Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-sem.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!brl-tgr!brl-sem!ron
From: ron@brl-sem.ARPA (Ron Natalie )
Newsgroups: net.news,net.news.group
Subject: Re: Net censorship (PLEASE READ)
Message-ID: <517@brl-sem.ARPA>
Date: Sun, 10-Nov-85 22:58:25 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-sem.517
Posted: Sun Nov 10 22:58:25 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 12-Nov-85 04:48:23 EST
References: Upon request <530@aero.ARPA>
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab
Lines: 123
Xref: watmath net.news:4327 net.news.group:4464


> Well, acensorship seems to have started already.

Damn it.  It is not censorship.  It is editing.  You can still use
net.micro.pc in it's glory.  The moderated list is to provide sanity.

> 
> A new moderated group mod.computer.ibm-pc has filtered its way to sites.
> The issue is whether the moderators of any USENET moderated
> group have the right to censor at will.

mod.computer.ibm-pc is not a moderated USENET group.  It is a replacement
for fa.info-ibm.  The editing comes from the ARPANET moderators who have
decided that in the interest of not antagonizing their DARPA sponsors,
will not publish things that could be construed as criminal activity.

> 
> With the conversion of many (and since many sites will most likely drop
> the unmoderated groups) groups from net.* to mod.*, you could have bet
> that the issue of censorship would have come up anyway in the future. It
> is always easier to discuss issues of this type before a full blown
> controversy erupts.

I don't think that there is a great move from net.* to mod.* for discussion
groups.  Many people, including myself have strong views on the subject.
Some, like yourself, have a problem trusting the moderators not to become
biased as to what needs to be posted.  Personally, I fear that the moderation
would make the conversational mode of these groups a little stilted.

All those mod.computer groups that were created were a follow on for
the fa groups.  You are not permitted to post to fa groups because it
makes no sense.  They come out of the Arpanet.  Since it was hopeless
to get people to run a consistant version of the news software which
would route postings to fa.* back to the appropriate ARPANET insertion
point, they chose to move these to mod.* lists because, the mod.* mode
of operation was already understood by most sites, and giving the path
to the ARPANET insertion points as the mail address of the moderator
solves all these problems.

>  "Moderators are expressedly prohibited from making ANY changes on
>  submitted articles except for the following:
>   i)   To eliminate spelling or grammer errors.

I have moderated lists, and if you think I'm going to fix your bad
English, you have another thing coming.  I prefer to let the original
posters illiteracy come through so people can properly form an opinion
on the quality of his posting.

> 1b) Ask the moderators to change their censorship policies by sending
> them (and any other moderators who censor) this or a similar message:
> 
>   "The censorship of this newsgroup is wrong and contradictory to the
> spirit and policies of USENET. Please refrain from actions of this type
> now and in the future."
> 
> In the mod.computers.ibm-pc case, you should send your comments on the
> censorship move to:
> 
> Name				Username
> Billy Brackenridge  	        BRACKENRIDGE
> Eliot Moore			ELMO
> Richard Nelson		        NELSON
> Koji Okataki		        KOJI
> Richard Gillmann		GILLMANN

Frankly, these guys probably don't give a DAMN about the spirit and
policies of the USENET.  They run an ARPANET list.  It is a service
on their part and a part of the sites like UCBVAX and BRL to allow
these to cross into the USENET at all.

ALSO NOTE.  MANY OF THE MOD GROUPS THAT WERE FA GROUPS ARE AUTOMATED.
THE MODERATORR ADDRESS IS A DIRECT FEED INTO THE ARPANET LIST AND HENCE
BACK INTO THE MOD GROUP.  IF YOU POST COMPLAINTS TO THE MODERATOR YOU
WILL DEMONSTRATE YOUR IGNORANCE TO THE ENTIRE ARPA AND USENET COMMUNITY.

> 
> PLEASE, EVERYONE DO THIS!!!
> 
PLEASE DON'T DO THIS.  These guys have a hard time.  INFO-IBMPC
is one of the largest groups on the ARPANET, there is a lot of
postings.  Many of them come directly from net.micro.pc and are
inserted in their digest.  They do not do anymore editing than
is necessary for such a digest to be viable in the ARPAnet community

> 2) If moderators do not stop censorship in a reasonable amount of
> time:
> 
> a) A discussion should be held in the proper newsgroups, following USENET
> practices and poles to discuss the moderators actions. Possible actions
> on our part might include, but not be limited to:
> 
> i) replace the moderators.
> ii) RMGROUP the group(s).
> iii) send comments to those who submit to the offending group(s) asking
> them not to do so until the censorship has ended.
> iv) send comments to those who are upsite (and backbone sites) to the
> offending group, asking them not to forward the group's mail until the
> censorship stops.
> v) Other reasonable actions.> 
> I think it is VERY IMPORTANT to make a netwide policy regarding
> censorship NOW. I think there are advantages to moderated groups
> including a better signal/noise ratio, less repeat messages, and most
> important (to the systems administrators) saving on phone bills. But to
> insure the moderated group concept works in the long run,
> anti-censorship guidelines should be implemented now.
> 
PLEASE limit your discussions to lists that are moderated solely for
the USENET and not the ones that are moderated on the ARPANET and merely
forwarded into the USENET for you convenience.  Note that many of the
subjects dealt with in these groups are already available via unmoderated
mod.* groups.

So far, there has not been a big move to moderate regular USENET discussion
groups.  The only ones that there has been a big push for are the archival
style groups such as the map, sources, and documentation.  These groups
have special restrictions on posting that no one seems to want to obey,
and hence moderation is the only thing that saves them.

You are free to discuss the merits of moderation, but please use some
understanding about what has been going on in net.news.group for the
last few months.

-Ron