Subject: Yes, Guideline! From: jvncnet!world.std.com!ddern (Daniel P Dern) Date: Sun, 2 Oct 1994 00:12:33 -0400

Sender: jvncnet!marketplace.com!owner-online-news
Content-Length: 9116
Status: RO
X-Status: 
X-Lines: 180

[ This is a tad long but I think important. - DPD ]

(Lew Irwin) StudioBrf@aol.com wrote:
(quoting Rex Ballard, whose stuff is the double > >s)

> I am utterly horrified by some of the "guidelines" you say have been
> established for posting information in newsgroups. Who has established them?
> By what right? How may they be challenged?

Sigh.  The people who established/created each given Newsgroup and/or 
topic mailing list set up these guidelines.  Challenged?  You are probably
welcome to appeal to the group/list creator/admin, or, if any, moderator.
Challenged?  See below.


> > Make sure that the people you are about to send
> > to want to hear what you have to say.
> 
> This notion would seem to run counter to the basic constitutional principle
> that protects UNpopular speech, that allows for virtually unlimited
> expression in public forums.

Ah, but these are not, in that sense, "public forums."  They are publicly
accessible forums; but the understanding is that you agree to abide by the
charter as a by-product of participating.  The general rule (there are
many specifics as well) is "Post within the topics as defined by the
charter/FAQ."  There is no  [ US] constitutional principle involved;
ignoring little matters like the multi-national make-up of many of
these groups (Usenet and mail reaches 100+ countries, and every continent
... I've gotten e-mail from the late Soviet Union, from McMurdo Base
in Antarctica, Canada, England, Germany, Thailand, Japan, Israel,
Brazil...)

Last I checked, the Freedom of Speech parts of the Bill of Rights didn't
seem to guarantee you, or anyone, the right to say whatever you pleased
anywhere; just that Congress can't make laws to control it.

By your reasoning, you can go and read from your newsletter during any
meeting, play, film, gathering, streetcorner, classroom, city zoning
board, Tupperware party, etc.  And similarly, these groups can all
come say their piece at any meeting you are holding.

You are saying you are entitled to send what amounts to a collect 
phone call/fax to numerous people on something other than what they
have agreed they're ready to pay to talk about.  If I could call your
answering machine or fax and get it to accept charges for the long-distance
service while I faxed/read you my two page commercial message, would you
feel this was OK?

...
> Since when have newsmen been encouraged to join special-interest groups,
> which is what these "clubs" very often seem to amount to?
Can we back up the reality machine and try that again?  I'd say these
are a lot more like formal and informal professional get-togethers, 
memo-lists, etc.  

> Since when have
> they been advised to conform to the "rules and conventions" of such groups.
When they join them as members?  Especially one like this, whose members
are mostly newspersons.

> Certainly we ATTEND such groups from time to time, and may sometimes
> contribute information to them in our effort to gain their recognition. But
> to join in opinionated public discussions about subjects which we as newsmen
> may be required to cover clearly represents a breach of professional ethics.
Well, if you're covering it in an official capacity, I might buy that.
If you're a participant, no.  By your reasoning what you're doing in your
message is out of line and a breach of professional ethics, I would think.

> This notion also raises compelling issues about the nature of ANY online
> service and its right to restrict access to the Internet.
Right to RESTRICT access?  Who said they were obligated to PROVIDE access?
An online service like AOL or CIS is a private commercial operation.  You
have agreed to buy service from it, based on deciding you want what they sell.

> Shouldn't such
> services be bound in the future (if they are not already) by the same rules
> protecting freedom of expression that presently apply to common carriers?
> Isn't the online provider more like the supermarket that maintains a
> community bulletin board near its entrance? The courts have sharply
> restricted the ability of the providers of those bulletin boards to control
> what is posted on them.
Mike Godwin, the attorney at the EFF, has done some good analysis of this,
and of pertinent legal cases.  I suspect you're misrepresenting and over-
simplifying.  At minimum, I believe it's something like "you can either
CONTROL or NOT CONTROL.  If you DON'T, then you aren't responsible (liable?)
for what gets said, any more than a bookstore is for what is in the books
it sells.  If you DO, then you've assumed responsibility, and are, for
everything."  [ Don't take my word for this; IANAL (I Am Not A Lawyer). ]

> > Expect flames - Virtually any high profile
> > commercial use of the internet is likely to
> > result in various forms of retaliation.
Here I disagree somewhat with the previous poster.  Any inappropriate
use will result.... and many appropriate uses will draw howls of outrage
from people who are unfamiliar with the current rules and conventions.
Remember that not everyone who complains knows what they're talking about.

