NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #30/NN_1992_30.iso/spool/comp/misc/4561

Text File | 1992-12-12 | 9.7 KB | 185 lines

Xref: sparky comp.misc:4561 news.misc:2016 comp.bbs.misc:1502 alt.amateur-comp:311 alt.culture.usenet:956
Newsgroups: comp.misc,news.misc,comp.bbs.misc,alt.amateur-comp,alt.culture.usenet
Path: sparky!uunet!mnemosyne.cs.du.edu!nyx!lmulcahy
From: [e-mail] (Larry Mulcahy)
Subject: Re: A Paper on the Social Forces Behind the Development of Usenet
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Followup-To: alt.culture.usenet
Sender: [e-mail] (netnews admin account)
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 92 13:17:39 GMT
Lines: 170

Michael Hauben ([e-mail]) wrote:
> The rawest principle of Usenet News is its importance.

Cosmic, man.  It has a certain gritty street sensibility.  There is a
razor blades and broken glass hint of alt.cyberpunk, a giddy suggestion
of alt.drugs in this terse utterance behind its facade of tamely
pedantic academic prose.

> In its simplest form, Usenet News represents democracy.

Replace `democracy' with `anarchy' (constructive sense).  Although you
can see democratic processes at work during newsgroup creation, apart
from this the will of the majority means nothing in Usenet.  One of the
best things about Usenet is the fact that there is no central authority
with the means to enforce its will.  Compare Usenet to Fidonet with its
constant petty bickering, threats of policy complaints and excessively
annoying behavior continually flying around, etc.  The difference is
that Fidonet has a `law' known as Policy 4 which among other things
regulates the CONTENT of the message traffic and a means to enforce it
(excommunication, possible because of the strict heirarchical
organization since for any sysop there is only one legitimate source of
a feed).  Usenet has no law and `excommunication' is inconceivable since
the decentralized organization makes it possible to get a feed from
anyone who will agree to give it to you.

> Inherent in most mass media has always been central control of content.
> Many people are influenced by the decisions of a few.  [...]  However,
> Usenet News is controlled by its audience.

Hmm, good.  No one really controls it, but anyone who can get access can
have some influence, i.e., make his voice heard.

> The originators of Usenet News underestimated the hunger of the
> people.

"Little did they dream that someday over half a dozen newsgroups would
be devoted to McDonalds alone..."

> The appeal of Usenet can become tiresome at times(25), but it is rare
> that anyone leaves Usenet permanently.  Unless, of course, someone can't
> find the time to fit Usenet in their life.

There is a pretty common syndrome of Usenet Withdrawal that college
students go through after graduation.  I have worked at computer jobs
for six different employers.  Only one of the six had Usenet news, and
that one only because I begged my boss for six months for a dedicated
phone line, then bought a Telebit Trailblazer with my own money,
arranged the feed and installed and configured the software myself.
Unless you go to work for a big computer firm like Sun or IBM, there is
a good chance your employer will not provide Usenet access.  The
situation is gradually improving, but there are still many people who
would like Usenet access but can't get it (or can't afford it; in theory
anyone can get a feed through UUNET or Larry Snyder's BBS now but prices
are a bit high for individuals).

> Much of the development of Usenet News owes a big thanks to a general
> negative attitude toward commercial uses. Where else in our society is
> the commercial element so clearly separated from any entity? Many other
> forums of discussion and communication become clogged and congested when
> advertisements use space. On UUCPnet, people feel it wrong to assist any
> commercial venture through the voluntary actions of those who use and
> redistribute news and e-mail. When people feel someone is abusing the
> nature of Usenet News, they let the offender know through e-mail. In
> this manner users keep Usenet News as a forum that is free from the
> monetary benefit for any one individual. Usenet is not allowed to be a
> profit making venture for any one individual or group. Rather, people
> fight to keep it a resource that is helpful to the society as a whole.

A couple of points:

UUCPnet != Usenet, you should just say Usenet.

There seems to be a consensus that the value of certain forms of
commercial actitity outweighs the nuisance.  So Usenet has classified
ads newsgroups like misc.jobs.offered, the misc.forsale.* groups, the
whole biz.* heirarchy, etc.  It seems to be a rule of thumb that almost
anything will be tolerated in Usenet, so long as it can be isolated in
its own ghetto newsgroup which individual sites can choose to carry or
not.

