Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!bfmny0!tneff From: tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff) Newsgroups: news.misc Subject: Re: In Moderation: A Moderator's Response Message-ID: <14397@bfmny0.UUCP> Date: 13 Jun 89 22:21:02 GMT References: <41197@bbn.COM> <12113@well.UUCP> <41207@bbn.COM> <632@biar.UUCP> <3305@epimass.EPI.COM> <2727@nmtsun.nmt.edu> Reply-To: tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff) Organization: ^ Lines: 39 I wish people wouldn't confuse Brad's ClariNet with Goodfellow's IN MODERATION. They really have nothing to do with each other. Brad proposes to feed NEW MATERIAL -- wire service news copy and so forth, stuff NOT currently available on Usenet -- to consenting, paying subscribers using the existing B news *mechanism*. No interconnectivity with Usenet per se is necessary, although it turns out in practice that almost anyone TODAY subscribing to ClariNet has probably already got a Usenet feed. Nor does Brad's choosing to offer Reuters reports, syndicated movie reviews etc reflect (it seems to me) any judgment on the present Usenet S/N ratio or posting quality -- as Goodfellow's clearly does. Nor does ClariNet make a dime off the net, except in the nebulous sense that by spending a decade developing this baby we have created an infrastructure for ClariNet to add to. (I do hope he pays UUNET well for its services. UUNET is plenty smart enough to make sure he does!) Goodfellow's thing is the dicier one. Digesting free information for profit, which is what he's talking about doing, seems anti-Net in concept. Besides which, I can't imagine what groups I would want to (a) subscribe to in the first place, but (b) have someone edit for me! Is he saying that with a good editing job news.groups or talk.volume would somehow be worth reading? Conversely specialized groups like comp.sys.rayovac or sci.phrenology have a good enough S/N right now that editing would be a waste of time. I suspect what would get edited is stuff like "Can anyone help me, my inodes are going away." By all means let's not waste time actually *helping* each other... let's just cut straight to the good stuff someone ELSE is posting. I guess that gets to the heart of why I don't like for-profit digesting. Maybe in practice it doesn't always work this way, but we're supposed to be equals here - help the other fellow as well as glom others' info. Let's put it this way, if *everyone on the net* used IN MODERATION instead of direct free feeds, would it even be worth bothering to read? -- You may redistribute this article only to those who may freely do likewise. -- Tom Neff UUCP: ...!uunet!bfmny0!tneff "Truisms aren't everything." Internet: tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET