jgd@rsiatl.UUCP (John G. DeArmond) (11/09/90)
craig@com50.c2s.mn.org (Craig Wilson) writes: >The Usenet is NOT an anarchy. No matter how many times you click your heels >and say it, the Usenet is not an anarchy. The alt.* network comes closer to >being an anarchy, but even there, there are guidelines being formulated and >"enforced". The Usenet has even more rules and regulations and policies and >procedures and guidelines. And they are remarkably well observed by the vast >majority of the users of the network. Why do people seem to think that an anarchist society automatically means that people have to act like browian motion? Anarchy != chaos. And chaos != bad. Yes, Usenet IS anarchy. There are suggested guideline and rules are just that - suggestions. The reason they are suggestions is that there is NO enforcement authority nor will there ever be. Sure some of the subnets have enforcement but that is not the general case. Part of a benevolent anarchy is that you have to put up with things that just absolutely, totally piss you off. And it probably pisses you off even more because you know that you are totally powerless to do anything about it. The comments to the effect that if someone acts up too much, we'll just cut their feed off is at best, a hollow threat. As long as there is someone in this world who will feed another site either free or for pay, you cannot effectively cut anyone off. All you can do is make it cost them a bit more. Even if everybody were to modify news software to filter a user or site, all that's necessary to circumvent this is a host or user name change. If the government sponsored part of the internet goes away, we will make up for it with dialup links and commercial operations like UUNET. >I guess the point that I am trying to make here, is that, I don't believe that >this society can advance given the inefficiencies. If it doesn't advance, it >will peak (has peaked?). And then, like all great societies before it, it will >decline. The decline will not nessesarily be precipitated by only internal >forces. This society operates within a larger society which can, and has, had >impact on the smaller group. I believe that the opposite is true. Society thrives while the anarchy coefficient is high. As government places its tentacles into more and more portions of peoples' lives, society dies under its own weight. I also believe that a society thrives because it has a mission. America's mission was to build a truely free society. Usenet's mission has been to try to rebuild a truely free electronic society. As the vision of the mission dims, society follows. The more we talk about and try to implement controls and rules and regulations on Usenet, the faster it will die. >Do not confuse my ramblings with a call for sanity. I also believe that there >should be groups that can provide a safety valve against a build up of >reasonableness. And there are groups and networks for this. I feel that BIFF >is funny and harmless. And I know where to go when I need a dose of BIFF. But >I don't want BIFF and his clones erupting all over. I have to ask a rhetorical "why not?" You have the means at your disposal to totally ignore what you don't like. And if we all ignore universally idiotic behavior, the perpetrator will go away because he will not enjoy talking to himself. Anarchy works! >I am afraid that I must disagree about the weapons being equal. Being several >modem connections away from the Internet backbone, my firing rate is at musket >level while those on the backbone have a machine gun rate. I don't understand. If you get a full feed, how does it matter how many hops off the net you are? I've certainly never had a problem holding my own in any debate despite the fact I'm a hop off the internet :-) >With respect to authority, there IS some authority in the guidelines and the >adherence most sites give to them. But it is not sufficient to prevent the >worst violators of the guidelines from causing a lot of disruptions. With all due respect, how does a "worst violator" cause "disruption" - assuming, of course, that the viloation does not involve dumping a hard disk full of crap onto the net? Pissing people off != disruption. It is, after all, each person's choice of whether or not to get pissed off. I'm sure that someone somewhere will get pissed at both our postings, given that we're on opposite sides of this issue. But that does NOT disrupt the net as a whole. I can think of few things that COULD disrupt the net. John -- John De Armond, WD4OQC | "Purveyors of Performance Products Rapid Deployment System, Inc. | to the Trade " (tm) Marietta, Ga | {emory,uunet}!rsiatl!jgd | "Vote early, Vote often"
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (11/09/90)
