Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 Unisoft-Cosmos; site kepler.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!lll-crg!well!micropro!kepler!jpd
From: jpd@kepler.UUCP (John Donovan)
Newsgroups: net.news.group
Subject: Re: Causes on the net...
Message-ID: <205@kepler.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 1-Sep-85 19:00:05 EDT
Article-I.D.: kepler.205
Posted: Sun Sep  1 19:00:05 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 3-Sep-85 01:39:54 EDT
References: <770@vortex.UUCP>
Organization: MicroPro Int'l Corp., San Rafael, CA
Lines: 54
Summary: Information vs. organizing

In article <770@vortex.UUCP>, lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein) writes:
> 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?  
> 
 Ignoring the question of "organizing" (see below), there
is a real need, I am convinced, for a peace forum where people with
an interest can share ideas.  I would like to go one step further and
open up the forum to people who might not have a VAX in their office,
but who would love to share ideas with other kindred sould.  Their
financial arrangements, it seems to me, are between them and whoever
supplies the port. I don't see anyone getting a free ride, but simply
democratising access to a technology that has very high barriers to
entry (i.e., owning a VAX).

> 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.

 This is the key point. Where and how do you draw the line?  I think
that net.peace would quickly become such a magnet for people who want
to flame at the rad/lib types that any serious organizing work would
quickly become impossible.  Besides, who wants to notify hecklers of
where their next meeting or event will be? This is best left to private
networks, or private forums.
  What is left is a forum for persons with an interest in peace who
want to share ideas with like minded people.  I don't see where this
conflicts with current net policy, or even how it could be abused. At
worst, it could resemble net.flame or net.politics--both of which
provide occasional nuggets of humor and intelligent commentary.
  I would like to see net.peace given a chance, monitored, and
evaluated. I think it would make a positive contribution to Usenet.      
     .t>