ptownson@cs.bu.edu (Patrick Townson) (02/11/91)
Isn't it sort of strange that all the messages in TELECOM Digest in
the past -- indeed, the several instances of entire special issues of
the Digest -- devoted to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, matters
of email and telecommunications privacy and related topics are being
totally ignored as the topic of my fitness as a moderator on Usenet is
discussded in minute detail here?
Isn't it a bit odd that the dozens of messages appearing in the Digest
over the past two and a half years of my tenure there which have been
graciously handed over to rebuttals of my philosophy -- messages which
took me just as long to format, paste up, edit and distribute as the
ones which I find 'more agreeable' have been totally ignored, as if
they did not exist in this discussion?
Does anyone find it as incredible as I that a person who was given a
complete issue of the Digest (and some additional message space as
well) to respond to a critic who accused him of various falsehoods
would now come to this forum and post a message saying, and I quote,
"we all know Townson is a shithead," and encourage others --
presumably people from a socially responsible organization like EFF to
violate news etiquette by posting direct to the news group bypassing
the moderator? Is that any more incredible than the fact that not one
person from the socially responsible among you criticized such a
technique?
Why is it that if I express an opinion in a forum which I work hard to
produce and maintain it suddenly turns me into a bigot and very biased
person unfit to use the bandwidth here but when I spend an equal or
greater amount of time/space/bandwidth running press releases prepared
by EFF touting their plans and activities not a word is spoken about
bias or bigotry?
Where is it written that this net is to parrot the liberal nonsense
spouted by several of you?
Are your complaints about me *really* dealing with 'bias' and lack of
proper moderation in comp.dcom.telecom or is it that you don't like
the idea of a relatively well-read and popular newsgroup espousing
views opposite your own?
I defy you to go back through the archives of TELECOM Digest during my
tenure and by any rule of measurement -- most space devoted, number of
messages pro or con, who gets the 'first word' or 'last word', or any
fair standard you wish to employ -- demonstrate where there has been
less than total fairness and a well-rounded presentation of ideas and
opinion. I can't help what people write to me about, but I have gone
so far as to juggle messages around in the queue in order to present
them in the Digest in what I think is a fair juxtaposition.
Admittedly, a lot of Digest readers agree with me on things. I guess
if they did not, many of them would not continue reading and writing
to the Digest.
If your complaint really is (and don't bother being honest with me
now, but try being honest with yourself) you don't like someone with a
relatively loud voice saying "CALLER ID IS A GREAT IDEA" then use the
Digest's supplementary discussion group on Telecom Privacy to say so.
Curious, is it not that I regularly promote our overflow discussion
areas as a place to air controversial issues to everyone's
satisfaction -- and exercise NO editorial control whatsoever over
these lists (Telecom Privacy and Computer Underground Digest) and yet
find myself branded as a bigot and biased for my efforts. Both of
those forums started from message threads in TELECOM Digest; both are
full of opinions and ideas that ought to suit you just fine.
I favor Caller ID completely. It is the best thing to happen in
telephony in many years. I favor continued aggressive prosecution by
the government of people who break into computer systems and telephone
networks. I find nothing socially responsible about such behavior and
I find no mitigating factors favoring the people who do these things.
If that is the problem -- the real problem which subjected me to a
bunch of nasty messages here in recent days and meta-discussions about
how you can get comp.dcom.telecom back under your thumb and keep it
under tight control then you might at least say so, and can the
crap about whether or not the moderator is 'biased'. If being biased
means having definite opinions on subjects and expressing those
opinions in a forum with others then I cheerfully admit to being
biased.
If {Arbitron} can be believed, about 50,000 Usenet people read TELECOM
Digest daily. That does not include the mailing list, the readers at
Compuserve, MCI Mail, AT&T Mail, Sprint Mail, the Net Exchange BBS,
the several Fidonet BBS's which post each issue, and others. I can see
why you must be concerned :) .... But I built the Digest up to the
level of readership it has today, and I did the same for
comp.dcom.telecom.
