🚀 go-pugleaf

I think we have two intertwined questions here:
   1.  What is the role of a moderator in a newsgroup.
   2.  What is appropriate for discussion on comp.society.

I'd like to discuss the first question.

I have to agree with the analogy of a magazine editor for the moderator.
The whole reason that all articles are sent through the moderator rather
than posted directly to the group is to allow the moderator to select
and post only those articles deemed most relevant and interesting to the
group.  This keeps the bandwidth down and the newsgroup on track.
Allowing the discussion to follow whatever topic is "hot" at the moment
is what periodically turns half of the newgroups I *used* to subscribe
to into an abortion debate.  Abortion, war, and many other topics are
very important and deserve to be discussed.  But preferably in the
appropriate forums.

I have to admit that I was peeved when an article I'd put a lot of
thought into wasn't posted to comp.society.  But thinking back on it,
the article didn't once discuss technology--it was solely a response to
political issues.  Hence, while it made sense as part of the discussion
we were having, it wasn't relevant to comp.society, and the moderator
chose to draw the line.

Is this censorship?  I don't think so.  We would have censorship if the
Usenet refused to allow any discussion of a topic in *any* newsgroup.
It is probably censorship when companies, universities, or government
agencies refuse to carry certain entire segments of the newsgroups.  It
would certainly be censorship if a group moderator refused to post
relevant articles representing a particular viewpoint.  But that doesn't
seem to be the case in comp.society.

Bradley