Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watdcsu.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!watnot!watdcsu!dmcanzi
From: dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi)
Newsgroups: net.news
Subject: Re: Just what DOES it cost?
Message-ID: <1960@watdcsu.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 11-Dec-85 21:01:44 EST
Article-I.D.: watdcsu.1960
Posted: Wed Dec 11 21:01:44 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 12-Dec-85 04:51:11 EST
References: <1882@watdcsu.UUCP> <856@vortex.UUCP>
Reply-To: dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi)
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 49
Summary: 

In article <856@vortex.UUCP> lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein) writes:
>The "poster-pays" concept has the fundamental philosophical
>problem (leaving aside the very significant technical problems for now)
>that money does not necessarily equal valuable messages.  A site with
>lots of bucks to post messages doesn't necessarily have people with
>anything useful to say.  A site with no money for postings
>may have people who could post many useful items, answer queries
>in an intelligent manner, etc.  

My estimate of 10 cents per line (probably pessimistic) would exclude
few, if any, people from posting, but it would make them think twice.
And if some rich fool posts reams of garbage, so what?  He's paying the
cost.  And news-reading software can automatically skip his articles,
so nobody need even be bored by him.  Answering queries would most
likely be done via mail (free or cheap), rather than posting.

As I understand it, charging people for posting and reimbursing
backbone sites can't be done efficiently without an organization to
collect and distribute the money, and that organization would be a
potential target for lawsuits for things that get posted over the
network.  That's the problem with "poster pays".

>                                This is part of the reason that
>editors exist.  A magazine like "Time" doesn't just charge a fee
>and say "we'll print any (legal) article if you pay the price."  Instead,
>they judge articles on their merit and try to produce a useful
>publication for the benefit of their readership.  As the readership
>changes, complains about, or praises certain materials, the content
>of the magazine gradually changes as well.  Readers who don't like the
>content of Time can also go read other magazines with other editors
>and other content priorities.

Usenet isn't a magazine, though, and I can't think of any reason to try
to make it like one.  Usenet is not like any other mass medium: its
content is provided entirely by its readers and not controlled by any
government or corporation.  It's a mass medium which is not restricted
to carrying "safe" opinions and "official truths".

The problem with Usenet is the unreimbursed cost to the backbone sites,
which can be reduced by limiting the amount people can post or charging
the users and reimbursing the backbone sites.  Moderators might be
needed to approve truly worthwhile but large postings, such as
sources.  But, since a moderator can be sued for things he allows to be
posted, giving him complete control over what can or can't be posted
would be a mistake.
-- 
David Canzi

Law of the Yukon:  Only the lead dog gets a change of scenery.