mine, or those of my employer."