brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (10/23/84)
Here's an interesting figure: Netnews is now running around 500 K bytes per day, according to statistics from siesmo. With 1200 baud modems and 100 bytes/sec throughput, that's 83.3 minutes per day sending news. Now there are over 1000 links on the net, so it's fair to say there are probably 100 long distance or other paid carrier links. Let's also cost these links at the average after midnight cost of $0.20 per minute from AT&T. In fact, many of these links run in the day, and some are also running on cheaper carriers. But if these figures are near to target the net is costing $600,000 per year now, and probably more. Whose money? Your company's probably. Your employer who doesn't know he's paying the money because if you told him the net would get cut off. DEC. Allegra. (some of it just cycles within AT&T but that still costs by upping phone bills) Various places. Keep this in mind when you next talk about your RIGHT to post to the net. Think about it when you talk about fascism and the evil of moderators. When you defend Tim Maroney's RIGHT to post. Keep it in mind. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (10/24/84)
(reposted due to complaints of truncation) Here's an interesting figure: Netnews is now running around 500 K bytes per day, according to statistics from siesmo. With 1200 baud modems and 100 bytes/sec throughput, that's 83.3 minutes per day sending news. Now there are over 1000 links on the net, so it's fair to say there are probably 100 long distance or other paid carrier links. Let's also cost these links at the average after midnight cost of $0.20 per minute from AT&T. In fact, many of these links run in the day, and some are also running on cheaper carriers. But if these figures are near to target the net is costing $600,000 per year now, and probably more. Whose money? Your company's probably. Your employer who doesn't know he's paying the money because if you told him the net would get cut off. DEC. Allegra. (some of it just cycles within AT&T but that still costs by upping phone bills) Various places. Keep this in mind when you next talk about your RIGHT to post to the net. Think about it when you talk about fascism and the evil of moderators. When you defend Tim Maroney's RIGHT to post. Keep it in mind. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (11/03/84)
>Keep this in mind when you next talk about your RIGHT to post to the net. >Think about it when you talk about fascism and the evil of moderators. >When you defend Tim Maroney's RIGHT to post. Keep it in mind. >-- >Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario I am not aware that anyone has ever suggested that there is a right to post to USENET. However, in the USA it is illegal to discriminate against anyone on the basis of religious or political affiliation, or to deprive them of access to a medium without due process. Rights do apply in this as in all situations; but no one has suggested that there is a right to participate, only rights not to be discriminated against. To sum up: If everyone at your site has the right to post, except you, and this decision was made on the basis of unpopular opinions in your postings, your civil rights have been violated. This may not be the case in other countries than the USA. -- Tim Maroney, formerly known as The Censored Hacker Carnegie-Mellon University Computation Center ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: Try sending through a gateway such as DECWRL, UCB-VAX, SEISMO, or HARVARD -- mailer conventions differ on syntax
jwp@sdchema.UUCP (John Pierce) (11/05/84)
In article <7@cmu-cs-k.ARPA> tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) writes: > To sum up: If everyone at your site has the right to post, except you, and > this decision was made on the basis of unpopular opinions in your postings, > your civil rights have been violated. At this site, *nobody* has a *right* to post articles to the net. However, everyone does have a qualified privilege to do so. The primary qualification is that site management not find such postings to violate reasonable standards of decency, the law, or contractual agreements with outside entities. John Pierce, Chemistry, UC San Diego {decvax,sdcsvax}!sdchema!jwp
tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (11/07/84)
>> To sum up: If everyone at your site has the right to post, except you, and >> this decision was made on the basis of unpopular opinions in your postings, >> your civil rights have been violated. >At this site, *nobody* has a *right* to post articles to the net. However, >everyone does have a qualified privilege to do so. The primary qualification >is that site management not find such postings to violate reasonable >standards of decency, the law, or contractual agreements with outside >entities. Let us not quibble when the meaning is clear, John. I stated very explicitly in the article you quoted that no one says there is a right to post in the ethical sense of a "right". It was plain that I was referring in the quoted passage to the privilege of posting, not to some "right" which I had already denied the existence of! As to your criteria, the last two seem perfectly sensible, even mandatory. The first is more questionable. Social standards for the medium are still evolving. My opinion is that no one should be censured for the use of language which the vulgar call vulgar, because that is an unwarranted violation of the RIGHT of free speech. Continued ad hominem attack, on the other hand, makes the whole medium less usable, and it should be minimized. No one should have their privilege taken away on this basis unless they post several articles consisting solely of ad hominem attack AFTER they are given a SPECIFIC warning which refers to SPECIFIC objectionable articles, and of course some hearing in the public record. Unless there is significant outcry from the net community at large, you should not even take it to the warning stage. And of course, no politicial or religious opinion should be considered to violate a reasonable standard of decency in itself. To deprive someone of the privilege to post on such grounds would be to invite legal action. Always remember that many great Americans have been diehard flamers. Among these are such as Mark Twain and Thomas Paine. These stalwarts faced opposition and censorship in their careers; it is un-American to continue such persecution of flamers in the modern age. And I doubt that I have to remind anyone who is well-read that the writer's role is inherently a revolutionary one. -- Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University Computation Center ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: Try sending through a gateway such as DECWRL, UCB-VAX, SEISMO, or HARVARD -- mailer conventions differ on syntax
chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Zonker T. Chuqui) (11/08/84)
>In article <7@cmu-cs-k.ARPA> tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) writes: > >> To sum up: If everyone at your site has the right to post, except you, and >> this decision was made on the basis of unpopular opinions in your postings, >> your civil rights have been violated. Tim is making VERY broad assumptions here. Even assuming he is right and the administration of a machine doesn't have the right to decide who is allowed to use the resources of that machine, anyone who attempts to push this issue would be much more likely to lose network priviledges for ALL users than to get their own privliedges back. There are few to no precedents that can be safely applied to Usenet. This is one reason why we scream about copyright violations (see the Joe Bob discussions) as loudly as some of us do. We MIGHT be safe posting Joe Bob, but we might not. I'd rather not have a body of precedent sitting on top of usenet forcing us to do things, it is much nicer to work things out privately, cooperate publicly, and keep the lawyers as far away as possible. Tim might be right-- under some circumstances it might be considered a violation to your right of free speech to have your posting priviledges revoked, but I wouldn't count on it. You probably have as much right to scream at a technical magazine turning down your article for publishing or a newspaper turning down your letter to the editor. Both can also be considered restrictions of the first amendment on a very philosophical and intellectual level-- in reality nobody would take you very seriously. chuq -- From the Department of Bistromatics: Chuq Von Rospach {cbosgd,decwrl,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA I'd know those eyes from a million years away....
tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (11/09/84)
>> To sum up: If everyone at your site has the right to post, except you, >> and this decision was made on the basis of unpopular opinions in your >> postings, your civil rights have been violated. > Tim is making VERY broad assumptions here. Even assuming he is right and > the administration of a machine doesn't have the right to decide who is > allowed to use the resources of that machine, No one has claimed that "the administration of a machine doesn't have the right to decide who is allowed to use the resources of that machine". Obviously they do have that right, but it is not absolute. They also have the right to decide who will or will not be hired by the company; but if the decision is made on political or religious grounds, that is a violation of the would-be employee's civil rights. Singling out an employee for silencing on political or religious grounds is no less obviously an act of discrimination. > anyone who attempts to push > this issue would be much more likely to lose network priviledges for ALL > users than to get their own privliedges back. So? Does the fact that administrators are likely to be jerks about the thing settle what is right and wrong about the issue? > There are few to no precedents that can be safely applied to Usenet. This > is one reason why we scream about copyright violations (see the Joe Bob > discussions) as loudly as some of us do. We MIGHT be safe posting Joe Bob, > but we might not. I have been among the loudest protestors against copyright violations on the net. Perhaps I missed something while I was away, but how could unauthorized reproduction of copyrighted material NOT be illegal? > I'd rather not have a body of precedent sitting on top of > usenet forcing us to do things, it is much nicer to work things out > privately, cooperate publicly, and keep the lawyers as far away as > possible. It would be nice, wouldn't it? Dream on. I know for a fact that few administrators are likely to be "cooperative" if they feel someone is saying something that ought not to be said. I hope you're not one of these people with a fanatical hatred of lawyers -- the law is unpleasant, but without it there is no protection of your rights. > Tim might be right-- under some circumstances it might be > considered a violation to your right of free speech to have your posting > priviledges revoked, but I wouldn't count on it. You probably have as much > right to scream at a technical magazine turning down your article for > publishing or a newspaper turning down your letter to the editor. Both can > also be considered restrictions of the first amendment on a very > philosophical and intellectual level-- in reality nobody would take you > very seriously. The magazine analogy is very weak. Any magazine inherently turns down things it doesn't want to publish, due to its limited resources. It is not a public forum. Similarly, if a moderator of a newsgroup doesn't publish something you send him, big deal, that's what he's there for, turning things down. Similar criteria apply to newspapers, which are edited for interest and appropriateness. There really are no media analogous to an unedited but money-costing public bulletin board system such as USENET. One thing that disturbs me with respect to such new media as the computer bulletin board and television is that people seem less concerned with civil rights issues as they apply to these new media. For instance, the FCC has imposed a set of restrictions on television that would be clearly un-Constitutional if applied to books or magazines, yet very few people seem to mind. Very few people seem to be worried about the issue of ideological discrimination with respect to bulletin board systems, either. If we don't make a point of applying the First Amendment (and such other civil rights as may apply) to these new media, we are jeapordizing not only our own freedoms, but those of generations to come. -- Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University Computation Center ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: Try sending through a gateway such as DECWRL, UCB-VAX, SEISMO, or HARVARD -- mailer conventions differ on syntax
