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