In article <1990Nov8.133951.7304@com50.c2s.mn.org> craig@com50.c2s.mn.org (Craig Wilson) writes: > The Usenet is NOT an anarchy. No matter how many times you click your heels > and say it, the Usenet is not an anarchy. The alt.* network comes closer to > being an anarchy, but even there, there are guidelines being formulated and > "enforced". Anarchy does *not* mean "no rules". Anarchy means "no ruler". Nobody on Usenet has any authority over the subject matter or group naming conventions outside their own local area. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U` peter@ferranti.com
craig@com50.c2s.mn.org (Craig Wilson) (11/12/90)
In article <T1_6GFA@xds13.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <1990Nov8.133951.7304@com50.c2s.mn.org> craig@com50.c2s.mn.org (Craig Wilson) writes: >> The Usenet is NOT an anarchy. No matter how many times you click your heels >> and say it, the Usenet is not an anarchy. The alt.* network comes closer to >> being an anarchy, but even there, there are guidelines being formulated and >> "enforced". > >Anarchy does *not* mean "no rules". Anarchy means "no ruler". Nobody on Usenet >has any authority over the subject matter or group naming conventions outside >their own local area. My dictionary seems to provide for the lack of rules as being a basis for anarchy. I contend that the Usenet does not lack for rules or guidelines. And the moderator of n.a.n seems to be approaching the dictatorial stage according to some people on the net. And then, there are the owners and system administrators of the news nodes. As you state, they hold the power within their own nodes. But some people extend their authority beyond their own system to affect other people and systems. These actions should not be viewed as anarchy in action for which there should be no recourse. Rather the actions should be viewed as lawlessness on the part of the perpetrators. /craig >-- >Peter da Silva. `-_-' >+1 713 274 5180. 'U` >peter@ferranti.com
curt@cynic.wimsey.bc.ca (Curt Sampson) (11/12/90)
craig@com50.c2s.mn.org (Craig Wilson) writes: > My dictionary seems to provide for the lack of rules as being a basis for > anarchy. I contend that the Usenet does not lack for rules or guidelines. From The Random House College Dictionary: anarchy, n. 3. a theory that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organised society. I think that this describes usenet pretty well. > But some people extend their authority beyond their own system to affect othe > people and systems. These actions should not be viewed as anarchy in action > for which there should be no recourse. Rather the actions should be viewed a > lawlessness on the part of the perpetrators. Merely posting an article will affect someone on another system. That, to me, seems to be the whole point of usenet. Obviously people can start doing destructive or unwholesome things, such as posting large numbers of irrelevant articles to a moderated group. There is no central authority that will stop this, though. In such a case a person would usually get his feed cut by that feed's administrator. If that admin refuses to cut the feed then someone upline will do it. If nobody wants to cut the feed then it's obviously pretty much a net consensus that what the person is doing isn't wrong (or wrong enough to be worth bothering about). Someone who can't get a feed locally can go somewhere else. As a matter of fact, they can go anywhere else on the network as long as they're willing to foot the long distance bill. No single authority can stop them from linking up. Only the net as a whole can stop it. The usenet is basically a bunch of people who have come to some sort of consensus about how to act and regulate themselves accordingly, without any central authority. What would you call this if not an anarchy? cjs curt@cynic.UUCP | "The unconscious self is the real genius. curt@cynic.wimsey.bc.ca | Your breathing goes wrong the minute your {uunet|ubc-cs}!van-bc!cynic!curt | conscious self meddles with it." --GBS
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (11/14/90)
I said: > >Anarchy does *not* mean "no rules". Anarchy means "no ruler". In article <1990Nov12.033234.9412@com50.c2s.mn.org>, craig@com50.c2s.mn.org (Craig Wilson) writes: > My dictionary seems to provide for the lack of rules as being a basis for > anarchy. A dictionary is not an authoritative source in matters like this. In fact the usual result of this sort of response is what is commonly known as a "dictionary war". I shall refrain, and I hope that everyone else does so too. > the moderator of n.a.n seems to be approaching the dictatorial stage according > to some people on the net. He thinks he has a certain power. Is this meant to imply that if I think I'm god you shall bow down and worship me? If so, let me know right now so I can start exacting a tithe... -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U` peter@ferranti.com
zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Sameer Parekh) (11/14/90)