gregbo@houxm.UUCP (Greg Skinner) (11/13/84)
> From: tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) >>> To sum up: If everyone at your site has the right to post, except you, >>> and this decision was made on the basis of unpopular opinions in your >>> postings, your civil rights have been violated. >> Tim is making VERY broad assumptions here. Even assuming he is right and >> the administration of a machine doesn't have the right to decide who is >> allowed to use the resources of that machine, > No one has claimed that "the administration of a machine doesn't have the > right to decide who is allowed to use the resources of that machine". > Obviously they do have that right, but it is not absolute. They also have > the right to decide who will or will not be hired by the company; but if the > decision is made on political or religious grounds, that is a violation of > the would-be employee's civil rights. Singling out an employee for > silencing on political or religious grounds is no less obviously an act of > discrimination. The administration of a machine often does not grant the right for anyone to use the machine. In a company, school, or whatever, people are permitted to use the machine because they have a need to work on the machine. Above and beyond that (for example, guest logins), it is up to the discretion of the company whether their are enough resources to support non-business activity (which USENET is). A company may elect to leave that judgment to the admin- istration, but the administration is not under its own authority to make those kinds of decisions. >> anyone who attempts to push >> this issue would be much more likely to lose network priviledges for ALL >> users than to get their own privliedges back. > So? Does the fact that administrators are likely to be jerks about the > thing settle what is right and wrong about the issue? Again, it is not the administrators who are at fault (do any of you other ad- ministrators feel that you are jerks because you are just following orders from your superiors?). I can attest to the fact that forcing an issue can cause a privilege to be lost for all -- for example, when's the last time you saw a posting on net.jokes from an houx* machine? The administration is not at fault because of this, it is merely because they are carrying out the orders of their supervisors. >> I'd rather not have a body of precedent sitting on top of >> usenet forcing us to do things, it is much nicer to work things out >> privately, cooperate publicly, and keep the lawyers as far away as >> possible. > It would be nice, wouldn't it? Dream on. I know for a fact that few > administrators are likely to be "cooperative" if they feel someone is saying > something that ought not to be said. I hope you're not one of these people > with a fanatical hatred of lawyers -- the law is unpleasant, but without it > there is no protection of your rights. I, myself, would not want a USENET government. However, things are starting not to look too good, and more moderation may be necessary or major sites may start to drop out, causing USENET to die. Again, you really can't blame the administrators, because they are just following orders. >> Tim might be right-- under some circumstances it might be >> considered a violation to your right of free speech to have your posting >> priviledges revoked, but I wouldn't count on it. You probably have as much >> right to scream at a technical magazine turning down your article for >> publishing or a newspaper turning down your letter to the editor. Both can >> also be considered restrictions of the first amendment on a very >> philosophical and intellectual level-- in reality nobody would take you >> very seriously. > The magazine analogy is very weak. Any magazine inherently turns down > things it doesn't want to publish, due to its limited resources. It is not > a public forum. Similarly, if a moderator of a newsgroup doesn't publish > something you send him, big deal, that's what he's there for, turning things > down. Similar criteria apply to newspapers, which are edited for interest > and appropriateness. There really are no media analogous to an unedited but > money-costing public bulletin board system such as USENET. But you fail to consider what you said above, that "due to limited resources" certain things do not get published. Computers are a limited resource. You don't have the right to post, you only have the right to be able to carry out your job on the machine. Posting is a *privilege*. USENET on many machines is a *privilege*. Note that no netnews comes on UNIX distribution tapes, or anything. A site can elect to have netnews, likewise they can elect to de- cide what they will allow to go up on the machine, and likewise they can de- cide who will be allowed to read what, since none of these things affect how well you are supposed to do your job. > One thing that disturbs me with respect to such new media as the computer > bulletin board and television is that people seem less concerned with civil > rights issues as they apply to these new media. For instance, the FCC has > imposed a set of restrictions on television that would be clearly > un-Constitutional if applied to books or magazines, yet very few people seem > to mind. Very few people seem to be worried about the issue of ideological > discrimination with respect to bulletin board systems, either. If we don't > make a point of applying the First Amendment (and such other civil rights as > may apply) to these new media, we are jeapordizing not only our own > freedoms, but those of generations to come. Probably because they are new (especially computer bboards) and the legal im- plications of certain material on them are only beginning to be understood. I agree that a more formal set of rules and regulations should be made, how- ever the current trend seems to be getting the technology together first, rather than understanding its implications first. Note: I do not necessarily agree/disagree with such things as censorship, moderation or denial of privileges, I am just voicing my opinions. -- Baby tie your hair back in a long white bow ... Meet me in the field, behind the dynamo ... Greg Skinner (gregbo) {allegra,cbosgd,ihnp4}!houxm!gregbo