I don't intend to be silent merely to placate those of you who do not
like what I have to say. I will continue to say what I want, when I
want, and try to always accomodate 'the opposing viewpoint'. If you
have complaints and you can be intellectually honest in your
expression of them I will listen ... but your complaints of "Is the
Moderator of comp.dcom.telecom biased" don't interest me in the least,
except that I get sort of annoyed at being called a shithead by
someone who appealed to me for rebuttal space, was given it and still
managed to make a poor showing in the discussion.
By the way, the one or more sysadmins who are routing
comp.dcom.telecom straight to the bit bucket these days -- not even
having the courtesy to pass it along to their downstream feeds will
soon have the opportunity to try and intercept the mail also as more
of the end-readers are asking to be added to the mailing list in order
to receive each issue.
Patrick Townson
Just sign me the Moderator who doesn't give a shit.jet@karazm.math.uh.edu ("J. Eric Townsend") (02/12/91)
This has about as much to do with EFF as anything else in this goofy thread. One of my biggest concerns related to the global village is that people with biased interests will take over various channels of communication while constantly claiming how "fair" they are to the other side. Imagine the uproar if talk.abortion was moderated by an anti-abortion activist. Or if comp.unix.aix was moderated by an IBM employee. In article <74436@bu.edu.bu.edu> this newsgroup only - Not to me personally writes: [Townson, not Townsend, writes] >Where is it written that this net is to parrot the liberal nonsense >spouted by several of you? Hoist by his own petard! I was feeling sorry for you, Patrick, up until this. I thought you were going to actually defend yourself in a relatively unbiased manner by showing how you honestly try and keep your own politics out of your postings. Oh well. >I don't intend to be silent merely to placate those of you who do not >like what I have to say. I will continue to say what I want, when I >want, and try to always accomodate 'the opposing viewpoint'. If you In other words, you've got a "bully pulpit", and you'll use it to further your own ends as much as possible; but you'll also do the "opposing viewpoint" the great favor of editing *their* point of view before you print it. Tell me, oh great moderator, who gets to edit *your* point of view? -- J. Eric Townsend - jet@uh.edu - bitnet: jet@UHOU - vox: (713) 749-2120 Skate UNIX or bleed, boyo... (UNIX is a trademark of Bell Laboratories).
seals@uncecs.edu (Larry W. Seals) (02/12/91)
In article <1991Feb11.185846.20778@lavaca.uh.edu>, jet@karazm.math.uh.edu ("J. Eric Townsend") writes: > > > > This has about as much to do with EFF as anything else in this goofy > thread. One of my biggest concerns related to the global village is that > people with biased interests will take over various channels of > communication while constantly claiming how "fair" they are to > the other side. Imagine the uproar if talk.abortion was moderated > by an anti-abortion activist. Or if comp.unix.aix was moderated > by an IBM employee. > I agree that on the surface this doesn't seem like the correct forum for this thread, but then again why do we always assume that the threat to our freedom to think and do as we please comes from the outside of our ranks (the FBI, the SS, the police, greedy corporations, etc.)? One of MY biggest concerns is having someone presume that if I have a strong opinion on a subject, that makes me universally unable to act in a fair and impartial manner. I would have no objection to having talk.abortion or comp.unix.aix (or any group) moderated by someone with strong opinions (either pro or con) as long as I saw both sides of an issue discussed. > In article <74436@bu.edu.bu.edu> this newsgroup only - Not to me personally writes: [Townson, not Townsend, writes] > >Where is it written that this net is to parrot the liberal nonsense > >spouted by several of you? > > Hoist by his own petard! I was feeling sorry for you, Patrick, up > until this. I thought you were going to actually defend yourself > in a relatively unbiased manner by showing how you honestly try > and keep your own politics out of your postings. Oh well. > Whoa, there, big fella! I didn't realize that one had to discard their opinions and perspective to post on the net. Pat has every right to sound off just as you have. It's almost as if you're saying that he can't indulge in what you're "liberally" dishing