Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cithep.UucP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!princeton!astrovax!cithep!tim
From: tim@cithep.UucP (Tim Smith )
Newsgroups: net.news
Subject: Re: WARNING
Message-ID: <69@cithep.UucP>
Date: Sat, 19-Jan-85 02:40:24 EST
Article-I.D.: cithep.69
Posted: Sat Jan 19 02:40:24 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 20-Jan-85 05:05:58 EST
References: <387@hercules.UUCP>
Lines: 134

>
Organization: Caltech HEP, Pasadena, CA
Lines: 130

>      Unfortunately, the people who have promoted this scheme
> could  not  leave  well  enough  alone.   They felt that the
> volume of "garbage" flowing through the net  was  too  high.

Like long messages posted to multiple groups?

> They  felt  that the carrier of these messages might be able
> to be sued for possibly libelous messages. 

Are you willing to pay for legal fees and damages awarded against
the people who administrate STARGATE if it turns out that they are
legally responsible for what goes through the system?  Note that you
can not just say that it would be wrong to hold them responsible.  Only
the courts and/or the legislature can decide this issue.  Until this
comes to pass, why should the STARGATE people risk their money and time?

> this  was  their  chance  to  play God and they took it.  In
> short, the new network will have no unmoderated news.
> 
Since when is it "playing God" to protect yourself?  If you want
unmoderated groups, then get your Congresscritter to do something
to make clear the legal situation.  Then, after that is done, if
the STARGATE people still want to moderate, you might be justified
in saying that they just want to "play God".

By the way, what say ye STARGATE people on this?  If you could be
sure that there were no legal problems with fully unmoderated news,
would that be what we would get, or would we still have moderation?

Note to Lauren:  Don't waste time answering the above "by the way"
if it will take time away from working on STARGATE!  You certainly
have justified STARGATE to enough of us to make the project worthwhile.

>      Any message that is to be transmitted through  STARGATE
> will  be  screened  by a  moderator for "suitability of con-
> tent",  "possibility of libel",  and  other  vague  criteria
> which  only  he  moderators will know.  You won't be able to

If we assume that the moderators are nice fellows who are only trying
to meet legal requirements for this thing, then there should not be
much of a problem with unknown "vague criteria".  We can all go read the law.
Yes, it will still be "vague criteria", but at least we will all know it! :-)

>      The new people in power bleat, "We're saving  the  net.
> Without  this  the backbone sites will desert, anyway." What
> good is saving the net if only the people in power can enjoy
> it?   If  they  cared about the net (and not just their cozy

Assume for the sake of argument that you are correct in everything
that you say.  Then what are they doing wrong?  If the net is going
to collapse anyway, what is wrong with the STARGATE people setting
up a net of their own?  In fact, if the net is NOT going to collapse
what is wrong with the STARGATE people setting up a net of their own?

And if USENET can't compete, then maybe USENET should die!
Look, if USENET is cheaper than STARGATE, or provides some
functionality that STARGATE doesn't, and that is economically worthwhile
TO THE PEOPLE WHO PAY THE BILLS, then USENET will not die!

> little portion of it) they'd fight in their  institutions to
> save  it.   The news network, as it stands now, is something
> unique and should not be drastically altered.

Here is a little experiment for you to try.

Go to the lobby of your building, or wherever it is you people throw
the magazines that the company subscribes to.  What do you have?  At
Callan we have things like BYTE, UNIX World, Systems & Software, etc.
You get the idea.

Now go to the person with the checkbook at your company and try to convince
him/her that you want the company to get the following:

	1:	Playgirl
	2:	Chess Life
	3:	Modern Romances
	4:	The Advocate

After the laughter stops, tell them you want to spend money and time to
hook up to a computer network so that you can receive

	1:	net.women.only
	2:	net.chess
	3:	net.singles
	4:	net.motss

Good Luck! 
> 
>      What can we do about this?  I  really  can't  think  of
> much.  The net has always been voluntary.  One thing is cer-
> tain, though.  As soon as STARGATE  goes  into  effect,  the
> chances  for  a free network surviving is nil.  The institu-
> tions involved can point to STARGATE and say that there's  a
> perfectly good network right there.  There will be very lit-
> tle chance to start a new network at that time.  So the only

The problem is that the people who pay the money aren't the people
who want the net.  How much would all of you out there who want the
USENET to continue the way it is be willing to pay to read net.all?
If the total at your site is more than the net costs at your site,
then we are starting to make progress.  If the total is MORE than
your local cost, and if this is true at enough sites to generate
money to pay costs at the backbone sites, then we are on our way!

TANSTAAFL

> Set up an alternative network to take this net's place  when
> it  folds.  Hopefully, there will be a place for unmoderated
> news posting when this is over.
> 
And what happens when this new net gets too big?  When phone bills
get too high?  It will either collapse, or become a satellite net!
( And when this happens, may I suggest we call the satellite DEFENDER? :-) )

>      The organizers have been less  than  honest  with  you.
> They  hide  in  net.news (and net.news.stargate), discussing
> these things which will alter  your  news  service,  without
> generally  informing  the  public.  The first you would have

Gosh!  You mean they post their STARGATE stuff to the proper
newsgroups?  They must be out to destroy USENET tradition!

> 
>                          Stop the STARGATE,
>                          Frank Adrian
-- 
Duty Now for the Future

					Tim Smith
				ihnp4!{wlbr!callan,cithep}!tim