🚀 go-pugleaf

Kurt Jaeger schreibt:
...
: Das Problem ist, WER diese Entscheidung trifft. Ein News-Anbieter,
: der News-Inhalte einschraenkt, ohne diese Einschraenkungen demokratisch
: und offen zu diskutieren und abstimmen zu lassen, handelt sehr
: autokratisch.

Aus "What is Usenet?" (Ich hab versucht nur das relevante Material zu 
zitieren):

....
 2. Usenet is not a democracy.

    Since there is no person or group in charge of Usenet as a whole
    -- i.e. there is no Usenet "government" -- it follows that Usenet
    cannot be a democracy, autocracy, or any other kind of "-acy."
    (But see "The Camel's Nose?" below.)
....

 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.

....

CONTROL
-------
Every administrator controls his own site.  No one has any real
control over any site but his own.

The administrator gets her power from the owner of the system she
administers.  As long as her job performance pleases the owner, she
can do whatever she pleases, up to and including cutting off Usenet
entirely.  Them's the breaks.

....

THE CAMEL'S NOSE?
-----------------
As was observed above in "What Usenet Is Not," Usenet as a whole is
not a democracy.  However, there is exactly one feature of Usenet that
has a form of democracy: newsgroup creation.

A new newsgroup is unlikely to be widely propagated unless its sponsor
follows the newsgroup creation guidelines; and the current guidelines
require a new newsgroup to pass an open vote.

There are those who consider the newsgroup creation process to be a
remarkably powerful form of democracy, since without any coercion, its
decisions are almost always carried out.  In their view, the
democratic aspect of newsgroup creation is the precursor to an
organized and democratic Usenet Of The Future.

On the other hand, some consider the democratic aspect of the
newsgroup creation process a sham and a fraud, since there is no power
of enforcement behind its decisions, and since there appears little
likelihood that any such power of enforcement will ever be given it.
For them, the appearance of democracy is only a tool used to keep
proponents of flawed newsgroup proposals from complaining about their
losses.

So, is Usenet on its way to full democracy?  Or will property rights
and mistrust of central authority win the day?  Beats me.

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.

....
-- 
CHUUG/EUnet Switzerland	-THE- e-mail service	Simon Poole
Zweierstrasse 35	Tel: +41 1 291 45 80
CH-8004 Zuerich		Fax: +41 1 291 46 42	poole@chuug.ch