USENET AS ANARCHY

 Original from: chip@count.tct.com (Chip Salzenberg)

[Most recent change: 23 Jul 1991 by spaf@cs.purdue.edu (Gene Spafford)]

The first thing to understand about Usenet is that it is widely

misunderstood.  Every day on Usenet, the "blind men and the elephant"

phenomenon is evident, in spades.  In the opinion of the author, more

flame wars arise because of a lack of understanding of the nature of

Usenet than from any other source.  And consider that such flame wars

arise, of necessity, among people who are on Usenet.  Imagine, then,

how poorly understood Usenet must be by those outside!

Any essay on the nature of Usenet cannot ignore the erroneous

impressions held by many Usenet users.  Therefore, this article will

treat falsehoods first.  Keep reading for truth.  (Beauty, alas, is

not relevant to Usenet.)

WHAT USENET IS NOT

------------------

 1. Usenet is not an organization.

    Usenet has no central authority.  In fact, it has no central

    anything.  There is a vague notion of "upstream" and "downstream"

    related to the direction of high-volume news flow.  It follows

    that, to the extent that "upstream" sites decide what traffic

    they will carry for their "downstream" neighbors, that "upstream"

    sites have some influence on their neighbors.  But such influence

    is usually easy to circumvent, and heavy-handed manipulation

    typically results in a backlash of resentment.

 2. Usenet is not a democracy.

    A democracy can be loosely defined as "government of the people,

    by the people, for the people."  However, as explained above,

    Usenet is not an organization, and only an organization can be run

    as a democracy.  Even a democracy must be organized, for if it

    lacks a means of enforcing the peoples' wishes, then it may as

    well not exist.

    Some people wish that Usenet were a democracy.  Many people

    pretend that it is.  Both groups are sadly deluded.

 3. Usenet is not fair.

    After all, who shall decide what's fair?  For that matter, if

    someone is behaving unfairly, who's going to stop him?  Neither

    you nor I, that's certain.

 4. Usenet is not a right.

    Some people misunderstand their local right of "freedom of speech"

    to mean that they have a legal right to use others' computers to

    say what they wish in whatever way they wish, and the owners of

    said computers have no right to stop them.

    Those people are wrong.  Freedom of speech also means freedom not

    to speak; if I choose not to use my computer to aid your speech,

    that is my right.  Freedom of the press belongs to those who own

    one.

 5. Usenet is not a public utility.

    Some Usenet sites are publicly funded or subsidized.  Most of

    them, by plain count, are not.  There is no government monopoly

    on Usenet, and little or no control.

 6. Usenet is not a commercial network.

    Many Usenet sites are academic or government organizations; in

    fact, Usenet originated in academia.  Therefore, there is a Usenet

    custom of keeping commercial traffic to a minimum.  If such

    commercial traffic is generally considered worth carrying, then it

    may be grudgingly tolerated.  Even so, it is usually separated

    somehow from non-commercial traffic; see "comp.newprod."

 7. Usenet is not the Internet.

    The Internet is a wide-ranging network, parts of which are

    subsidized by various governments.  The Internet carries many

    kinds of traffic; Usenet is only one of them.  And the Internet is

    only one of the various networks carrying Usenet traffic.

 8. Usenet is not a UUCP network.

    UUCP is a protocol (some might say "protocol suite," but that's a

    technical point) for sending data over point-to-point connections,

    typically using dialup modems.  Usenet is only one of the various

    kinds of traffic carried via UUCP, and UUCP is only one of the

    various transports carrying Usenet traffic.

 9. Usenet is not a UNIX network, nor even an ASCII network.  It is

    also most certainly not just an American network.

    Don't assume that everyone is using "rn" on a UNIX machine.  There

    are Vaxen running VMS, IBM mainframes, Amigas, and MS-DOS PCs

    reading and posting to Usenet.  And, yes, some of them use

    (shudder) EBCDIC.  Ignore them if you like, but they're out there.

    Some sites use special character sets for non-English postings,

    too, and even if they use the same character set, realize that

    your words might mean different things in other cultures.

10. Usenet is not software.

    There are dozens of software packages used at various sites to

    transport and read Usenet articles.  So no one program or package

    can be called "the Usenet software."

    Software designed to support Usenet traffic can be (and is) used

    for other kinds of communication, usually without risk of mixing

    the two.  Such private communication networks are typically kept

    distinct from Usenet by the invention of newsgroup names different

    from the universally-recognized ones.

Well, enough negativity.

WHAT USENET IS

--------------

Usenet is the set of machines that exchange articles tagged with one

or more universally-recognized labels, called "newsgroups" (or

"groups" for short).

(Note that the term "newsgroup" is correct, while "area," "base,"

"board," "bboard," "conference," "round table," "SIG," etc.  are

incorrect.  If you want to be understood, be accurate.)

DIVERSITY

---------

If the above definition of Usenet sounds vague, that's because it is.

It is almost impossible to generalize over all Usenet sites in any

non-trivial way.  Usenet encompasses government agencies, large

universities, high schools, businesses of all sizes, home computers of

all descriptions, etc, etc.

