Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!ucbcad!zodiac!rshu
From: rshu@zodiac.UUCP
Newsgroups: news.sysadmin
Subject: Some thoughts about censorship (can it be done selectively?)
Message-ID: <8711160707.AA13120@ADS.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 16-Nov-87 02:07:29 EST
Article-I.D.: ADS.8711160707.AA13120
Posted: Mon Nov 16 02:07:29 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 18-Nov-87 04:42:15 EST
References: <266@snark.UUCP>
Sender: rshu@zodiac.UUCP
Organization: Advanced Decision Systems, Mt. View, CA (415) 941-3912
Lines: 64

This is just a thought that occurred to me.  I'm not sure if it's a
good idea.  I decided to post it to the net, then sit back and watch
the flames.  Maybe some of the replies would help me decide how I
really feel about it.


The idea: Implement ways of selectively censoring offensive posters

The problem is that we wish to avoid censoring people by removing
them from the net and yet we wish to allow newsgroups to determine
the content/tone of their discussions.  For example, it's plausible
that a majority of soc.culture.jewish readers would prefer not to
read anti-semitic diatribes (the desire to be open-minded notwithstanding).

Aside: If you keep an open mind, people dump *all* sorts of trash into it.

So, imagine that certain posters are declared persona non grata with
respect to specific news groups.  Soc.motss could bar obnoxious homophobes,
soc.culture.jewish could bar anti-semites, etc.  

Question: Who would make the decision to bar a poster?  On moderated
          newsgroups, the moderator already has this as a responsibility. 
          On unmoderated newsgroups, a quasi-moderator could be designated.
          He might be given the power to bar a poster after taking a poll
          of the readership.  If more than 2/3 of the responses are to
          bar the poster, then so be it.

I'm sure some people will claim that this is being close minded.  I say
that everybody is close minded to some extent and that we simply don't
have the time or energy to constantly consider alternate viewpoints.

Note: I said "constantly".  I think we should consider alternate viewpoints
      from time to time.

Even if some people want to hear from/reply to a poster, if a majority
of a newsgroup's readers don't, the first group should take the discussion
elsewhere.  I don't know how hard it is create a group temporarily but
one can imagine creating soc.anti-semite.  You know, it's like rot13.
If you'd be offended, don't read it!  Being on the soc.anti-semite list
wouldn't necessarily mean that you were one, it could mean that you're 
willing to hear from and "constructively engage" (Uncle Ronnie's phrase) them.

Implementation: I don't know how this could be done.  One way is to have
                a set of kill files at each site.  Incoming messages from
                a barred poster to designated newsgroups would automatically
                be junked.

                This doesn't solve the problem of the cost of forwarding
                the barred postings all over the net.  Maybe each site
                could somehow refuse to forward barred postings?  For
                organizational hosts (companies, universities), having a
                kill file at the barred poster's host would keep the
                barred postings from ever leaving the source host.
                This doesn't solve the problem if the barred poster is
                the sysadmin of the source machine.

                I don't know enough about how the net software works to
                know if these implementation ideas are feasible or not.
                Maybe someone could enlighten me?


Richard Shu