In article <8Pqis5w163w@cynic.wimsey.bc.ca> curt@cynic.wimsey.bc.ca (Curt Sampson) writes: >craig@com50.c2s.mn.org (Craig Wilson) writes: > > >From The Random House College Dictionary: > > anarchy, n. 3. a theory that proposes the cooperative and > voluntary association of individuals and groups as the > principal mode of organised society. I like that definition. I forgot, what was the name of the Enlightenment philospher who spoke of the noble savages? >The usenet is basically a bunch of people who have come to some sort >of consensus about how to act and regulate themselves accordingly, >without any central authority. What would you call this if not an >anarchy? Now that you say it, I realize it. I had never thought an good anarchy was possible. I knew that an IDEAL anarchy was the good one, but never thought it could come about. But maybe this isn't the ideal anarchy. People STILL flame each other a lot. If these people weren't separated by many miles, and can't PHYSICALLY harm the other, then it wouldn't work. But they can't, so this is working. -- zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM
craig@com50.c2s.mn.org (Craig Wilson) (11/19/90)
In article <IN.60V5@xds13.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >> >Anarchy does *not* mean "no rules". Anarchy means "no ruler". >In article <1990Nov12.033234.9412@com50.c2s.mn.org>, craig@com50.c2s.mn.org (Craig Wilson) writes: >> My dictionary seems to provide for the lack of rules as being a basis for >> anarchy. > >A dictionary is not an authoritative source in matters like this. In fact >the usual result of this sort of response is what is commonly known as a >"dictionary war". I shall refrain, and I hope that everyone else does so >too. This is why I refrained from posting the actual definitions from any of the three different dictionaries I keep at hand. The definitions do all vary, btw, from one dictionary to another. But if the dictionary is not the source of authority in this case, what is? If there is no source of authority, then we have anarchy. And if we have anarchy, then my definitions and arguments about whether we have anarchy are as valid as any other. If the network is truly anarchy, why do so many people spend so much time trying to bring others around to their way of thinking? To build a larger consensus base? For what purpose? To exert authority over others? Heavens! That would lead to the end of anarchy. >>the moderator of n.a.n seems to be approaching the dictatorial stage according >>to some people on the net. > >He thinks he has a certain power. Is this meant to imply that if I think I'm >god you shall bow down and worship me? If so, let me know right now so I can >start exacting a tithe... No. I referred to the n.a.n. situation to show that there are instances on the network where people have subjugated their newsgroup creation abilities to a single authority. The comment about the dictatorial stage was to point out that some do not believe that there is an adequate grievance procedure. /craig
craig@com50.c2s.mn.org (Craig Wilson) (11/19/90)
In article <8Pqis5w163w@cynic.wimsey.bc.ca> curt@cynic.wimsey.bc.ca (Curt Sampson) writes: >From The Random House College Dictionary: > > anarchy, n. 3. a theory that proposes the cooperative and > voluntary association of individuals and groups as the > principal mode of organised society. > >I think that this describes usenet pretty well. I must say that I have never seen that definition of anarchy. I have three dictionaries that I use depending upon where I am at and none of them come anywhere close to a definition like the one given above. >The usenet is basically a bunch of people who have come to some sort >of consensus about how to act and regulate themselves accordingly, >without any central authority. What would you call this if not an >anarchy? I still contend that there is centralized authority in some things. I wouldn't be able to call the Usenet any one word. We are dealing with a relatively new phenomenom. That is why I feel that arbitrarily attempting to categorize it in old terms is not fair. The words create the perception. The perception tries to become the reality. I had thought that one of the reasons for this particular group was to discuss the nature of the network and the interactions of it's participants and overseers. Why start by predjudicing the discussion? /craig
curt@cynic.wimsey.bc.ca (Curt Sampson) (11/19/90)
craig@com50.c2s.mn.org (Craig Wilson) writes: > In article <8Pqis5w163w@cynic.wimsey.bc.ca> curt@cynic.wimsey.bc.ca (Curt Sam > > >The usenet is basically a bunch of people who have come to some sort > >of consensus about how to act and regulate themselves accordingly, > >without any central authority. What would you call this if not an > >anarchy? > > I still contend that there is centralized authority in some things. Oh? How about some examples of this centralised authority? There is on the internet, but I have yet to see any on the usenet. > I wouldn't be able to call the Usenet any one word.... > That is why I feel that arbitrarily attempting > to categorize it in old terms is not fair. I'm not trying to define usenet in a word. "Anarchy" is one of many adjectives that can describe usenet. cjs curt@cynic.UUCP | "The unconscious self is the real genius. curt@cynic.wimsey.bc.ca | Your breathing goes wrong the minute your {uunet|ubc-cs}!van-bc!cynic!curt | conscious self meddles with it." --GBS
