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: Usenet, Inc. -- The Saga Continues...
Message-ID: <77@vortex.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 28-Jul-83 17:20:22 EDT
Article-I.D.: vortex.77
Posted: Thu Jul 28 17:20:22 1983
Date-Received: Fri, 29-Jul-83 13:10:15 EDT
Organization: Vortex Technology, Los Angeles
Lines: 192


	
Lauren here.
Let's reply specifically to Brad's points...

--------------------------
Start of edited transcript
--------------------------

Posted: Tue Jul 26 00:20:14 1983
From: bstempleton@watmath.UUCP (Brad Templeton)
Newsgroups: net.news

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 said that the net, "in general", was not broken.  The
	"problems" I cite are not indications of a general breakdown,
	but are very specific to user education and patterns of
	usage.  Using "Usenet, Inc." to try cure those problems would
	be like trying to kill a fly with a sledgehammer.  My opinion
	is that the exact same problems would continue to exist
	under Usenet, Inc., except then people would be explicitly paying
	for them.  "Surgical" solutions to the specific problems,
	not a wholesale reorganization, is what's really called for.
	We don't need Usenet, Inc. to solve such problems.

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.

	"Forbid"?  Sounds more like a declaration of martial law
	than a "Bill of Rights" to me...
	
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.

	What this actually does is create a formal "rich vs. poor"
	framework, and would eventually result in many small
	sites withering away.  Why?  Because administrators, faced
	with paying the bill for "Usenet, Inc." are hardly likely
	to sanction "charity" on top of that bill (in most cases).
	I see absolutely no advantage to the proposed scheme over
	what we currently have in this regard.

(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.)

	Sounds like part of the argument used to break up AT&T. 
	We're all starting to see exactly how *that* wonderful fiasco 
        threatens to affect local phone rates.  I don't want to see the same
	sort of thing happen to Usenet.  Socialism and Capitalism
	should have nothing whatsoever to do with this situation.

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.

	The precedents are decidedly UNCLEAR.  I believe that there
	have indeed been lawsuits against "transport" companies
	and utilities for harrassing and undesired mail/calls.  
	By extension, this would seem possible for "electronic mail"
	companies as well.  You haven't seen this yet since the
	industry is so young and most usage (up to now, at least)
	has been heavily "business"-oriented with little 
	informal communications taking place on a large scale.
	I expect to see the first lawsuits (against some
	firm(s) in the electronic mail business) within the next few years.

	It is also not always clear what "libel" or "slander" really
	are, which tends to cause organizations with possible
	legal liability to err in the direction of conservatism,
	rejecting material which might even *possibly* be *considered*
	to be offensive.

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.

	I don't believe it.  You sure as hell don't need
	a central authority to set up digests and/or moderators.
	I don't want the editorial decisions of such persons all 
	tied in with one company, nor do I want them concentrated
	on one machine (or group of machines).  The moderator/digest
	concept will work fine within our current distributed 
	framework, without centralizing (which can only cause problems
	if the "central sites" are down or having other difficulties)
	and without putting all control in the hands of a single entity.
	
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.

	How does *this* work?  If any user can INSIST that
	his/her article will be posted, then any legal protection
	against slander/libel is completely lost.  If The Corporation
	is going to protect itself, it will be *forced* to firmly
	reject many articles.  A "disclaimer" does not necessarily
	protect you from lawsuits related to slander, libel, etc.
	You are STILL responsible.
	
	I might add that, legally, I can imagine the GREAT time that
	The Corporation would have in court trying to explain
	that, "well, you see, *this* article was direct to Usenet,
	and *this* one was through one of *our* moderators, so we're
	not responsible for the first."  Good luck.  Anybody who
	sets themselves up as a central administration site on the
	network in this way is setting themselves up to be responsible
	for all traffic when someone is searching for an entity to blame.

If they support the moderator, the poster pays, if they censure, the
community pays and considers firing the moderator.

	And just how do we determine what "the community" really thinks?
	Online vote?  We've tried that before.  Or perhaps only the
	"paying" customers of Usenet, Inc. would get a vote?  That would
	certainly be a much smaller group of people and easier to poll.
	Totally unfair of course, but easier.  Let's forget about this
	"poster pays" nonsense once and for all.

The biggest problem with the whole thing is the "Usenet as a seperate 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 seperate item, and any
cost reduction due to economy of scale would probably be welcome.

	"Duping"?  "Dishonest"?  Strong words.	I don't believe
	that many administrators are completely oblivious to 
	the size of phone bills related to Usenet.  If a site is
	spending enough money that way to make a real difference,
	those bills will be noticed.  But there *is* a difference
	between money spent for "informal" communications with other
	computers (which is our current Usenet) and paying a "bill"
	to some profit-making corporation.  In the latter case, you
	can be damn sure that administrators are going to be MUCH more
	carefully scrutinizing the money being spent, and will probably say
	something like, "Well, we're paying that company for network
	materials, so we don't also want to spend money for that
	"uncontrolled" material we're getting" (that is, the materials
	not coming through The Corporation).  The result: the 
	non-Corporation network withers away, and we're left with
	all significant traffic being directed through, and controlled
	by, Usenet, Inc.  Sites that couldn't afford Usenet, Inc. or
	disagreed with their policies would be simply out of luck.
	Bye bye network.

------------------------
End of edited transcript
------------------------

The single most important step we can take RIGHT NOW to improve the
overall functionality of the network is to implement moderated newsgroups
to replace some of the more verbose standard newsgroups.  We can handle
the technical problems in various ways -- but this single step will
probably do more toward ensuring the continued viability of the net than
any other course of action, and with by far the fewest negative
side-effects.

--Lauren--

P.S.  I'd like to take this opportunity to collectively thank those
      of you who expressed support (via direct mail) for the views
      in my original "Usenet, Inc., etc." message.

      It's nice to know that I'm not standing (er, uh, sitting)
      here alone.

--LW--