out. > >I don't intend to be silent merely to placate those of you who do not > >like what I have to say. I will continue to say what I want, when I > >want, and try to always accomodate 'the opposing viewpoint'. If you > > In other words, you've got a "bully pulpit", and you'll use it to > further your own ends as much as possible; but you'll also do the > "opposing viewpoint" the great favor of editing *their* point of > view before you print it. Tell me, oh great moderator, who > gets to edit *your* point of view? > I don't think that adding a note to a posting qualifies as editing to change the meaning. I have yet to see Pat accused of changing the wording of a message or to render it in such form that the intent was not readily discerned. Those who work and play out here in the electronic frontier desire the same sort of freedom that is afforded the print media. But when was the last time you wrote to the editorial board at your local newspaper or favorite magazine decrying their appending a note to the letter to the editor (or their bias)? Who gets to edit Pat's point of view? We do, by voting with our feet. But since the majority (of which I am one) seem comfortable with how the Digest is run (and I judge that by the amount of traffic seen there), I suppose this is a moot point. By the way, where are all the people screaming "Censorship!" when a sys.admin shuts down a newsfeed for no other reason than perceived bias? Maybe we need a law here on the frontier that says: "Innocent Until Proven Guilty!" ********************************************************************** Larry Seals @ Trailing Edge Software - "When it doesn't have to be the very best!" "I didn't sell my soul, I just took out a loan..." - Bruce Hornsby - My opinions are my own, and I'll keep them. - **********************************************************************
glass@elaine50.stanford.edu (Brett Glass) (02/12/91)
Y'know, not having seen what went on in comp.dcom.telecom, I was willing to believe that moderator Patrick Townson might not have been given a fair shake by those who might disagree with him. But the tone of the above-mentioned hotheaded article leads me to believe that Townson's critics may be right. <BG> -- "Beware when the great God lets loose a thinker on this planet. Then all things are at risk. It is as when a conflagration has broken out in a great city, and no man knows what is safe, or where it will end." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Jacobson) (02/12/91)
Leaving Pat Towson aside, the problem of >private< interests giving a spin to public expressions, via context or censorship, is one that should not be ignored. It was never clear in 1984, for example, whether Big Brother was the elected leader or one selected by powerful interests in society -- nor did it matter. The result was the same. Lack of accountability is something to be avoided, not least by those in positions of power. I'm sorry in the immediate matter that Pat exploded as he did. He revealed something about himself that really wasn't very secret -- his political leanings -- at some cost to his personal image. I've voted with my keyboard. However, as this node will not accept alt.dcom.telecom or its variants, I'm out in the ozone...the price of being principled, I suppose. Bob Jacobson
ptownson@cs.bu.edu (Patrick Townson) (02/12/91)
In article <1991Feb11.185846.20778@lavaca.uh.edu> jet@karazm.math.uh. edu ("J. Eric Townsend") writes: >This has about as much to do with EFF as anything else in this goofy >thread. One of my biggest concerns related to the global village is that >people with biased interests will take over various channels of >communication while constantly claiming how "fair" they are to >the other side. Imagine the uproar if talk.abortion was moderated >by an anti-abortion activist. Or if comp.unix.aix was moderated >by an IBM employee. You miss the point entirely. The name of the publication is TELECOM Digest and/or comp.dcom.telecom --- NOT, repeat NOT 'comp.dcom.telecom.caller.id' .... the newsgroup is not intrinsically a caller id discussion area. A better example from you might have been 'what if a group devoted to discussions about computers and their role in society was moderated by an IBM employee. I would say what is wrong with that? Anyway, why do you feel a person who personally opposes abortion will automatically be unfair to those who favor freedom of choice? Why do you imply that a person who favors abortion would be any more or less fair to someone who did not? You are