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (11/19/90)
In article <1990Nov18.160226.15864@com50.c2s.mn.org> craig@com50.c2s.mn.org (Craig Wilson) writes: > But if the dictionary is not the source of authority in this case, what is? > If there is no source of authority, then we have anarchy. And if we have > anarchy, then my definitions and arguments about whether we have anarchy > are as valid as any other. True. But as someone in this discussion mentioned one of the things about anarchy is having to put up with things that really piss you off. If language is an anarchy, and I have to put up with people calling phreaks "hackers", then you'll have to live with people calling usenet an "anarchy". Remember, you're the one objecting. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U` peter@ferranti.com
craig@com50.c2s.mn.org (Craig Wilson) (11/20/90)
In article <yLFVs4w163w@cynic.wimsey.bc.ca> curt@cynic.wimsey.bc.ca (Curt Sampson) writes: >Oh? How about some examples of this centralised authority? There is >on the internet, but I have yet to see any on the usenet. Moderated newsgroups and the newgroup creation "rights" consolidated in the hands of the moderator of news.announce.newgroups; to list the most obvious. /craig
curt@cynic.wimsey.bc.ca (Curt Sampson) (11/20/90)
craig@com50.c2s.mn.org (Craig Wilson) writes: > In article <yLFVs4w163w@cynic.wimsey.bc.ca> curt@cynic.wimsey.bc.ca (Curt Sam > >Oh? How about some examples of this centralised authority? There is > >on the internet, but I have yet to see any on the usenet. > > Moderated newsgroups and the newgroup creation "rights" consolidated in the > hands of the moderator of news.announce.newgroups; to list the most obvious. Oh? It's not too tough to post to moderated newsgroups without going though the moderator. I can do it with no difficulty whatsoever, and the only thing anyone can do to stop me is take away my feed. I could then go get one somewhere else if I were so inclined. The only way I could eventually be stopped is if enough individuals in the net were pissed off at me that it was impractical to get a feed. I don't see any "newgroup creation 'rights'" belonging to the moderator of news.announce.newgroups, either. I have yet to see a case where he has refused to post a call for discussion or a call for votes when asked a second time after a refusal. (In the recent controversy he turned down a rather stale call for votes and the poster turned around and started flaming away rather than asking a second time.) And again, there's nothing stopping me from generating a newgroup message any time I want. If enough people go along with it, it will be created no matter what any "central authority" or moderator has to say. And of course there's always the alt.* groups. So what control do these "central authorities" actually exert? To my eyes, they have no more than the rest of the net chooses to give them. If somebody in usenet gets quashed, it's not by a central authority. It's by the consensus of a large part of the net. cjs curt@cynic.UUCP | "The unconscious self is the real genius. curt@cynic.wimsey.bc.ca | Your breathing goes wrong the minute your {uunet|ubc-cs}!van-bc!cynic!curt | conscious self meddles with it." --GBS
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (11/20/90)
In article <1990Nov19.192456.3726@com50.c2s.mn.org> craig@com50.c2s.mn.org (Craig Wilson) writes: > Moderated newsgroups and the newgroup creation "rights" consolidated in the > hands of the moderator of news.announce.newgroups; to list the most obvious. Moderated newsgroups are moderated only by consensus. Consider that DDMI has suffered no penalties for forging approved messages to moderated groups. Newsgroup creation rights are available to all, if you can convince people to take your group. Consider all the alternate hierarchies, or groups that exist despite the opposition of the net.gods. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U` peter@ferranti.com
gl8f@astsun7.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) (11/21/90)
In article <173ws5w163w@cynic.wimsey.bc.ca> curt@cynic.wimsey.bc.ca (Curt Sampson) writes: >I don't see any "newgroup creation 'rights'" belonging to the >moderator of news.announce.newgroups, either. Well, the moderator of news.announce.newgroups himself claimed that a group couldn't possibly follow the guidelines unless the call for discussion and votes appear legimately in news.announce.newgroups, which can only happen if he decides to post them. This is only a problem in that people give Eliot such power. If you read the postings in news.groups, you'll see quite a few admins who don't bother to think for themselves. And that gives Eliot quite a bit of power. >So what control do these "central authorities" actually exert? To my >eyes, they have no more than the rest of the net chooses to give them. Precisely. But when most of the net is filled with sheep, that's quite a lot of power. Baaah. Baaah.