> Posting a newsletter in a public forum is certainly not my idea of "high
> profile commercial use."
Well, it depends -- again, on what you do relative to the Charter/FAQ.
How do you feel, say, about posting your message to a forum not because
it's of direct relevance to the charter's topics, but because you feel 
that it is of interest to the presumed participants, e.g., posting ads
for floppy disks to a list for Computer Aided Research and Reporting?
(Hint: Don't try it.)


 Your comments suggest that the "various forms of
> retaliation" might legitimately include being barred from access to the
> Internet. That is a frightening proposition.
> 
> > Some of these subscribers are paying 25 cents
> > per kilobyte to receive your mail. Make every
> > byte count.
> 
...
> ... what I am doing is not all that
> much different from what Charles Henry Dow did when he began delivering slips
> of financial news to brokerage houses in the 1880's to catch brokers'
> attention...
Um, was Mr Dow doing this as non-negotiable collect-delivery for slips, or
did he a) pre-contract or b) say each time "Hey, want the latest news?"

...
> Describing Internet users as a "culture" is as nonsensical as describing
> telephone users that way. 
Try making collect phone calls to read people your newsletter and then let
me know if you still feel there isn't some 'phone culture.'

...
> Finally, as a "newbie" I find the "guidelines" you have set down particularly
> abhorrent  -- and certainly unacceptable.
Hey, feel free to take your business elsewhere.  Why do you want to be a part
of this if you don't like the club rules?  Why do you feel you have a right
to intrude on a club/forum/sig you're not willing to be a rule-abiding member
of?

> ... And, if they have been widely
> promulgated,
I haven't personally been on AOL, but folks like pmdatropos (one of the
internet sysadmins there) assures me that the FAQs and general "how to be
a good Internet/Usenet participant" are easily available and indeed
highly visible.  You're a journalist; you can't do something simple
like read the instructions?  Not to mention the many books for Internet
users (100 - 150 at last count) and the articles in nearly every
newspaper, magazine and periodical.  

> I believe any journalist worth his salt who intends to earn his
> future livelihood in online publishing should also speak out against them.
Your privilege.  I think you're wrong, and I'll continue to speak out against
your opinions.  But let's take this somewhere more appropriate, like
news.admin.misc.  

Lew, I'm prepared to believe you mean well, and are simply in an understandable
state of paradigm shock, based on gross misunderstandings about the nature
of the Internet, Usenet, and online discussion groups.  The basic rules
are there for the survival and viability of the system: If we didn't
want to focus topically, we'd have one big Newsgroup and one big Mailing List.
Please think about this.  Why do newspapers have sections?  Should you be
allowed to post your newsletter in the 'bridgeplayers' column?  Should
technology be reported under "Engagements and Calendars"?  Should we 
stop sorting things on Gophers and WWWs and just have large unsorted,
ungrouped stuff?  Of course not.

FWIW (For what it's worth), you're not the only one who doesn't 
understand or agree with this.  

By the way, I'm going to pass along a copy of this to postmaster@aol.com.
Not as a complaint, but if there's some problem in their user-education
efforts, they should be aware of it.  Since this is not private e-mail --
and I a) wrote it and b) am telling you, I see no reason not to do this.

DPD

Daniel Dern (ddern@world.std.com) Internet analyst, technology/business writer
 Author, The Internet Guide For New Users (McGraw-Hill, 1993) - See "Dern" area
 of gopher.internet.com for info, also "We've Grepped a Little List," 
 "Batch Up Your Shellscripts" in 'Dern' area of gopher.internet.com 
      [  *** SAAC Camp alumni, please contact me (e-mail) !! ***  ]

From jvncnet!marketplace.com!owner-online-news Thu Oct  6 10:28:44 1994