telling me a lot about your experience in newsgroup moderation and your experience as a participant in discussions here. Holding a viewpoint automatically makes one unfair to the other side, eh? The 'uproar' that would result from the unlikely combination you suggest is because of the nature of Usenet itself. Usenet would not exist if there were not `uproars' going on all the time. With apologies to George Bernard Shaw and Rex Harrison and the other fine performers in Pygmalion (aka "My Fair Lady") : Usenet and flamage! Usenet and flamage! Go together like a horse and carriage ... Ask the local gentry; and he'll tell you its elementary. Why do you think my predecessor moderator in telecom pulled the Digest out of Usenet for over a year back in 1986-87? Jon Solomon said he could not handle the hassle he was getting from some of the fools. When I took over, I reconnected the gateway ... was that a bad thing to do? The sub-group (actually now growing to the point it is a group in its own right) discussing issues of privacy in telecommunications and caller id goes completely untouched in any way by me except that I promote it and tell people how to find it. Not only do we have caller id messages in telecom , we have a whole supplementary mailing list and alt group devoted to it! What more can I do for you? >In article <74436@bu.edu.bu.edu> this newsgroup only - Not to me personally writes: [Townson, not Townsend, writes] >>Where is it written that this net is to parrot the liberal nonsense >>spouted by several of you? >Hoist by his own petard! I was feeling sorry for you, Patrick, up >until this. I thought you were going to actually defend yourself >in a relatively unbiased manner by showing how you honestly try >and keep your own politics out of your postings. Oh well. I never have said I 'try to keep my politics out of my postings.' Where did I ever say that? I said I honestly admit to my personal opinions. >In other words, you've got a "bully pulpit", and you'll use it to >further your own ends as much as possible; Of course, why shouldn't I? Actually 'my ends' are the dissemination of as much information as possible about the workings of the telephone network. But yes, I express my opinions also. >but you'll also do the "opposing viewpoint" the great favor of >editing *their* point of view before you print it. This is not true at all. Please read what I said earlier. There are two complete sub-sections or mailing lists (with their own alt news groups) which are part and parcel of telecom: 1. Telecom Privacy <telecom-priv@pica.army.mil> 2. Computer Underground Digest <tk0jut2@niu.bitnet> Both of these groups started as a direct result of a huge overflow of messages to telecom (proper) ... they deal with caller id, privacy in telecom, hacking, phreaking, legal problems of people who hack, etc. All those messages were funnelled through TELECOM Digest when I first started as moderator. I could not begin to print them all or answer them all. Two fine readers of TELECOM Digest volunteered to pull all those messages and ones that followed on the same topics. We swap messages back and forth all the time. I frequently forward stuff to both. Message threads begin in the Digest and then continue in those groups. The people on those lists are the same readers as on the main list (if they wanted to be part of the extended discussions). The only thing I do not do regards those lists is exercise any editorial control at all ... no moderation, nothing. Do you mean to say you actually want all 100-150 messages per day received between the three of us who moderate the telecom lists (Dennis Rears with Privacy, Jim Thomas with Underground and myself) to appear in the main TELECOM Digest itself? When would I find time to print them all? When would you find time to read them all? And as far as editing within TELECOM Digest itself, here is a little challenge for you: Take the last X messages you find in the Digest. Take your pick ... any you like ... write to the author of the article and ask them: "was your article edited in any way before it appeared in TELECOM Digest to cause the message to be different in its content or message? Was anything changed or eliminated (other than sometimes when the quoted text gets cut back to free up some space)?" I edit spelling, grammar and punctuation. I eliminate most signatures. I format message line length and create paragraphs ... actually, my software does most of this. Some messages require a lot of work to use them, and I often times don't bother but just send it