cat@tygra.ddmi.com (CAT-TALK Maint. Account) (11/21/90)
In article <173ws5w163w@cynic.wimsey.bc.ca> curt@cynic.wimsey.bc.ca (Curt Sampson) writes: "craig@com50.c2s.mn.org (Craig Wilson) writes: " "I don't see any "newgroup creation 'rights'" belonging to the "moderator of news.announce.newgroups, either. I have yet to see a "case where he has refused to post a call for discussion or a call for "votes when asked a second time after a refusal. " FALSE. Recently, a call for discussion about a new hierarchy called "ads" was posted and the moderator refused to allow it through. He sent me a message asking for more information about the hierarchy. I replied and he failed to post the call for discussion. This thing is so highly politically motivated that you just wouldn't believe it!! "So what control do these "central authorities" actually exert? To my "eyes, they have no more than the rest of the net chooses to give them. "If somebody in usenet gets quashed, it's not by a central authority. "It's by the consensus of a large part of the net. " Yes, in the controlled anarchy that is USENET, all citizens are responsible for justice, not just some central authority. In a way, thats kinda nice - people feel that they have some control.
gl8f@astsun7.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) (11/22/90)
In article <523@tygra.ddmi.com> jpp@tygra.ddmi.com (John Palmer) writes: >FALSE. Recently, a call for discussion about a new hierarchy called >"ads" was posted and the moderator refused to allow it through. Of course, in this case, such a hierarchy exists already. I'll leave it as an exercise for the poster to figure out what the name is, and how he can carry it on his (commercial) bbs. >Yes, in the controlled anarchy that is USENET, all citizens are >responsible for justice, not just some central authority. In a way, >thats kinda nice - people feel that they have some control. A good example of this was the outcry DDMI generated when DDMI started abusing comp.newprod. However, I'm still waiting for a public apology from DDMI for posting inappropriate material to a moderated newsgroup.
jim@piggy.ucsb.edu (Oreo Cat) (11/22/90)
In article <523@tygra.ddmi.com> jpp@tygra.ddmi.com (John Palmer) writes: >In article <173ws5w163w@cynic.wimsey.bc.ca> curt@cynic.wimsey.bc.ca (Curt Sampson) writes: >"craig@com50.c2s.mn.org (Craig Wilson) writes: >" >"I don't see any "newgroup creation 'rights'" belonging to the >"moderator of news.announce.newgroups, either. I have yet to see a >"case where he has refused to post a call for discussion or a call for >"votes when asked a second time after a refusal. >" > >FALSE. Recently, a call for discussion about a new hierarchy called >"ads" was posted and the moderator refused to allow it through. He sent >me a message asking for more information about the hierarchy. I replied >and he failed to post the call for discussion. This thing is so highly >politically motivated that you just wouldn't believe it!! > I'm interested in what Eliot's reasons for this is, but I bet I know why he refused your proposal. The core USENET groups are subject to the guidlines which prohibit commercial postings. Eliot is sort-of in charge of moderating the core USENET newgroups. Therefore if you want to add something to this core, you go through him. There are other groups which look just like USENET, but really aren't. These are 'alt' 'clari' 'biz', etc... They are not subject to the USENET guidlines. For instance in alt to get a new newsgroup all you have to do is propose in alt.config and if no one complains too much you go ahead and newgroup it. Anyways, back to the point. An 'ads' hierarchy would violate the policies of USENET. Thus Eliot could not do anything about it without getting flack. If you were to propose a change in the guidlines, that would be acceptible. If you get enough people to agree that commercial postings should be allowed in USENET, THEN you could propose the 'ads' hierarchy. Or what would be a lot easier: Just go ahead and create the new hierarchy yourself. Chances are that many sites would not carry it, but hey, you'd be in charge and could do whatever you want with it. You make the rules. Witness though that very few sites get the 'biz' hierarchy which is very similiar (if not the same) as what you propose. As a side note to everyone flaming Eliot. I think he's doing a great job. The only time he rejects anything is because it violates the guidlines. This is NOT HIS FAULT. This is the job we gave him to do. We as the Democratic Society of USENET Users are welcome to change the guidelines or appoint someone other than Eliot to do this job. He was very helpful when I was collecting votes for a newsgroup last spring, even though I was making tons of mistakes. Keep reminding yourself that this is a democracy and we can change it if we don't like it. If you really think there is a problem, make a suggestion to change things and start collecting votes. Jim Lick Work: University of California | Home: 6657 El Colegio #24 Santa Barbara | Isla Vista, CA 93117-4280 Dept. of Mechanical Engr. | (805) 968-0189 voice 2311 Engr II Building | (805) 968-1239 data 1 (805) 893-4113 | (805) 968-2734 data 2 jim@ferkel.ucsb.edu | bahamut!jim@ivucsb.sba.ca.us
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (11/22/90)
