Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 alpha 5/22/85; site cbosgd.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!mark From: mark@cbosgd.UUCP (Mark Horton) Newsgroups: net.news,net.news.group Subject: Re: Net censorship (PLEASE READ) Message-ID: <1593@cbosgd.UUCP> Date: Sun, 10-Nov-85 16:56:11 EST Article-I.D.: cbosgd.1593 Posted: Sun Nov 10 16:56:11 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 11-Nov-85 06:07:00 EST References: <530@aero.ARPA> Reply-To: mark@cbpavo.UUCP (Mark Horton) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus, Oh Lines: 37 Keywords: censor, censorship, usenet, mod.computers.ibm-pc Xref: watmath net.news:4318 net.news.group:4438 If there is going to be a Usenet policy on what moderators do, it should be that the moderators are accountable to the readers and are expected to act in the best interests of the readers. Telling a moderator that they are only allowed to act as a secretary will never work. There are so many things that a moderator might do that do not fall into the categories listed. At the top of the list is the outright refusal of an article. I reject about half of the submissions to net.announce, on the grounds that the message is too commercial, too long, a duplicate posting, not of worldwide interest, and so on. If I were to just correct spelling errors and pass everything through, we'd have another net.general and most of the net would unsubscribe. A poll taken of the readers has confirmed that this is exactly what the readers want. In the case of refusing to pass information about copy protection methods, the moderator may be protecting him/herself from possible criminal charges. An even better example is a credit card number - suppose someone sent a Visa number to net.announce along with the message "have fun!" According to your policy, it would have to be posted. Such posting would quickly land the moderator in jail. Your example, INFO-IBM-PC, is moot anyway. INFO-IBM-PC is an ARPANET mailing list, not a Usenet newsgroup. It's just gatewayed into Usenet after it gets moderated on the ARPANET. Insisting that it is subject to a Usenet policy on moderation is like typing in the letters-to-the- editor from your local newspaper (substitute "Dear Abby" or "Miss Manners" or any other moderated newspaper column if you prefer) into a Usenet newsgroup, then telling the newspaper they have to print everything that is sent to them because of a Usenet policy. Each moderated newsgroup does need to have a policy, and that policy probably should be stated up front. Many groups will pass everything through. Others have high standards. But the policies should be determined separately for each newsgroup. Mark Horton