CONTROL

-------

Every administrator controls his own site.  No one has any real

control over any site but his own.

The administrator gets his power from the owner of the system he

administers.  As long as the owner is happy with the job the

administrator is doing, he can do whatever he pleases, up to and

including cutting off Usenet entirely.  Them's the breaks.

PROPAGATION

-----------

In the old days, when UUCP over long-distance dialup lines was the

dominant means of article transmission, a few well-connected sites had

real influence in determining which newsgroups would be carried where.

Those sites called themselves "the backbone."

But things have changed.  Nowadays, even the smallest Internet site

has connectivity the likes of which the backbone admin of yesteryear

could only dream.  In addition, in the U.S., the advent of cheaper

long-distance calls and high-speed modems has made long-distance

Usenet feeds thinkable for smaller companies.  There is only one

pre-eminent UUCP transport site today in the U.S., namely UUNET.  But

UUNET isn't a player in the propagation wars, because it never refuses

any traffic -- it gets paid by the minute, after all; and besides, to

refuse based on content would jeopardize its legal status as an

enhanced service provider.

All of the above applies to the U.S.  In Europe, different cost

structures favored the creation of strictly controlled hierarchical

organizations with central registries.  This is all very unlike the

traditional mode of U.S. sites (pick a name, get the software, get a

feed, you're on).  Europe's "benign monopolies," long uncontested, now

face competition from looser organizations patterned after the U.S.

model.

NEWSGROUP CREATION

------------------

As discussed above, Usenet is not a democracy.  Nevertheless, the

current most popular way to create a new newsgroup involves a "vote"

to determine popular support for (and opposition to) a proposed

newsgroup.  The document that describes this procedure is entitled

"How To Create A New Newsgroup."  Its common name, however, is "the

guidelines."

If you follow the guidelines, it is probable that your group will be

created and will be widely propagated.

HOWEVER: Because of the nature of Usenet, there is no way for any user

to enforce the results of a newsgroup vote (or any other decision, for

that matter).  Therefore, for your new newsgroup to be propagated

widely, you must not only follow the letter of the guidelines; you

must also follow its spirit.  And you must not allow even a whiff of

shady dealings or dirty tricks to mar the vote.

So, you may ask: How is a new user supposed to know anything about the

"spirit" of the guidelines?  Obviously, he can't.  This fact leads

inexorably to the following recommendation:

 >> If you are a new user, don't try to create a new newsgroup. <<

If you have a good newsgroup idea, then read the "news.groups"

newsgroup for a while (six months, at least) to find out how things

work.  If you're too impatient to wait six months, then you really

need to learn; read "news.groups" for a year instead.  If you just

can't wait, find a Usenet old hand to run the vote for you.

Readers may think this advice unnecessarily strict.  Ignore it at your

peril.  It is embarrassing to speak before learning.  It is foolish to

jump into a society you don't understand with your mouth open.  And it

is futile to try to force your will on people who can tune you out

with the press of a key.

IF YOU ARE UNHAPPY...

---------------------

Property rights being what they are, there is no higher authority on

Usenet than the people who own the machines on which Usenet traffic is

carried.  If the owner of the machine you use says, "We will not carry

alt.sex on this machine," and you are not happy with that order, you

have no Usenet recourse.  What can we outsiders do, after all?

That doesn't mean you are without options.  Depending on the nature of

your site, you may have some internal political recourse.  Or you

might find external pressure helpful.  Or, with a minimal investment,

you can get a feed of your own from somewhere else. Computers capable

of taking Usenet feeds are down in the $500 range now, and

UNIX-capable boxes are going for under $2000, and there are at least

two UNIX lookalikes in the $100 price range.

No matter what, though, appealing to "Usenet" won't help.  Even if

those who read such an appeal are sympathetic to your cause, they will

almost certainly have even less influence at your site than you do.

By the same token, if you don't like what some user at another site is

doing, only the administrator and/or owner of that site have any

authority to do anything about it.  Persuade them that the user in

question is a problem for them, and they might do something (if they

feel like it).

If the user in question is the administrator or owner of the site from

which he or she posts, forget it; you can't win.  Arrange for your

newsreading software to ignore articles from him or her if you can,

and chalk one up to experience.

WORDS TO LIVE BY #1:

 USENET AS SOCIETY

--------------------

  Those who have never tried electronic communication may not be aware

  of what a "social skill" really is.  One social skill that must be

  learned, is that other people have points of view that are not only

  different, but *threatening*, to your own.  In turn, your opinions may

  be threatening to others.  There is nothing wrong with this.  Your

  beliefs need not be hidden behind a facade, as happens with

  face-to-face conversation.  Not everybody in the world is a bosom

  buddy, but you can still have a meaningful conversation with them.

  The person who cannot do this lacks in social skills.

                                     -- Nick Szabo

WORDS TO LIVE BY #2:

 USENET AS ANARCHY

--------------------

  Anarchy means having to put up with things that really piss you off.

                                     -- Unknown