Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cbosgd.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!mark From: mark@cbosgd.UUCP (Mark Horton) Newsgroups: net.news.stargate Subject: Re: Moderate landline Usenet first? Message-ID: <703@cbosgd.UUCP> Date: Mon, 14-Jan-85 11:09:36 EST Article-I.D.: cbosgd.703 Posted: Mon Jan 14 11:09:36 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 15-Jan-85 01:40:44 EST References: <494@vortex.UUCP> <1917@sun.uucp> Organization: Bell Labs, Columbus Lines: 36 In article <1942@sun.uucp> gnu@sun.uucp (John Gilmore) writes: >I agree that lots of Usenet submissions are trash. Everything is trash >to somebody. What I don't want is centralized control. It is important that there be some control over a significant part of what goes out, in order to keep the quality up. There is no reason, however, for this control to be CENTRALIZED. In fact, I view the moderation process as a way to distribute the control - each moderator controls only one newsgroup, and there are lots of newsgroups. While there will be some communication between the moderators, there won't be anyone twisting a moderators arm. Indeed, if there is really a significant demand, there could even be elections of moderators. My experience so far has been that there aren't enough people willing to be moderators to cover everything, must less a surplus to decide between. But if someone feels a moderator has become a censor and wants to take over that moderators job, there is no reason we couldn't hold an election. >For example, I submitted a message to the Arpanet >mailing list corresponding to "fa.telecom" describing the temporary >shutdown of a telecom-related magazine (TAP). It was rejected by the >"moderator" who would not publish it because he was afraid DARPA would >object -- because the magazine was "out of favor" with the government. For those of us who have seen TAP (it's the publication by the phone phreaks, the ones who tell you how to make free phone calls - hardly what I would call a "magazine", more like a xeroxed newsletter) and the ARPANET (whose inhabitants live in mortal fear of being yanked off if they misuse what is really a military network), this is hardly surprising. My guess is that such a posting (telling that it's suspended publication because it's been torched) would make it past a Usenet moderator. On the other hand, if it contained excerpts from TAP telling how to build a blue box, chances are it would not get past. Mark Horton