In article <1990Nov21.031701.18701@com50.c2s.mn.org>, craig@com50.c2s.mn.org (Craig Wilson) writes: > >The fortunate thing about what authority there is, is that it was > >mutually agreed to & debated/fought-over in public & was (in all > >ways) a Community Decision. Those who were interested enough > >partook, those who weren't have to live with the results. Actually, they didn't. They can do whatever they want in their own sys files. > This sounds suspiciously like some democracies I know. Nope, because there are no sanctions that can be imposed against those who disobey the rules so long as they injure no-one else. "An it harm no one, do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law" -- Aleister Crowley. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U` peter@ferranti.com
jpp@tygra.ddmi.com (John Palmer) (11/22/90)
In article <1990Nov21.170817.5352@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gl8f@astsun7.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes:
"A good example of this was the outcry DDMI generated when DDMI started
"abusing comp.newprod. However, I'm still waiting for a public apology
"from DDMI for posting inappropriate material to a moderated newsgroup.
"
I'll say this once and only once: We didn't post anything to a moderated
group. The posting was a forgery, and I suspect it was done by a
disgruntled ex-user of our BBS who was thrown off of the system for
security violations. End of discussion.craig@com50.c2s.mn.org (Craig Wilson) (11/22/90)
As examples of centralized authority on the Usenet, I provided: Moderated newsgroups and the newgroup creation "rights" consolidated in the hands of the moderator of news.announce.newgroups; to list the most obvious. In article <173ws5w163w@cynic.wimsey.bc.ca> curt@cynic.wimsey.bc.ca (Curt Sampson) writes: >I don't see any "newgroup creation 'rights'" belonging to the >moderator of news.announce.newgroups, either. I have yet to see a >case where he has refused to post a call for discussion or a call for >votes when asked a second time after a refusal. (In the recent >controversy he turned down a rather stale call for votes and the >poster turned around and started flaming away rather than asking a >second time.) And again, there's nothing stopping me from generating >a newgroup message any time I want. I think that it would be an interesting exercise for you to do this. I would like to see the results. I contend that your newgroup would be nullified immediately because you did not adhere to the guidelines. As a question: Do all news posters on your system have unrestricted newgroup ability? >If enough people go along with >it, it will be created no matter what any "central authority" or >moderator has to say. And of course there's always the alt.* groups. The majority of the system administrators (a level of authority) would not honor the newgroup because it would violate the guidelines. They have willingly decided to follow the guidelines for the betterment of the Usenet. This doesn't make them sheep (as indicated in another person's post), it makes them responsible. They are exercising the authority they have and are submitting to the authority they have agreed to follow. With respect to the alt.* hierarchy, even there, sending out a newgroup without notification in alt.config will generate some response from people who feel you have not followed "procedure". /craig
wcs) (11/24/90)
In article <1990Nov19.192456.3726@com50.c2s.mn.org>, craig@com50.c2s.mn.org (Craig Wilson) writes: > In article <> curt@cynic.wimsey.bc.ca (Curt Sampson) writes: > >Oh? How about some examples of this centralised authority? There is > >on the internet, but I have yet to see any on the usenet. > Moderated newsgroups and the newgroup creation "rights" consolidated in the > hands of the moderator of news.announce.newgroups; to list the most obvious. That's not authority - that's anarchy at it's best! In the absense of coercion, people will create order when order is useful, and that's what's happened here. Cooperation, not coercion. Drag out your old Greek dictionary, and look at the words: ana = not, arche = rulers. "No laws" would be something like "annomos" or "antinomy". Let's look at the structure of Usenet - most of us use a small number of software packages to transmit the news, and those packages give us the ability to originate, accept, and retransmit articles, and to read them in a convenient fashion. The software has convenient mechanisms for creating or deleting newsgroups, either automatically or manually, and we can decide whether to respond to requests, and whether to send out newgroups or rmgroups. The "rules" are agreed on by the community as a convenience, and define what will or will not annoy the general public. You don't have to follow them, and other people can ignore your control messages and complain to you about annoying them. By contrast, Prodigy's managers control their net, and they can censor messages or dump users if they want. The net.gods here can only flame you or refuse to relay your postings - they can't get rid of them. There are islands of archy in this anarchy - my employer has policies about use of their resources for netnews, so they can boot me off if I break the rules, and I can't create newsgroups on this news server machine, which feels somewhat coercive (it's not really, since my employment is a voluntary agreement between me and them.) But they can't tell YOU what newsgroups you can carry on your machine. -- Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart 908-949-0705 erebus.att.com!wcs AT&T Bell Labs 4M-312 Holmdel NJ Government is like an elephant on drugs: It's very confused, makes lots of noise, can't do anything well, stomps on anyone in its way, and it sure eats a lot.