Those who flaunt the convention and try to do business over Usenet are
soon engulfed in flames and realize that they are alienating their
potential customers.

There is another consideration, the non-commercial status of Internet.
Anyone who purchased an Internet hookup, then used it to flood the
Usenet newsgroups with advertizing could expect their right to continue
to have an Internet hookup challenged.  If the amount of commercial
traffic in Usenet were to greatly increase, it is theoretically possible
that Usenet news could be banned from Internet.

There is always a cost involved in moving the news, if only tying up
hundreds of megabytes of disk space and hours of high speed modem time
each day.  Most sites don't make anything off of it, so this is the root
of the aversion to commercial traffic: the unwillingness of both
commercial and individual sites to pay these costs to promote some
narrow business interest.

> Usenet News' quality is such that it will survive because of its users
> will.

LIVE FREE OR DIE! (froth) (foam)

>      The very nature of Usenet News promotes change. Usenet News was
> born outside of established "networks", and transcends any one physical
> network. Currently at this time it exists of itself and via other
> networks. It makes possible the distribution of information that might
> otherwise not be heard of through "offi- cial channels." This reasoning
> makes Usenet News a herald for social change. Because of the inherent
> will to communicate, people who don't have access to News will want
> access when they understand what it is, and people who currently have
> access will want News to expand its reach so as to further even more
> communi- cation. Usenet News might grow to provide a forum for people to
> influence their governments. News allows for the discussion and debate
> of issues in a mode that facilitates a mass participation.  This becomes
> a source of independent information. An independent source is often
> helpful in the search for the truth.

After years of being active on Usenet and Fidonet, I am spoiled for
conventional news media.  When someone speaks, I now expect to
immediately have a forum to express my rebuttal.  You should see me
flinching and cringing in front of the TV or while reading a newspaper
editorial page at the idea that such wrongheaded thoughts are reaching
many others while I sit there helpless to inject my correct opinions
into the discussion!

> Others will be working for the expansion for their own gain, and I
> wouldn't doubt some forces will be an active force against expansion of
> Usenet.

Some threats to Usenet:

I am uneasy about the government funding of Internet.  What would happen
if politically incorrect speech could not be transmitted over government
funded channels?  Would Usenet do the heroic thing and retreat to UUCP
and high-speed modems?  If ISDN ever arrives it will tend to alleviate
this threat by making high-speed data communications available
commercially to anyone, like phone service today.  What about NREN?
Will they offer us a bandwidth increase in exchange for alt.tasteless?

Is the ever-increasing size of Usenet news a problem?  The hardware
seems to be keeping up.  I could buy a machine capable of handling a
full Usenet feed today for less money than five years ago, in spite of
the growth of the feed during that time.  A more serious problem is the
limit to what a human being can keep up with.  I spend one or two hours
a day on-line in a newsreader.  This is definitely only skimming the
surface even for the narrow subset of newsgroups I try to keep up with.
A threaded newsreader is a big help, and they are promising us such
things as software agents to seek out what we are most interested in,
but with seemingly unlimited growth will it be enough?  Will we all wear
T-shirts that say "I missed something important on Usenet today"?

Increasingly, Usenet newsgroups are being gated into newsgroup-like
message areas in less free networks.  For example, misc.jobs.offered is
connected to the Fidonet JOBS_NOW echo, and comp.os.linux to Fidonet
LINUX.  With these arrangements messages can flow freely in both
directions.  Every Fidonet echo has a moderator with the right to
control what is posted and the power to deprive those who disobey of
their access.  What will happen as the uncontrollable Usenet posters
flood Fidonet echos with off-topic messages?  Even if excommunication
remains impossible in Usenet for technical reasons, could the desire for
peaceful coexistence lead to a chilling effect on Usenet speech?

Larry Mulcahy
[e-mail]
______________________________________________________________________________
When they took the fourth amendment, I was quiet because I don't deal drugs.
When they took the six amendment, I was quiet because I'm innocent.
When they took the second amendment, I was quiet because I'm don't own a gun.
Now they've taken the first amendment and I can't say anything at all.