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 WeinsteinNewsgroups: 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--