back. The exception to this is I try to help new netters feel 'at home' and part of the group, to wit, I sometimes receive absolutely gawd-awful stuff which is full of typo errors, entire sentences missing, thoughts which trail off to no where, etc ... and the poster is someone I've not seen before. Often times the message will have an opener saying "I have never posted before", etc ... naturally for those people I reconstruct their whole message for them if necessary trying to keep in mind what I *think* they are trying to say ... and I show it to them and say is this okay with you ... and then I run it ... and they feel like someone experienced on the net cares about helping them get started, etc. I change subject headers as needed to keep threads running consistently. I make up appropriate subject headers when none comes with the item. You'll notice a certain consistency in TELECOM Digest in the way the sentences flow; in the way words and phrases are blended .... I try to follow the Chicago Manual of Style (a 'rule book' used by newspaper editors) in my choice of numerical presentation of numbers or spelled out numbers (i.e. 'eight' or '8'). I place the names of other publiations in italics, ie. {italics}. I edit the Digest to make it easier reading and consistent in format, but I do not edit ideas therein. ** Now you prove me wrong if you can, but you won't. ** You are blowing smoke, making a non-issue into an issue. > Tell me, oh great moderator, who gets to edit *your* point of view? That's easy. You do. You get to send messages to your little heart's content to the Digest or the supplementary lists. You get to start new groups whenever you wish. You get to post messages here. You can refuse to read anything if you prefer. You can start a movement to have a new moderator for comp.dcom.telecom as a thing entirely separate from TELECOM Digest. You can do whatever you wish, J. Eric, and perform some very effective editing of me in the process. But since I don't edit opinion as such but merely the presentation of same in a digest where I try to maintain an attractive format, there isn't quite the same thing going on as what you would be doing to me. But until we reach the point that you sit here in my chair at my desk and produce TELECOM Digest three or four times a day for a month or so and see exactly what goes on may I respectfully suggest you do not know what you are talking about. PAT (PS You know, the more I think about it the more I like the by-line of 'The Moderator Who Doesn't Give a Shit' ... I think I'll start using it in TELECOM Digest, in the header. Good idea, Patrick! :)
nazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley) (02/13/91)
In article <1991Feb11.185846.20778@lavaca.uh.edu> jet@karazm.math.uh.edu ("J. Eric Townsend") writes: >This has about as much to do with EFF as anything else in this goofy >thread. One of my biggest concerns related to the global village is that >people with biased interests will take over various channels of >communication while constantly claiming how "fair" they are to Usenet is one of the purest democracies in existance. Anyone who wishes to take responsibility (e.g. moderating) can. So long as the readers like you you have power. When they don't, they you don't. You can't take power in cyberspace, it can only be given to you. The reason that Prodigy has people so upset is that they see it as violating this principle. Prodigy exploits the weakest link of cyberspace - they control the transport. Whoever controls the transport has the ability to take and give power irrespective of the wishes of the people. Fortunately two factors intervene. Prodigy by no means has a monopoly on transports, and the marketplace - the traditional way of deciding things in this company, can also take away power if it decides to. If you really dislike what Prodigy is doing - hit them where it hurts. Design a PD protocol and software for doing nice pretty little interfaces that are understandable by the common citizen (computers as appliances). Then distributed to all the BBS' and online systems in the world. If Compuserve and Genie et.al. have any sense at all, this is exactly what they are doing now. In fact, I hope they are working on it together, since a multi-system standard would definitely be more effective. -- Alfalfa Software, Inc. | Poste: The EMail for Unix nazgul@alfalfa.com | Send Anything... Anywhere 617/646-7703 (voice/fax) | info@alfalfa.com I'm not sure which upsets me more; that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's.
