perl@rdin.UUCP (Robert Perlberg) (04/08/85)
It would be just like AT&T to get mad at MCI and do something stupid to retaliate. It was that kind of attitude on their part towards companies like MCI that made the government break them up in the first place. Considering how many AT&T sites there are on the net, I would say that they need us more than we need them. If they stop carrying the news for us, we could stop feeding news to them! Now wasn't that childish? I can understand why some would be upset by ads on the net, but I don't think that it should generate such net-wide ill will. Let's face it: most sites on the net are engaged in commercial endeavors. It's only natural for some to view the net as a good advertising medium. Your higher-ups might not like paying for the time, but his higher-ups probably wouldn't pay for his reception costs unless they could get some advertising value from the net. Robert Perlberg Resource Dynamics Inc. New York philabs!rdin!perl
lee@unmvax.UUCP (04/09/85)
> such net-wide ill will. Let's face it: most sites on the net > are engaged in commercial endeavors. It's only natural for some > to view the net as a good advertising medium. Your higher-ups > might not like paying for the time, but his higher-ups probably > wouldn't pay for his reception costs unless they could get some > advertising value from the net. Then let the commercial sites start their own net. They can advertise to each other to their hearts content. My "higher-ups" allow netnews largely as a concession to me. I am in the habit of calling it a perq. They, still (after two years), do not see much of an advantage in receiving it. If it starts becoming commercial, I can see how my "higher-ups" would get a little upset. I don't know about you but I would like to continue reading news. If some bozo(s) blows that for me by posting commercial ads then I would probably feel that "childish" retaliation on my part would be justified. Something like a boycott of that companies products and services. Probably wouldn't mean much to them but it would make me feel good. STILL avoiding the subject with my "higher ups", --Lee {ucbvax,pur-ee,gatech}!unmvax!lee
maurice@nmtvax.UUCP (04/10/85)
> such net-wide ill will. Let's face it: most sites on the net > are engaged in commercial endeavors. It's only natural for some > to view the net as a good advertising medium. Your higher-ups ^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^ If I wanted to see a commercial, I'd go and watch TV. I am sure there are others who feel the same way. If this net turned into an advertising medium, I'd rather not bother with it at all. Roger Levasseur
res@ihuxn.UUCP (Rich Strebendt) (04/11/85)
In response to: > It would be just like AT&T to get mad at MCI and do something > stupid to retaliate. It seems to me that I recently used the words "cheap shot" to describe a comment like this. Hmmmm. I have not yet heard of any retaliatory action by the Corporation because of a lapse of judgement by a misguided individual. > It was that kind of attitude on their part > towards companies like MCI that made the government break them > up in the first place. Wrong. It was, as part of a very complex legal/social/political situation, the classical "big is bad" syndrome complicated by confusion between the Justice Department and the FCC on where the line between correct behavior under regulation and incorrect behavior under anti-trust law should be drawn. In the end, divestiture will probably be one of the best things to happen to AT&T -- once we get a chance to compete without having both hands tied behind our backs by the FCC! > Considering how many AT&T sites there > are on the net, I would say that they need us more than we need > them. If they stop carrying the news for us, we could stop feeding > news to them! Huh? I do not follow the logic of these statements. > Now wasn't that childish? I can understand why some would be > upset by ads on the net, but I don't think that it should generate > such net-wide ill will. I guess I have not read all of the postings yet on this subject. I do not recall seeing any angry responses by people from AT&T -- certainly none by AT&T corporately. There have been comments from a number of non-AT&T sites that express unhappiness with the posting, but I expect that most of my collegues reacted to it as I did: "What a waste of net resources, and it wasn't even posted to the right newsgroup -- this should be in net.jokes." > Let's face it: most sites on the net > are engaged in commercial endeavors. True, many sites are located at business concerns, but a great many (particularly on the ARPA legs of the network) are at universities. > It's only natural for some > to view the net as a good advertising medium. Interesting. At least at this location of AT&T Bell Labs our management has no such view of the net. As a medium for exchange of technical ideas, and as a feedback path for comments on our products and the problems people have encountered using them, yes. As a channel for advertising, no. > Your higher-ups > might not like paying for the time, but his higher-ups probably > wouldn't pay for his reception costs unless they could get some > advertising value from the net. I really doubt that companies on the net such as Tektronix, TRW, BBN, as well as my own AT&T have such a view, if they are even aware of the net as something more than a piece of the computational overhead cost. Anyone at another company care to comment on this? Rich Strebendt ...!ihnp4!ihuxn!res
lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein) (04/14/85)
Hey gang... While I disdain the use of the network for commercial advertising (of the blatant sort) as much as most other people, remember that, given the furor that appears whenever people start talking about "moderation," there's going to be LOTS more advertising as time goes by. In fact, as the network grows, I'd expect to see a lot more blatant ads, many of which will probably be voluminous. And you know what? There's not a damn thing we can do about it. So long as the newsgroups are unmoderated and allow anything and everything to be distributed, there's no way to stop or control any particular type of information--short of trying to cut off the "offending" site. And such a site could probably find some other route to get their material into the net anyway. We can spout rules and regulations and try sound big and tough--but it's all a paper tiger. If MCI wanted to post that ad once an hour to every newsgroup, there's practically nothing we could do about it. Oh sure, some people would try develop software to filter it out, but that sort of thing would be easy to get around. My guess is that you haven't seen anything yet when it comes to the "commercialization" of the net. And if you don't like it, and you also believe that moderated newsgroups are horrors from hell, then you have a serious conflict which may be difficult to resolve. --Lauren--
ron@celerity.UUCP (Ron McDaniels) (04/15/85)
[] I love it! The amount of saliva from all the frothing at the mouth that has been going on would make the Sahara bloom! If the infamous MCI caper wasn't a joke, it surely has given me cause for lot of amusement. (I apologize for not putting a 'smiley face' at the end of each line of this comment so that the literal minded folks out there in net-land will understand that I am amused and am attempting to amuse with my comments). I'll bet the reason so many are howling is because they filled in the MCI request for service with their crts and then felt stupid because they couldn't figure out how to get it in an envelope. And did you see how the BTL folks screamed?!!!! Wonderful!!!! On a serious note, however. I must chastize the individual submitting the original article for misposting it to net.general. But then it wouldn't have been so funny if s/he had, so I withdraw the chastisment. Affectionately, McD
hall@ittral.UUCP (Doug Hall) (04/16/85)
In article <633@vortex.UUCP> lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein) writes: > In fact, as the network grows, I'd expect to see >a lot more blatant ads, many of which will probably be voluminous. >And you know what? There's not a damn thing we can do about it. > >... > >We can spout rules and regulations and try sound big and tough--but >it's all a paper tiger. If MCI wanted to post that ad once an hour >to every newsgroup, there's practically nothing we could do about >it. > >... > >My guess is that you haven't seen anything yet when it comes to the >"commercialization" of the net. And if you don't like it, and >you also believe that moderated newsgroups are horrors from hell, >then you have a serious conflict which may be difficult to resolve. > >--Lauren-- First of all, I have seen no great increase in "blatant ads" lately, just a lot of traffic about a few. I disagree strongly with the MCI ad, but there are several things to consider. First, MCI is not (to my knowledge) on the net, so they can't post their message every hour, even if they wanted to. Things aren't that bad yet. And the folks at the Vet school have promised to take action against the individual who posted the ad. I think this, along with the high number of messages posted flaming the ad will probably discourage future similar postings. I'm not wild about moderated newsgroups, but I can live with them if it comes to that. As long as Lauren isn't the moderator. ;-) Doug Hall ITT Telecom Raleigh, NC ittvax!ittral!hall
mike@enmasse.UUCP (Mike Schloss) (04/16/85)
> Hey gang... While I disdain the use of the network for commercial > advertising (of the blatant sort) as much as most other people, > remember that, given the furor that appears whenever people start > talking about "moderation," there's going to be LOTS more advertising > as time goes by. In fact, as the network grows, I'd expect to see > a lot more blatant ads, many of which will probably be voluminous. > And you know what? There's not a damn thing we can do about it. ... more on why we can stop misuse of the net unless we moderate ... > --Lauren-- > Sorry to disagree with one of the leading net gurus but I feel you are completely wrong about the net not being able to do anything about net abusers. The net is anything but a paper tiger. If anything, it is more like a spoiled child. If it doesnt get something the way it likes it rants, raves, and makes plenty of threats. Most of these threats can be easily carried out. Look at all the commotion caused by a certain Princeton person posting software that wasn't "100% bugfree". Some of the mail he got caused people to send letters to various system administartors asking them to hang the perpetrators or at least revoke their net priveleges. When "The Solution" posted its ad, people threatened to cutoff the sites that were feeding it. All it takes is one site aynwhere upstream saying "Stop feeding news to site xyzzy or I'm cutting you off". This may be vary arbitrary and dictatorial, but it works. As far as going to another site for a feed, it aint as easy as it sounds. It may be impossible once the site has developed a reputation. A bad guy may get around it but if they go back to their old tricks they'll get cut off again. I still feel that enforced moderation is unneccessary and will eventually kill the net (due to lack of use). If people wany moderated newsgroups, let them use them. Thats what they are there for. If there is too much junk in the unmoderated news goups, dont read them. If you think someone is abusing the net, let them know. If that doesn't work, let their system administrator know. If that still doesnt work, complain to their feed site. If enough people complain, things do get done. Mike Schloss
lrd@drusd.UUCP (L. R. DuBroff) (04/16/85)
"If MCI wanted to post that ad once an hour to every newsgroup, there's practically nothing we could do about it." --Lauren-- Do you REALLY think that MCI had anything to do with posting the ad in question? My recollection is that some jerk (Michael Jones, at N. C. State University Vet School) posted this to net.general, requesting that would-be subscribers return the form to MCI Service, P. O. Box 37153, Raleigh, NC 27627. The conclusion drawn from this was that Jones, assuming an extraordinary level of naivete on the part of net.readers, intended to collect commisions from MCI for signing up vast numbers of new subscribers. Contrary to April 1 speculation, my copy of the article in question indicates that it was posted on April 3, seemingly ruling out a joke. Well, it appears that we have Jones' mail address (P. O. Box 37153, Raleigh, NC 27627). Any suggestions from the net.readers?
