Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site amdahl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!crsp!pesnta!amdcad!amdahl!gam
From: gam@amdahl.UUCP (gam)
Newsgroups: net.news
Subject: Re: Blocking messages from a site is perfectly legitimate
Message-ID: <1076@amdahl.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 1-Feb-85 04:29:20 EST
Article-I.D.: amdahl.1076
Posted: Fri Feb  1 04:29:20 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 2-Feb-85 12:03:26 EST
References: <10300006@ccvaxa.UUCP> <226@looking.UUCP>
Organization: Blue Mouse Trailer Resort, Hellmouth, CA
Lines: 53

> = Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473

> Get it through your heads what free and unresticted means.   It means
> anybody on the net anywhere has the right to do anything.  Block sites,
> block people, block groups.  Even EDIT messages passing through to the
> side administrator's liking.   It's what unrestricted means.

I think everyone objecting to the qantel incident was aware of this.
I am.

The point was to make clear, and publicly, that this sort of
thing (individual censorship) is not approved of (by a few people,
anyway).  What's that worth?  Oh, I don't know ...

> Sure, if a site gets nasty, you try and convince people not to feed it,
> or try not to take your news from it, and that's all fair game, too.

Yup, I agree.

> The only way you can assure consistent quality net service is to pay the
> people providing the service.  This means "Usenet, Inc." or some variation.
> And we all know about all the flames directed towards Usenet, Inc. from
> all the defenders of the "free, unrestricted" net.   The fact is that the
> only way to make sure that the net provides the services you want is to
> pay for them.   Anything worth having is worth paying for to have it done
> right.

Probably right.  It is interesting to consider what Usenet would
be like if people paid by the hour for connect time. $5/hr?
$10/hr?  $25/hr?  (or how about *per page*?!).  I think people's
writing *and* reading patterns on Usenet would change: less flames,
less ego-dramas, better technical information, maybe even better jokes?

I'd hope, though, that such a commercial enterprise would never have to
refuse someone access (except for not paying the bill!) for political
reasons.  It would be better for users to have a "squelch site!user"
command.  The "offsensive" person would be ignored by those who don't
want to hear their jabber, and those who don't mind/care can still
listen and respond.  The "offensive" one would eventually stop paying
$25/hr if they were not being listened to.

This, I feel, is a politically "free" system which maximizing both
personal "right to speech" *and* the demands of paying customers who
won't pay to see others' drivel.  (It is incidentally economically
efficient).

> But Usenet Inc will perhaps never come to be because all the advocates of
> the "free, unrestricted" net (which now costs various sites >$600,000 per year)
> shouted down the people who thought it might improve things.

Look, Brad, I am agreeing with you! %-)
-- 
Gordon A. Moffett		...!{ihnp4,hplabs,sun}!amdahl!gam