peter@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (02/13/91)
In article <1991Feb11.185846.20778@lavaca.uh.edu>, jet@karazm.math.uh.edu ("J. Eric Townsend") writes: > Tell me, oh great moderator, who gets to edit *your* point of view? The moderators of TELECOM-PRIVACY and CUD? The net has built-in checks and balances. If you don't like a moderator go form your own mailing list. -- (peter@taronga.uucp.ferranti.com) `-_-' 'U`
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (02/13/91)
People here (and in the Prodigy discussion) seem to write as though they assume under it all that private ownership and control of "the press" (including electronic media and publications) is some sort of threat to freedom of expression. Quite the opposite. The framers of the U.S. constitution knew well that private ownership and control of the press is a cornerstone of freedom, not a threat to it. Why this urge to ask "What are we going to do about it?" The great new feature of electronic media -- the truly new thing which inspires the creation of something like the EFF -- is the removal of the distinction between small press and large press. Freedom of the press has always gone only to those who own the press. But now any person with a thousand dollars to spare can have an electronic press. We should revel in this rather than reviling those who don't operate their's to our taste. -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
randolph@cognito.Eng.Sun.COM (Randolph Fritz) (02/13/91)
Brad, it's not the least clear that small commercial BBSs are going to last, businesswise -- I hope that ClariNet does. I'm glad we have 'em currently, but who knows how much longer they'll be around? Having Insty-Prints around the corner doesn't make me competitive with the San Jose Mercury (the valley's best daily newspaper) or Metro (our weekly). If you have a smaller number of national or international BBSs, even if the number is as high as 100 for the whole USA, censorship becomes a real problem. Looking at the larger boards, Usenet is far and away the most open, and Usenet is the one funded heavily via educational institutions, the Internet, and business contributions of service -- a mix of public and private funds, with a heavy tilt towards public. Looking at radio and television, now, the US networks that are the most open are the publicly-funded ones. NPR news is far and away the best, though for quick reporting CNN is very good. If you look at the world telephone networks, you get a different picture. The privately-owned, regulated ATT was one of the best telephone companies in the world, if a bit autocratic; the European public telephone networks were awful, though they're now leading the way to ISDN. If you look at electric power companies you'll get yet another picture. Tentatively, cautiously, I suggest that it appears that the most successful large-scale public services have a mixture of public and private control. Is anyone aware of sociological or economic research which bears on this conclusion? Again, I would prefer to avoid the vast general theories, since those are both inconclusive and abstract. nd t ou ui R Press T __Randolph Fritz sun!cognito.eng!randolph || randolph@eng.sun.com ou ui Mountain View, California, North America, Earth nd t
mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) (02/13/91)
In article <1991Feb13.031035.27179@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: > >The great new feature of electronic media -- the truly new thing which >inspires the creation of something like the EFF -- is the removal of the >distinction between small press and large press. Freedom of the press has >always gone only to those who own the press. But now any person with >a thousand dollars to spare can have an electronic press. We should revel >in this rather than reviling those who don't operate their's to our taste. I agree with this, but I hasten to add that "press" is only one of the metaphors we are trying to bring to the frontier. "Forum" is another. Publications are necessarily very top-down in their organization and content, but it kills a forum when a forum is conducted that way. The Prodigy controversy illustrates what happens when a service is marketed as a forum but seeks to maintain its prerogatives as a publication. The result is a serious mismatch of expectations. --Mike -- Mike Godwin, (617) 864-0665 | "That information, as I have repeated infinitely mnemonic@eff.org | to myself, is classified ... though the keeping Electronic Frontier | of secrets ... seems less meaningful to me now." Foundation | --Major Garland Briggs
patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson) (02/14/91)
In article <9VD175K@taronga.hackercorp.com> peter@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <1991Feb11.185846.20778@lavaca.uh.edu>, jet@karazm.math.uh.edu ("J. Eric Townsend") writes: >> Tell me, oh great moderator, who gets to edit *your* point of view? > >The moderators of TELECOM-PRIVACY and CUD? The net has built-in checks and >balances. If you don't like a moderator go form your own mailing list. And actually Peter, CUD (it came first) and TELECOM-PRIVACY (second) were not from any difference of opinion ... they are a couple of guys who volunteered to help me when I was literally buried with lots of very long articles on pirating, phreaking, hacking, caller id, etc .... stuff I would have loved to handle in the Digest if we were not so always backed up with mail. So Jim Thomas and Dennis Rears volunteered to pick up on those topics. Everyone on my mailing list got notified to sign up on those two lists as well if desired. -- Patrick Townson patrick@chinet.chi.il.us / ptownson@eecs.nwu.edu / US Mail: 60690-1570 FIDO: 115/743 / AT&T Mail: 529-6378 (!ptownson) / MCI Mail: 222-4956
peter@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (02/14/91)
Thanks folks. Now we don't have any comp.dcom.telecom at all.
