Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version VT1.00C 11/1/84; site vortex.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!godot!harvard!seismo!harpo!decvax!vortex!lauren From: lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein) Newsgroups: net.news Subject: Re: Need for Stargate screening? Message-ID: <498@vortex.UUCP> Date: Sun, 6-Jan-85 18:01:50 EST Article-I.D.: vortex.498 Posted: Sun Jan 6 18:01:50 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 8-Jan-85 05:16:11 EST References: <1917@sun.uucp> Organization: Vortex Technology, Los Angeles Lines: 145 [LONG MESSAGE] John, Feel free to call me if you want to talk about this stuff in depth. I've been over this again and again, and I'm sorry if I'm offending your attitudes on these matters. Be that as it may: 1) There will be insufficient bandwidth to send all materials indefinitely, even with high speeds, and the percentage of netnews that represent repetitious or useless articles continues to grow. This growth will be astronomical as more sites join the net. 2) Even if there WERE such bandwidth, very few people would have the time or inclination to wade through all the muck to find articles of interest. Most people contacting me on this topic have been at least as excited about the prospect of a higher overall quality in netnews as about the means of distribution. A few people can't seem to understand the difference between editing and censorship, or the fact that many people no longer even read netnews since they simply do not have the time to pick through all the flames and meaningless repetitions. 3) The legal issues surrounding national broadcast of materials are sufficiently cloudy that it appears likely that screening will be necessary simply to avoid transmission of materials that may constitute libelous or previously copyrighted works. Even if the project is theoretically in the right if it took a "common carrier" stance (which it can't do anyway due to bandwidth and other considerations) the existence of a single broadcast point will make it a logical target for lawsuits by people who imagine (rightly or wrongly) that their rights have been violated. The project might ultimately win such suits, but we don't want the suits in the first place, for obvious reasons. Every day, I see cases of copyrighted materials posted to the net without permission. Right now there is no one entity to easily sue. With the project, that entity would be much more obvious. The history of such suits shows that both the author and the agency that did the distribution of the material tend to be sued in such cases. 4) The satellite carrier (which is not a subsidiary of Turner -- Turner has nothing whatever to say about this) is not interested in simply providing us a "free" satellite channel to save us phone costs. They are interested in working with us to establish a useful information service with public submission of materials. They are NOT doing this for their health, but hope to have a service that will be of general interest to lots of people. This doesn't mean they expect to get rich quick -- they know they won't and they appreciate the experimental aspects of Usenet and that people don't have a lot of money to spend. There has never been a broadcast service that allows the "public" to submit materials for transmission in this manner. They feel that the time is right for such a service. They think the Usenet community represents a logical group that could contribute to and benefit from such a service, so they are willing to go a long way to help get such a thing started. But this does NOT mean that they are just doing this for charity and saying, "Sure, send all your junk -- we're just swell guys." 5) The company is not on the net, mainly because they simply don't have the time to be. I'm arranging for them to have an account on vortex so that I can forward them materials of interest, but after I showed them an unbiased sample of netnews, one comment I heard was -- well, let me put it to you this way. I had to make it clear that we didn't intend to send that typical sample of material (there were 15 messages saying almost exactly the same thing in net.misc in the random sample I took) without some filtering. They really couldn't believe that people spent money (for phone calls) to send so many low-information-content messages around. I got the impression that they were starting to get cold feet about what they were getting into. And who can blame them. They want a high quality service. Not a high-tech conduit for net.flame. And I agree with them. I convinced them of this and the project went ahead. 6) The satellite people are in general quite reasonable about what sort of material should be broadcast. I think that with common sense we'll have a great deal of latitude. But if we start yelling and screaming that EVERYTHING should be broadcast with no screening or controls, they're going to say, "Why the hell should we help support this? This isn't a useful information service suitable for national broadcast." And they'll pull the plug so fast our heads will spin. Remember that the only reason we have the chance to get the satellite time and access essentially for free is that the company is interested in participating in the project to create something useful. We'd be paying full satellite rates (or rather, not paying them -- since we could never afford them, even collectively, and that would be that: no project) under other conditions. They are NOT simply giving us satellite space and saying, "Go ahead, do anything you like -- we don't care. We love giving away satellite time and computer resources..." Rather, they want to build something of value with us. 7) I encourage those who are not interested in the satellite project, and who insist that an information system is of no value unless EVERYTHING is sent, no matter how libelous, mundane, or useless, not to participate in the project. Feel free to keep using the existing network and send ANYTHING your heart desires. That's what it's there for, I guess. But frankly, the satellite project isn't being operated on the basis of a network-wide vote. Those who don't want to participate need not. Those who want to join in of course are encouraged to do so. There are technical, legal, and practical considerations that shape the project in various ways which are not necessarily subject to personal opinions or desires, including mine. We are working to bring about a useful service. Nobody will be forced to participate. The existing network can continue to operate just as it does now for those who prefer it. But I do not feel prohibited from working toward something that might be a bit better for many of us, for the use of those of us who prefer it. I appreciate your opinions, but you must realize that there are factors in a project like this that are not subject to our personal feelings about how the universe might "ideally" be structured. Usenet, operating as an anarchy of separate machines, is one hell of a lot different than sending data to over 30 million homes (plus direct satellite feeds) over a national network. To put it bluntly, some of you are looking a terrific gift horse in the mouth. And if you keep it up, you'll succeed in destroying something that could be quite nice. You cannot possibly realize how much was involved in even getting THIS FAR -- I haven't emphasized the difficulties and false hopes that eventually led to "success." I didn't just snap my fingers and pop up with satellite time. It was a lot of work and I enjoyed doing it. But please understand that maybe, just maybe, you might not be fully aware of all the factors that must coexist to make such a project possible from a practical standpoint. I refuse to keep going over this again and again publicly. People who want to argue these topics should contact me directly, by netmail or phone. I welcome your opinions, and I'm taking the opinions I hear into account, but that doesn't mean that the project is operating on the basis of network-wide votes. If it did, I can absolutely guarantee that it would never get off the ground. I realize (from my private mail) that the overwhelming majority of you apparently support the project. To you I say thanks, I appreciate your support. If I didn't think the support was there, I wouldn't be continuing with this work. In Dallas, I hope to have the time to discuss some of the aspects of the project that I simply don't have the time to put into written messages just now. I'll of course be happy to talk with any of you there about the project in detail, as time allows. Thanks much. --Lauren--