craig@com50.c2s.mn.org (Craig Wilson) (11/28/90)
In article <S4476.7@xds13.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <1990Nov21.031701.18701@com50.c2s.mn.org>, craig@com50.c2s.mn.org (Craig Wilson) writes: >> >The fortunate thing about what authority there is, is that it was >> >mutually agreed to & debated/fought-over in public & was (in all >> >ways) a Community Decision. Those who were interested enough >> >partook, those who weren't have to live with the results. > >Actually, they didn't. They can do whatever they want in their own sys files. For the record, the text attributed to me above was, in fact, written by someone else and an apparent editing slip gave me authorship. >> This sounds suspiciously like some democracies I know. > >Nope, because there are no sanctions that can be imposed against those who >disobey the rules so long as they injure no-one else. >peter@ferranti.com Actually, I had discussed the lack of "official" penalties in a previous post. I think you would need to ask DDMI if there was any retribution for the actions they had taken. And if there were, were they sufficient to modify DDMI's net.behaviour. Were other sites close to DDMI affected by the penalties imposed by certain people on DDMI? I am, in no way, claiming that the Usenet is a democracy. I think that it is some of a lot of "-cies". In the development of the Electronic Frontier, though, I fear that the Usenet will have to define itself before some external forces set the definitions. /craig
cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) (11/29/90)
curt@cynic.wimsey.bc.ca (Curt Sampson) writes: }craig@com50.c2s.mn.org (Craig Wilson) writes: }> In article <yLFVs4w163w@cynic.wimsey.bc.ca> curt@cynic.wimsey.bc.ca (Curt Sam }> >Oh? How about some examples of this centralised authority? There is }> >on the internet, but I have yet to see any on the usenet. }> }> Moderated newsgroups and the newgroup creation "rights" consolidated in the }> hands of the moderator of news.announce.newgroups; to list the most obvious. }Oh? It's not too tough to post to moderated newsgroups without going }though the moderator. Indeed. Alt.hackers is, in fact, a "moderated" group but has no moderator. In order to post to that group at all, you have to be enough of a hacker to be able to figure out how to forge an approval. No big deal... /Bernie\
nagle@well.sf.ca.us (John Nagle) (12/01/90)
Historically, anarchy doesn't work; it breaks down into banditry or feudalism. But computer-mediated anarchies can work, as we see with USENET and FIDO. This is a major suprise. Suprises like this are rare in the history of human behavior. A new way for large numbers of people to do something together over a considerable period of time has been found. The previous development in that direction was the invention of the stock corporation, and that changed the world. So might this. John Nagle
craig@com50.c2s.mn.org (Craig Wilson) (12/02/90)
In article <21881@well.sf.ca.us> nagle@well.sf.ca.us (John Nagle) writes: > > Historically, anarchy doesn't work; it breaks down into banditry or >feudalism. I have been contending for a long time that what we have now IS close to feudalism. But it is a flavor of feudalism where the peasants have a lot more freedom of speech than what one normally would assume to be the case. And since the duke is either away or napping at a lot of the nodes, that makes it possible for the rest of us to feud all we what. This gives many people the false impression of anarchy on the Usenet. As for the banditry route, maybe that is what will come of the talk to impose a "tax" on the entire Usenet to pay for the testing and distribution of comp.sources.unix. >But computer-mediated anarchies can work, as we see with >USENET and FIDO. This is a major suprise. Suprises like this are rare >in the history of human behavior. A new way for large numbers of >people to do something together over a considerable period of time has been >found. The previous development in that direction was the invention of the >stock corporation, and that changed the world. This sounds like a discussion for another time. /craig