What's the point of all this? Do you get the local paper's subscription
list and send out a mass mailing because you don't like their editorial
policy? Do you call in to radio stations and flame them because you
disagree with Bruce Williams or Rush Limbaugh? Do you then proceed to
jam their frequencies with opposing editorials?
If anything, this is worse... because the moderator of a newsgroup has
less power than any editor or columnist. There are plenty of open channels
where you can rebut their points. But this flaming, these irrelevant
ad-hominem attacks, is sheer foolishness.
First it was Brad Templeton over rec.humor.funny. Then Rich Salz over
comp.sources.unix. Now Pat Townson, who turns out to have thinner skin
than the others. Is that such a sin?
The least you could have done was offer to help: to moderate an alternative
group, or co-moderate TELECOM. Eli did that, and seems conspicuously absent
in this latest skirmish.
--
(peter@taronga.uucp.ferranti.com)
`-_-'
'U`brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (02/15/91)
In article <1991Feb13.153741.8347@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes: >I agree with this, but I hasten to add that "press" is only one >of the metaphors we are trying to bring to the frontier. "Forum" is >another. > >Publications are necessarily very top-down in their organization and >content, but it kills a forum when a forum is conducted that way. I also agree with this -- the "forum" is a new concept and one which we truly need to watch the reaction of lawmakers to. But in spite of what some users thought, Prodigy never meant to offer open forums, and *I* thought they were clear on this, if others didn't. Prodigy's existence does not endanger the more open systems. In fact, right now, it's exactly the reverse. Prodigy is bringing whole new crops of users into the online communication world because of the megabucks (literally 30 million per year) they are spending on marketing. Their promotion budget is bigger than the total online revenues of the *entire online industry*, excepting CompuServe. (And not counting Mead, Dialog and database providers) Many of those Prodigy users, unsatisfied with what Prodigy is offering, are now switching to services like GEnie (the #3 online provider). To be honest, we on GEnie are a bit frustrated by these new users, because they are less experienced and have different expectations. But there can be no doubt that Prodigy is promoting the growth of *all* online interaction. Things like USENET with no control, and GEnie, CIS and BBoards with more limited control, will continue to exist unless the lawmakers come after them. Prodigy does not detract from them at all. It is in our interest to ensure that Prodigy is not considered a formum because we don't want lawmakers to consider it as a model of a forum system. Do we? -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
randolph@cognito.Eng.Sun.COM (Randolph Fritz) (02/16/91)
[Followups to comp.org.eff.talk.] The main reason one doesn't criticize a newspaper publicly is lack of access to their distribution channels. Local newspapers are still major political forces and, if methods for criticizing them existed, be sure, they'd be used. Public disagreement, however difficult to deal with, is part of democracy and anarchy. That we have it here is an indication of health. nd t ou ui R Press T __Randolph Fritz sun!cognito.eng!randolph || randolph@eng.sun.com ou ui Mountain View, California, North America, Earth nd t
glass@elaine50.Stanford.EDU (Brett Glass) (02/16/91)
In article <CJF1795@taronga.hackercorp.com> peter@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >Thanks folks. Now we don't have any comp.dcom.telecom at all. > >What's the point of all this? Do you get the local paper's subscription >list and send out a mass mailing because you don't like their editorial >policy? Do you call in to radio stations and flame them because you >disagree with Bruce Williams or Rush Limbaugh? Do you then proceed to >jam their frequencies with opposing editorials? Peter: If anything, the disappearance of comp.dcom.telecom shows that the moderator was not able to tolerate the flames which are such a ubiquitous occurrence on the nets. This is a necessary skill for a moderator; if it's "too hot in the kitchen," perhaps he's not fit for the position. Your analogies miss the boat. Moderating an online forum is not the same as being the editor of a newspaper or a radio personality. Published feedback is normal and is often vitriolic. In this case, complaints about the moderator's biases may have been justified. His most recent set of angry messages reflect a temperament that I would not like to see in a moderator. The absence of comp.dcom.telecom leaves the way clear for another forum to replace it. It may or may not be better, but it's certainly an OPPORTUNITY to do better. Don't knock it. <BG> -- "Beware when the great God lets loose a thinker on this planet. Then all things are at risk. It is as when a conflagration has broken out in a great city, and no man knows what is safe, or where it will end." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Jacobson) (02/17/91)