mrl@drutx.UUCP (LongoMR) (04/17/85)
[]
>> ...Any suggestions from the net.readers?
YEAH! I think the point has been made. There have been a lot of people
screaming about all the money this guy spent to advertise. I think that
enough bucks have been spent, enough machine resources have been used
and enough has been said to know where the majority of readers stand.
Let's quit blowing more bucks to chastise this guy any further. I am
beginning to think that the reaming process is more wasteful than the
initial abuse.
Mark R. Longo AT&T ISL Denver
---------
All the usual stuff about this being my own opinion and not necessarily
anybody else's apply.north@down.FUN (Stephen C North) (04/18/85)
In article <enmasse!391> somebody writes:
Look at all the commotion caused by a certain Princeton person
posting software that wasn't "100% bugfree". Some of the mail
he got caused people to send letters to various system
administartors asking them to hang the perpetrators or at least
revoke their net priveleges.
north: did you see princeton was mentioned again in net.followup?
honey: oh? i thought you removed that newsgroup.
north: no, not yet. hey, look at that thing -- what is it? see it?
way over there? it's HUGE!
honey: i don't ... oh that? it's moving pretty slowly, isn't it?
north: i can't tell. it seems to be coming our way.
honey: hold on ... it looks like the north/honey thesis -- ?
north: what happened? it used to be so small.
honey: it's getting closer and closer...
north: look out, it's coming STRAIGHT AT US! run away!
[[SPLAT!]]
north/honey: AAUUUUUUUUGGGHHHHH!!!! we've taken a round!
honey: what is this shit? get it away from me!
north: i feel sick.
north/honeylauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein) (04/19/85)
No, I don't think that MCI was responsible for that ad. But what I said (about the difficulty of stopping people from posting whatever they want as often as they want -- even if the posting is totally commercial) still holds true. --Lauren--
chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) (04/20/85)
>Most of these threats can >be easily carried out. Look at all the commotion caused by a certain >Princeton person posting software that wasn't "100% bugfree". Some of >the mail he got caused people to send letters to various system >administartors asking them to hang the perpetrators or at least revoke >their net priveleges. When "The Solution" posted its ad, people >threatened to cutoff the sites that were feeding it. I have to agree with Lauren on this one. Both of Mike's examples, shown above, DID generate a lot of flamage. I would like to point out, however, that in BOTH cases no action was taken. The princeton person is alive and well, and the Solution is still posting jobs. What that says is that if a group is willing to put up with and ignore the angry verbiage of a few vocal people, they can do what they want on the net unmolested. So much for enforcement of the rules... chuq -- :From the closet of anxieties of: Chuq Von Rospach {cbosgd,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA There is nobody as small as those who refuse to accept the success of others.
gam@amdahl.UUCP (G A Moffett) (04/20/85)
> My guess is that you haven't seen anything yet when it comes to the > "commercialization" of the net. And if you don't like it, and > you also believe that moderated newsgroups are horrors from hell, > then you have a serious conflict which may be difficult to resolve. > > --Lauren-- "There are usually more choices than you think." -- me, just now. ... and another one of them is that any site can bar any other sites postings if they want to. And if you believe THIS is a horror from hell, well -- think of something else. -- Gordon A. Moffett ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,sun}!amdahl!gam
lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein) (04/22/85)
Believe me, the VERY LAST thing I'd want to do with this net is moderate a newsgroup. I have enough hassles as it is. --Lauren--