Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version Vortex 1.0 6/6/83; site vortex.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!vortex!lauren
From: Lauren Weinstein 
Newsgroups: net.news
Subject: Censorship and Moderated Newsgroups
Message-ID: <79@vortex.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 5-Aug-83 02:22:20 EDT
Article-I.D.: vortex.79
Posted: Fri Aug  5 02:22:20 1983
Date-Received: Mon, 1-Aug-83 07:00:00 EDT
Organization: Vortex Technology, Los Angeles
Lines: 58

I'd like to clarify one point -- it is in the Usenet, Inc. environment
that "censorship" is most likely to eventually occur (due to liability
and monetary considerations).  Such an outcome is not likely
within moderated newsgroups operating in our current environment.
The lack of a central authority prevents any centralized attempts
to "steer" the course of discussions, and the current "spread" costs
of the network avoid monetary restrictions from unnecessarily 
preventing reasonable discussions from taking place.

In my view, the purpose of moderated groups (and/or digests) within
our current Usenet would *not* be to restrict the flow of information
to "useful" topics nor to prevent certain individuals from participating
in discussions.  However, moderators would be able to perform a number
of useful functions.  Most of our current "problem traffic" is the
result of "timing problems" (e.g. most of the "multiple messages"
we see that essentially duplicate each other), or lack of education
regarding appropriate newsgroups for various messages.  Both of these
problems may be classed as "accidental" -- they're not the result
of a determined effort to harass people or clog the network.

So, our moderators (distributed around the net) would simply act
to prevent the "accidental" incidents from getting out of control.
When a particular topic generates large volumes of "duplicate"
responses (e.g. the "BTW" topic) he or she would return most of the later
messages back to their senders, with a note explaining that the topic
had already been covered by previous messages.  Of course, the
moderator would not treat messages with significantly different content
in this manner -- such messages would be distributed.  If the
author of a "duplicate" message really wished it to be sent anyway,
even after being notified as to the current situation, the moderator
would of course be willing to do so, probably with an appropriate
explanatory note for the network readers.  In some cases, the 
moderator might find it useful to distribute "summary" articles
that incorporated some of the various replies, or to simply note (or list
the names of) the various people who contributed similar statements
on the current question.

The whole point here is simply to allow questions to be answered
with a minimum of repetition through careful, but non-intrusive,
moderating of incoming materials to some groups.

The moderator would perform a similar function when it came to
"mis-addressed" articles.  In this case, a message would be sent
back to the sender suggesting the "proper" group for the original
message.  Once again, if the author insisted, the message would
be distributed in any case.

In our current NON-Usenet, Inc. world, the freedom to distribute
any message does not rest on the monetary or liability considerations
of some central authority -- I for one would sure like to keep
it that way!  I believe that most net users would greatly appreciate
the ability to avoid having their messages (unknowingly) duplicate
other messages already in the pipeline, or to be informed when
the "incorrect" newsgroup was used for a submission.  As I mentioned
above, most of our problems are the result of "accidental" interactions,
not the result of deliberate acts.

--Lauren--