Sorry to have to remark on this topic again, but forgetting completely Pat's own tendencies to do one thing or another, when one operates a newsgroup which is carried by sites everywhere, it assumes the form of a virtual monopoly. Getting a newsgroup organized is no small thing (just as building a successful newspaper or newsletter, hardcopy or online, is no small thing): "capital" (time, if not money), distribution links, assistants, routers...all of these things tend to defeat most attempts at setting up "competing" newsgroups. (As to distribution, most site administrators do not want to chew up valuable memory with apparently redundant newsgroups, even if they have different points of view.) So, running a newsgroup is something of a public trust. One trifles with this trust at one's own expense, but also at the expense of participants who believe they deserve evenhandedness in the discussion of crucial issues -- and what could be more crucial these days than telecommunications issues? Rhetoric about freedom of the press would be more compelling if it admitted even slight misgivings about how that freedom has been exercised in too many cases. Bob Jacobson
cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Jacobson) (02/17/91)
I think we should seriously consider, also, that the force behind Prodigy -- IBM -- is also the force behind ANS, Inc., the nonprofit firm maneuvering to take over the privatized successor to the INTERNET, the NREN. It makes me worry for the future of newsgroups. Bob Jacobson
mbrown@testsys.austin.ibm.com (Mark Brown) (02/18/91)
cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Jacobson) writes: > I think we should seriously consider, also, that the force behind Prodigy > -- IBM -- is also the force behind ANS, Inc., the nonprofit firm > maneuvering to take over the privatized successor to the INTERNET, the > NREN. It makes me worry for the future of newsgroups. All I ask is that you keep in mind that IBM is made up of many different entities, and that it is quite likely the PRODIGY people have no connection with the ANS people. See Disclaimer below. Mark Brown IBM PSP Austin, TX. (512) 823-3741 VNET: MBROWN@AUSVMQ MAIL: mbrown@testsys.austin.ibm.com OR uunet!testsys.austin.ibm.com!mbrown The nice thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from! DISCLAIMER: Any personal opinions stated here are just that.
cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Jacobson) (02/19/91)
At an Office of Technology Assessment meeting I attended last week, in Washington, D.C., absolutely NO mention was made of USENET or the benefits the research community derives from its existence. All of the parameters for NREN "efficiency" and "economic viability" proposed had to do with two things only: higher-quality (and higher-cost) technology in the network; and for almost everyone (with the possible exception of libraries and K-12 schools), a policy of "pay as you go." Mitch Kapor (so far as I could see) was the only person on the panel arguing for complete ubiquity of access, on the grounds that anything less will result in an NREN that cannot support the richness of dialogue that takes place on the INTERNET cum NSFnet. I'm sorry, the positions expressed by Mr. Weis (president of ANS) were not encouraging in this regard. Bob Jacobson
peter@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (02/19/91)
In article <62778@bbn.BBN.COM>, cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) writes: > Either we're knowingly 'stealing' some of > NSFnet's capacity and it is important to keep that activity hidden, > or else our use of their links is legitimate, in which case it will > stay legitimate. Perhaps this group is the one I should be redirecting the discussion with Eliot about my concerns about the ethics of Usenet riding on the Internet's coattails to... (I hope you can parse that sentence) -- (peter@taronga.uucp.ferranti.com) `-_-' 'U`