lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein) (09/18/83)
I knew that a problem like this was going to show up at some
point. I only wish I had some clearcut solutions.
Usenet operates to a large extent based on mutual tolerance. That is,
everyone at every site is usually not interested in all newsgroup
catagories, but site administrators (usually) allow most groups to
pass through since they realize that someone else *may* be interested.
This sort of cooperation is a rarety in the world these days, and is
something to be preserved at all costs.
Now, there are a variety of newsgroups that are completely "useless"
in terms of "benefit to the operations of a site" but that are also
completely innocuous and fun. The group net.tv would be a good
example of this catagory of group. There are other groups that are
"useless" in the same respect but have more potential for causing
problems by bringing all *other* groups into higher visibility to
those who do not appreciate the overall values of networking.
The group "net.jokes" falls into this catagory. Note that I personally
very much like a number of the groups that I would classify as "useless"
in this manner and would greatly miss them should they vanish!
Now, when somebody at a site decides that a particular newsgroup is
in "bad taste" or otherwise a waste of money, they can always turn
it off (or even turn all of netnews off at that site). This sort
of event is unfortunate but only affects that site and those
sites downstream (who must then find new feed points for the
group(s) in question). Such a netnews cutoff could occur due to
purely financial considerations or more "foggy" motives (such as someone
not wanting "dirty jokes" on their machine).
It is very difficult to completely predict what sorts of materials are
likely to cause "undesirable" reactions at which sites with complete
certainty. We can certainly make some good guesses, however. We
encrypt much of the traffic in net.jokes since we *know* that there
is a higher probability of someone "in control" being offended. Of course,
this doesn't address the issues of "wasting money" on those materials
or more hazy "ethical" questions, which could still result in a
newsgroup cutoff at a given site.
I think that we can assume that a net.gay newsgroup has considerable
potential for causing problems in some quarters. The situation is
very much different than it was with ARPANET, however. In the case
that Mark mentioned, a user at a host arbitrarily decided that he
wanted a gay mailing list, and announced it (or tried to) very widely
on the net. ARPANET is a DoD operated network and very strict rules
exist regarding the sorts of purposes to which the network may
be put. The fact that some "less serious" mailing lists exist is
a tribute to the humanity of the "powers that be", so long as
reasonable care is taken not to go "too far" away from the "letter
of the rules". In the ARPANET environment, a gay mailing list
had the potential for causing major problems. As a federally funded
entity, publicity concerning such a mailing list (perhaps innocently)
would have the potential for damaging the entire network's funding,
and the funding of dozens of research institutions and colleges.
The "why should my tax dollars support a bunch of gays?" attitude
could have been extremely damaging.
Note that on ARPANET, we don't really have the options of encrypted
communications in the same manner available on Usenet, since such
encryption would be considered an attempt to "hide" misuse of
a DoD network. There are other differences as well, including a
prohibition against commercial announcements, advertising and
the like, and against the "promotion" of political causes in any
but the most general manners.
Consider all of the above to be backround. Now, what about net.gay
on Usenet? Is theory, there is no reason why this newsgroup should
be treated any differently than other groups with a high index
for "potential problems" (like net.jokes). This would seem to
indicate that encryption would be a must, assuming that primarily sexual
topics will be discussed (and, after all, "gay" in this usage is
about as directly a "sexually-related" topic as you can get).
While not all materials in such a group would probably really *need*
encryption, it would be better to be safe than sorry in this case,
I believe. While such topics probably wouldn't cause much of a
stir in L.A., New York, or San Francisco, Usenet feeds into many
parts of the country (and the world) which might well be more
conservative in their attitutes toward such matters.
Another possibility to avoid problems is to be careful about the
name used to describe this newsgroup. In particular, avoiding the
proliferation of related newsgroups would probably be a good
idea to help avoid unnecessary problems. If we don't watch our
step, we will shortly see net.lesbians, net.bondage, net.s&m, and
similar topics being listed in the official list of newsgroups.
One possible "way out" is to create a top level group named something
like, uh, net.personal. This would be the group where a variety
of more delicate personal subjects would be discussed. Unless there
was a very large amount of "gay" or other specialized traffic in the
group, the creation of subgroups might be avoided, and encryption
might be used only in those cases deemed really necessary. I would
consider such a net.personal to be by far more desirable than
an explicit net.gay group. I might add that it isn't clear that *every*
topic in our lives is suitable for broadcasting throughout an
international computer network!
--Lauren--
P.S. None of the above should be construed to be a condemnation of
gays, lesbians, bondage, s&m, whips, chains, or apple pie.
--LW--dyer@wivax.UUCP (Stephen Dyer) (09/18/83)
Doubtless Lauren's and my own news items crossed in the news, but I would like to clarify a misconception that he seemed to share (probably with many others.) This may come as a shock, but: NET.GAY ISN'T ABOUT SEX!!!! Frankly, there are LOTS of bulletin boards available to 100% of the USENET population whose specialties cover just about every variety of sexual behavior you can think of--just wait for the next posting of "PAMS", public access message systems. They are very good at their business, and I wouldn't suggest that USENET try to supplement them. Frankly, if I were paying the phone bills, I'd be less than sanguine about supplying my employees with an electronic "dating service" (pardon the euphemism) regardless of their sexual preference. I view 'net.gay' as a forum for the discussion of gay issues (most of which are emphatically NOT sexual in nature--e.g., AIDS research and funding, the situations of gay fathers and mothers, relationships, etc.) I do not think that anything discussed there would be out of place in any discussion among aware, concerned adults. The forum would be open to all, straight and gay. Now some may think that I am placing words in their mouths. I am not. I am merely stating what I envisioned as the function of the news group. I do NOT support the concept of 'net.personal'. Like I said, other systems can do a better job of that without bureaucratic hassles. I welcome further opinions. /Steve Dyer decvax!wivax!dyer sdyer@bbn-unix