<TD WIDTH=460 ><B><FONT COLOR="#EE3300">Weep not for the passing of newsgroups, the Web and IRC have taken up the challenge in their place, says Allan Toombs</B></FONT><BR>
On of the first things that drew me away from the safe confines of
CompuServe was Usenet News. The semblance of free and unfettered debate
with like minded peers was irresistible. While there were a few posts that
were genuinely stupid there was also a sense of community to the news-net.
Off topic posts, wasting bandwidth and spamming were all vigorously
attacked by the old-guard. At it's most trivial you might be criticised
poor spelling but in general the balance was right. The newsgroup performed
a purpose as a combined news-board, discussion group and social gathering.
<P>
It would be unfair to say that there has been a backlash against newsgroups
but it is true to say that the leading edge of the Internet phenomenon has
moved on. The Usenet has increasingly become more boorish, more ignorant
and more cluttered. Junk mail and rudery have become the norm while FAQs
and genuine news are on the decline. Take the recent spate of Microsoft
newsgroups; a very well thought out heirarchy but the content is like all
poor souls wailing questions, with scant few answers. What has gone wrong?
Well it's fair to say that a good newsgroup relies on having a core of
subscribers who contribute FAQs, technical support, netiquette and
generally set the tone of things. If this core is too small the group
appears spasmodic and pointless; threads turn into flames, morons swamp the
grain of common-sense. If you doubt me visit alt.music.oasis.
<P>
Usenet newsgroups are still remarkably popular with even relatively new
hierarchies like uk.politics achieving massive traffic levels. However I've
found that posting anything lengthy or closely argued gets little or no
response from groups that otherwise would rip a news morsel to shreds. It
is one of the sad truths the Internet teaches that few people actually care
about the other person's opinion more than vigourously expounding their
own. This is the antithesis of true discussion; a denial of real debate. To
deny the possibility of a change in one's own opinions is to negate any
dialogue.
<P>
A few years ago the ultimate goal of any Internet grouping was to have it's
own big 7 newsgroup. Fanbases mobilised from mailing lists and other
newsgroups to campaign for a place of their own on the Usenet. Now the
typical response of any interest group is to create a homepage with a
web-board or IRC area. The paradigm has shifted from speakers corner to
that of a caf.
<P>
I remember the Internet once being described as a renaissance of caf
society. For a while newsgroups served this function, yet now I think the
baton has passed on. A caf combines the come-one-come-all aspect of the pub
with the members-only aspect of an exclusive club. You can get in but if
you don't fit in you'll feel uncomfortable. But what about the uninvited
bore, who shouts everyone down with the same old lines? On the Usenet there
really is no way of stopping someone posting, as users of rec.arts.drwho or
uk.media will tell you if you mention David Yadalle or Mike Corley. If the
spam-poster is sufficiently thick-skinned, persistent or just plain sad and
mad they'll find a way through.
<P>
Yet a web-board can mount a defence against
the vandals. Once a consensus builds it only needs the site manager to bar
posts from the relevant IP addresses. Indeed the risk of this communication
paradigm is that a board owner will stifle free debate. These are
constraints familiar to the ma! gazine editor or the BBS. The role of host
is to filter without being censorious. The rejoinder to those who challenge
this is 'if you don't like it start your own board'. Of course there will
be paedophile boards and neo-Nazi sites (one in Quebec is being shut down,
hurrah!) but there are clear bounds of ownership here. Web space belongs to
someone, it is bytes on a hard drive, unlike the rolling, ownerless,
constantly mutating chain-letter-on-acid that is Usenet News.
<P>
The positive fallout of this sea change is that it makes the pro-censorship
stance of Scotland Yard increasingly meaningless. The charge of "Why does
your server carry alt.perverts?" does have its counter-arguments but they
sound technical and obscurely liberal to the general population. Yet with
the web board model the reply becomes an obvious "Why were you visiting
www.perverts.com in the first place? Didn't you see the warnings? What did
you expect there?". Maybe this is not enough for Mary Whitehouse but I
reckon it'll satisfy most parents savvy enough to install Cybersitter et
