Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version VT1.00C 11/1/84; site vortex.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!vortex!lauren From: lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein) Newsgroups: net.news.group Subject: Causes on the net... Message-ID: <770@vortex.UUCP> Date: Fri, 30-Aug-85 15:33:35 EDT Article-I.D.: vortex.770 Posted: Fri Aug 30 15:33:35 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 31-Aug-85 21:53:14 EDT Organization: Vortex Technology, Los Angeles Lines: 32 Some interesting questions arise... Someone recently proposed a "net.peace" group. While the cause would appear quite laudable, it presents a general problem as well. Does USENET exist to provide "free or cheap" conduits for any and all groups that might desire to "piggyback" their operations onto the net? For example, in the case of the net.peace proposal, an implied benefit of using USENET was that it would reduce costs for the "organizing" activities of peace activists. Of course, this could only occur since other people and organizations would be footing the various bills, one way or another. Is it proper to try use the network in this manner? Another point. Let's say for the sake of the argument that we say net.peace is OK (remember, the person proposing it suggested it would be used for organizing activities). What do we say when OTHER groups come along? Hawkish groups? Religious groups? Racial hate groups? Not to mention commercial trade industry groups of one sort or another. What if THEY also want to "cut their costs" by using USENET as a virtually "free" information conduit (from their standpoint, anyway?) Be they commercial or not, is this really what USENET should be used for? We're going to see more and more cases where the use of the network will become confused between pure "information exchange" and "the furtherance of specific causes." My own view is that USENET should concentrate on the former and discourage the latter in newsgroups. I invite comment. --Lauren--