Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 alpha 5/22/85; site cbosgd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!mark
From: mark@cbosgd.UUCP (Mark Horton)
Newsgroups: net.news.group
Subject: Re: Saving the net
Message-ID: <1621@cbosgd.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 20-Nov-85 14:25:35 EST
Article-I.D.: cbosgd.1621
Posted: Wed Nov 20 14:25:35 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 21-Nov-85 07:23:30 EST
References: <546@moncol.UUCP> <623@k.cs.cmu.edu> <256@twitch.UUCP> <686@lasspvax.UUCP> <953@ccice5.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus, Oh
Lines: 75

In article <953@ccice5.UUCP> tim@ccice5.UUCP (Timothy G. Becker) writes:
> What I believe we should really consider is this:  Are the
> people out there who are calling themselves "backbone sites" really backbone
> sites?  The definition of a backbone site is a site which carries ALL the news
> groups.

Whose dictionary did you take this definition from?  By your definition,
most of the machines on the net are backbone sites.  But you probably
wouldn't consider mcvax, munnari, kaist, kddlab, or any other site outside
the USA to be a backbone site, since most of them have already cut WAY back
on what they get for cost reasons.  (Most overseas sites only get the
technical newsgroups.)

The definition of a Usenet backbone site is, and has always been, a site
that is listed on the list of backbone sites.  Recently this has been
formalized and the list is kept by Gene Spafford and posted to the net
along with the other newslists stuff.

Until a few years ago, it was considered good manners for a backbone
site to carry everything.  However, this is no longer true, it's simply
too expensive.

> Final note:  Look to history regarding censorship!  Look at South
> Africa and the USSR!

Anyone who would make such a comparison obviously already has his mind
already made up, but for the benefit of someone who might actually
take this comment seriously, let me point out the difference.

Censorship is where certain information exists and there is an effort
to make sure that this information does not reach the general public.
That's what you see in South Africa and the USSR.

Moderation (aka editing) is where a particular instance of a particular
kind of communication (e.g. a newsgroup, or even an entire network)
has some kind of rules about what can and can't be sent, and these
rules are enforced by a human being.  The strongest of these rules is
generally "subject to available space", but there may be other considerations
(such as avoiding repetition, condensing wordyness, avoiding obscenity,
and avoiding lawsuits.)

In the US, we have a concept of "freedom of the press" is one of our
most cherished rights.  This means that, as long as you aren't committing
some other crime (e.g. advertising ten carat diamond rings for $5 and
intending to pocket the money and never deliver anything) you are free
to print up whatever you want ON YOUR OWN PRINTING PRESS and distribute
it in any way you wish.  Nothing says that somebody else who owns a
printing press (e.g. the local newspaper) is obligated to print and
distribute for you at their expense.  (Or even at your expense, witness
the Columbus newspaper which almost folded because their printing
company - another Columbus newspaper - decided it wanted out of the deal.)

It would be entirely reasonable if Usenet were to be totally moderated.
Many would view it as a drastic improvement in quality and be happy to
pay for the priviledge of reading it.  However, that isn't what is being
done here.  The intent is to have moderated newsgroups where it will
benefit the net, and to have unmoderated newsgroups where the net
benefits most from that.  I don't think ANYONE is planning to get rid
of ALL the unmoderated groups.  I expect that there will always be lots
of unmoderated groups, for reasons of fast turnaround and because there
aren't enough moderators.  Indeed, most of the unmoderated groups are
low volume and not hurting anything - they are quite useful in their
current form.  If something is so important that the author feels it
must get out to the general public, but for some reason no moderator
is willing to put it on his newsgroup, there should always be an unmoderated
newsgroup it can go on.  (Assuming that the information is small enough not
to be a burdon on the net to pass it around.)

If ALL the unmoderated groups were to go away, AND if some law were
passed that prevented people who wanted their own unmoderated groups
from forming their own Usenet, THEN that would be censorship.  But as
long as you have the right to get your information out to people somehow
(even if you have to pay for it) you are not being censored.

	Mark Horton