Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84 chuqui version 1.7 9/23/84; site nsc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!cbosgd!ihnp4!nsc!chuqui From: chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) Newsgroups: net.news.group Subject: Re: Save net.flame! (clarifying some comments) Message-ID: <2952@nsc.UUCP> Date: Tue, 9-Jul-85 15:09:03 EDT Article-I.D.: nsc.2952 Posted: Tue Jul 9 15:09:03 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 11-Jul-85 07:57:00 EDT References: <1119@vax135.UUCP> Reply-To: chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) Organization: The Dreamer Fithp Lines: 122 cjp make some assumptions on my thoughts that I don't agree with, so I thought I would clarify my position -- In article <1119@vax135.UUCP> cjp@vax135.UUCP (Charles Poirier) writes: >The net can only be as mature as the people who contribute to it. >History has shown that there will always be a few immature >contributors. The volume of immature postings has grown. It is easier to ignore 2 articles out of 10 than it is 25 out of a hundred. Size and maturity are interrelated because the tolerance for immaturity goes away as the volume increases. > But what I hear Chuq saying is that censorship is effective and >necessary, to make space for the "important" groups. If and when it >becomes necessary, the choice of discardable groups can be made. But >this should be done by considering all groups at once in a global >optimization, not as a divide-and-conquer hatchet job. I don't consider making space available for important groups censorship. The content of net.flame is immaterial. My opinion is that the 'If and when it becomes neccessary' is NOW, and that is why I'm taking the stand I'm taking. What I'm attempting to do is a global optimization. I've got a list of prioritized newsgroups for my sites and my downstream neighbors, and we're eating away at the bottom of the list while protecting as much of the net as possible. I'm also trying to do that on a global, net-wide basis, and it seems obvious that net.flame is at the bottom of most lists. >Paraphrasing: "If net.flame gets sick, it will probably die. So let us >poison it now, so it will get sick. Then I can morally help shoot it >dead, and by the way I didn't like it anyway." Nice. Your paraphrase is wrong -- please don't put words in my mouth. My version would be: "Net.flame IS sick. Let's admit the fact and take actions before it infects the rest of the net." > The same logic >could be used against any of Chuq's (or your) favorite newsgroups. True. I'm trying to avoid having people who don't understand the net make those decisions for us. I'm willing to get rid of net.flame to help try to save groups I consider more important from the same fate later. I'd be just as willing to get rid of things like net.singles and net.religion if I felt they were endangering groups that are more important like net.unix-wizards. >The reality is that if net.flame per se is killed, it will redistribute >itself among the other groups where it came from in the first place. This is your opinion. Mine is directly opposite. I've posted it recently so I won't repeat myself, but unless you have some proof disagreeing with me won't disprove my opinion (and the other way around, of course). The groups outside of flame simply won't tolerate the kind of nonsense that net.flame currently generates. >Sigh. Everyone has a set of newsgroups they consider worthless or >damaging. I know I have my (un)favorites. But the net has to serve >all tastes! Says who? I have a question: would you be willing to serve the tastes of the pornographer, the pedophile, the Klan, the Nazi's? > If the people who pay for the net ever take a good look at >what they are getting for their money, and are so short-sighted as to >judge that by THEIR personal set of tastes, then we can probably kiss >goodbye singles, motss (!), religion (!!!), and lots of others of your >favorite groups. Yes, that would be unfortunate. Right. It HAS happened, and it is happening with a greater frequency. I'm on record with what I feel would happen if we lost the 'non-technical' groups so I won't repeat myself. Unfortunate is too mild a word. Disasterous is better. I don't want a bean counter telling my what I can or can't read. If we don't take the responsibility ourselves, though, they'll do it for us. >LIBEL: > >This is a smokescreen. This is fantasy. This is even paranoia. I can >understand a site administrator having to mouth these things to his/her >bosses, but I can not take it seriously. Ask Susan Nycum, of Gaston Snow and Ely Bartlett. She is one of the premier lawyers in computer law and did some research on this subject for Usenix. There was a talk given at Dallas and SHE was worried. My company lawyer is worried. You can feel free to not take it seriously, but the people who are trained in this field ARE worried, and that worries me. >(a) IF someone said something so horrible about someone that they took >legal action, would it not be directed at the author? Or at worst, at >the originating site? Nobody knows. If someone is looking for an apology, they might go after the author or the site. If someone is looking for money they can hire a lawyer for a percentage of the take, and that lawyer is likely to go after as many companies as he can and hope they settle out of court. Think of all of the fortune 500 companies on the net, and what they would be likely to do is someone sued all of them for being accessories to a libel case and asked for a couple of million dollars. >(c) Be less hypocritical. A truly valuable group, net.sources, was >recently hit with the ACCOMPLISHED FACT of malicious copyright >violation. I have heard no call for abolition of this group due to >fear of legal action. (For those who missed this, a forged "author" >line was attached to a program in an apparent attempt to besmirch the >"author"'s reputation.) The site involved has pulled itself off of the net until it can find (if ever) the vandal involved. Perhaps it IS time to re-examine the problem of proprietary code and net.sources, because there have been continuing problems with the release of proprietary code, especially with AT&T proprietary stuff thrown around with relative abandon. I'd like to deal with one problem at a time right now. -- :From the misfiring synapses of: Chuq Von Rospach {cbosgd,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA Admirals, extoll'd for standing still, Or doing nothing with a deal of skill. -- William Cowper