Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site watmath.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!bstempleton From: bstempleton@watmath.UUCP (Brad Templeton) Newsgroups: net.news Subject: Re: Usenet, Inc., etc. Message-ID: <5577@watmath.UUCP> Date: Tue, 26-Jul-83 00:20:14 EDT Article-I.D.: watmath.5577 Posted: Tue Jul 26 00:20:14 1983 Date-Received: Tue, 26-Jul-83 04:48:55 EDT References: <73@vortex.UUCP> Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario Lines: 61 Thanks Lauren and Larry for comments. Let's consider. Lauren says the net is not broken, so don't fix it. At the end of the message, he lists problems (BTW for example) and alternate solutions to usenet inc. I think you must agree, Lauren that the question of a broken (or breaking) net is not that clear cut. I do admit the bureaucrat problem could be big. To solve that, i would suggest articles for USENET inc that forbid what we do not want. Sort of a constitution or Bill of Rights. Anyway, I maintain this would not be a big problem. In the beginning, USENET inc could operate exactly as things do now, just as another node that centralizes database connection. It would talk only to rich sites that could afford it and those rich sites who are paying for the net now could continue to do this by feeding to others. Things would only change if people wanted them too, ie. paid for them. This is the same democracy you have both spoken of. (The current system where anybody can spend the money of the rich companies which support usenet regardless of their financial status is nothing but socialism, of course, which I never thought was a common philosophy on the net. Not that socialism is necessarily invalid for a net, mind you, but I am not a socialist myself) I am not sure on the legal questions. Surely the precedents in forwarding and transport companies are clear. Does Telco take legal liability for what is said on the phone? Does Telenet or Tymnet? Does Federal Express? No, only editors could take this burden, and in this case that's fine because they will be sure to not allow libel or slander to be posted, as is their duty under the laws of our society. Will the rich sites do all the posting? This is the socialism question again. My solution is the same as Lauren's, namely moderators and digests. Except usenet inc provides a very easy framework in which to put such moderators. This includes a central site for them to be on, and somebody to pay for insurance against any legal problems. The idea is that everybody takes collect (just like today) what the moderators sends, because they trust it (just like when they pay for a magazine) and know they will not see 30 expansions of BTW. If a site elects to act just like today (this is just as much democracy as anything else) they can accept all things collect. If somebody sends something that the moderator refuses, then I see nothing wrong with forcing them to pay to send it. As long as the moderators are subject to censure for mistakes, we will be in the clear. Thus the usenet inc bill of rights would allow any user to insist the moderator post their article with disclaimer and allow the community at large to support or censure the moderator. If they support the moderator, the poster pays, if they censure, the community pays and considers firing the moderator. The biggest problem with the whole thing is the "Usenet as a separate item" problem. Currently a lot of usenet is supported by hiding the costs in large corporate phone bills, duping the people who are paying the money. This is just plain dishonest, but if you approve of it, that is your right. At this site, we do pay the usenet bill as a separate item, and any cost reduction due to economy of scale would probably be welcome. -- Brad Templeton - Waterloo, Ont. (519) 886-7304