cwc (09/01/82)
Am I mistaken, or aren't the vast majority (if not all) of the machines on this net owned by institutions rather than individuals? Like it or not, folks, management holds the purse strings, and they can do as they damn well please if they feel their resources are being misused, even in academia! Rant and rave as you will about your right to say anything you please on the net, but you will eventually be talking to yourself (pro- vided you still have access) if too many people in positions of power get fed up with the nonsense. And if management doesn't get fed up first, consider how many people have permanently turned off their CB radios because of the uncontrollable trash broadcast over the public airwaves. They've opted out of an enjoy- able and potentially useful facility because a segment of the population feels its "freedom to speak" includes no obligation to respect the sensi- bilities of others. I'd hate to see Netnews go the way of the Carrier Pidgeon because a suf- ficient number of contributors wouldn't exercise a little self-control. Chip Christ BTL, Murray Hill, NJ ...mxuht!cwc
gill (09/02/82)
#R:mhuxt:-105800:physics:15800002:000:3325 physics!gill Sep 1 18:46:00 1982 Perhaps I should clarify things a bit. I have no objection to any particular site deciding not to forward a particular news group it finds not worth devoting resources to. There are many sites which presently do this. It is a shame, but you can't tell people where to spend their money. It would be nice if netnews were a bit smarter in routing news groups. Obviously, it wasn't designed with the idea of certain machines blocking transmission of particular groups. Similarly, the mail system wasn't designed to accomodate machines which block through traffic, and it is a problem which is slowly being dealt with (uumail does a reasonable job, provided the map is correct). What we need is a better router. I don't know of any at present which will do the job without an large replicated database (ala uumail). Perhaps someone out there will come up with one. What I find unacceptable is the idea of "cancelling" a news group such as net.jokes, because a particular person who is generally looked up to as an influential supporter of netnews thinks it isn't worth the flack. To be fair, Mark did ask for discussion of alternatives. I strongly feel that network wide cancellation is both impossible to achieve and idealogically intolerable. If any particular machine doesn't want net.jokes, it can refuse to accept it. If any user doesn't want to see it, he/she can tell netnews not to show it. Why try and impose authority over the entire network (include sites like ours that enjoy net.jokes)? Perhaps it is feared that BTL high ups will see that things the PUC wouldn't like rate payers money being spent on traversing netnews. Well, if, and when, that day comes, all BTL sites will have to disallow net.jokes. I sincerely doubt this will ever happen, but in any case, we certainly don't have to censor ourselves in the mean time. I don't believe by censoring ourselves we are avoiding any greater disaster. The Russian government doesn't have to worry about public outcry over its decisions. Certainly the comrads are more productive when they're not out in the street. Certainly there is less chance of crises if the people are repressed. Do these benifits really outweigh the other sort of progress which is made when people are free to speak? Though I feal great hatred toward Neo Nazis marching in the US, I wouldn't want to prevent them from expressing their opinions. Mark: without any doubt, you are correct in stating that the network eventually will be much calmer if you cancel net.jokes. Ask yourself what the difference between doing this and repressing the dissidents in Russia is. The only difference I see is that jokes aren't nearly as important. The principle is the same. I got upset when people were broadcasting GSU jokes. I sent them mail, and sometimes expressed my feelings publicly. What I did not do is advocate "cutting them off from the network" or otherwise censoring any more of their jokes. I liked the CB radio analogy. The ham bands are much more mature. I see no reason why we can't have the same sort of stuff going on in net.jokes. Why not three net.jokes groups, ranging from Victorian to uninhibited? Any site can refuse any or all three. In the mean time, lets not whip ourselves whenever we fear the higher ups are about to. Gill Pratt alice!gill OR gill@mc
gill (10/08/82)
#R:mhuxt:-105800:physics:15800002:000:3325 physics!gill Sep 1 18:46:00 1982 Perhaps I should clarify things a bit. I have no objection to any particular site deciding not to forward a particular news group it finds not worth devoting resources to. There are many sites which presently do this. It is a shame, but you can't tell people where to spend their money. It would be nice if netnews were a bit smarter in routing news groups. Obviously, it wasn't designed with the idea of certain machines blocking transmission of particular groups. Similarly, the mail system wasn't designed to accomodate machines which block through traffic, and it is a problem which is slowly being dealt with (uumail does a reasonable job, provided the map is correct). What we need is a better router. I don't know of any at present which will do the job without an large replicated database (ala uumail). Perhaps someone out there will come up with one. What I find unacceptable is the idea of "cancelling" a news group such as net.jokes, because a particular person who is generally looked up to as an influential supporter of netnews thinks it isn't worth the flack. To be fair, Mark did ask for discussion of alternatives. I strongly feel that network wide cancellation is both impossible to achieve and idealogically intolerable. If any particular machine doesn't want net.jokes, it can refuse to accept it. If any user doesn't want to see it, he/she can tell netnews not to show it. Why try and impose authority over the entire network (include sites like ours that enjoy net.jokes)? Perhaps it is feared that BTL high ups will see that things the PUC wouldn't like rate payers money being spent on traversing netnews. Well, if, and when, that day comes, all BTL sites will have to disallow net.jokes. I sincerely doubt this will ever happen, but in any case, we certainly don't have to censor ourselves in the mean time. I don't believe by censoring ourselves we are avoiding any greater disaster. The Russian government doesn't have to worry about public outcry over its decisions. Certainly the comrads are more productive when they're not out in the street. Certainly there is less chance of crises if the people are repressed. Do these benifits really outweigh the other sort of progress which is made when people are free to speak? Though I feal great hatred toward Neo Nazis marching in the US, I wouldn't want to prevent them from expressing their opinions. Mark: without any doubt, you are correct in stating that the network eventually will be much calmer if you cancel net.jokes. Ask yourself what the difference between doing this and repressing the dissidents in Russia is. The only difference I see is that jokes aren't nearly as important. The principle is the same. I got upset when people were broadcasting GSU jokes. I sent them mail, and sometimes expressed my feelings publicly. What I did not do is advocate "cutting them off from the network" or otherwise censoring any more of their jokes. I liked the CB radio analogy. The ham bands are much more mature. I see no reason why we can't have the same sort of stuff going on in net.jokes. Why not three net.jokes groups, ranging from Victorian to uninhibited? Any site can refuse any or all three. In the mean time, lets not whip ourselves whenever we fear the higher ups are about to. Gill Pratt alice!gill OR gill@mc
andy (10/09/82)
Let's free net.jokes! Let net.jokes be net.jokes! -- Andy Rodnite