[HPFGU-Feedback] ADMIN: Possible Change to the Main List Settings

Mon Jan 12 22:17:44 UTC 2004

On 2004-01-12 08:25, abigailnus wrote:
[...]

>Pros:
>
>1. Right now, despite the moderating system, the Humongous
>Bigfile, and the various posting guides, the best way to teach new
>members how to post on HPfGU is to allow them to learn from the
>examples of older members. By opening the archives to all visitors,
>these potential members would have a longer learning period
>before they post for the first time. Clearly, this won't prevent the
>phenomenon of drive-by posting - members who join, ask one
>question, and are never heard from again - but it might reduce it.
>  
>
I'm afraid that the impact of opening archives might be just the 
opposite. When I first found Fantastic Posts via Google, I went to the 
list Web Page on Yahoo and after finding out that lists are private lost 
interest in it. Only after few months I revisited it, and this time 
chosen to subscribe. So, I think, we may have more subscribers, not less 
by this move.

>2. There are no doubt many visitors who come to the site, see that
>they have to join the group in order to read messages, and leave.
>We believe that allowing them a taste of HPfGU before they join
>might help to convince them otherwise - once they've lurked for a
>while, they might find that they have something to say. By the same
>token, allowing visitors to read the archives might show them that
>HPfGU isn't the place for them. In short, we believe that opening the
>archives to all visitors will help HPfGU get the kind of members who
>suit us - members who are truly interested in the kind of discussions
>that we enjoy. Instead of buying a cat in a bag, we'll have informed
>customers, and hopefully that will translate to a better
>signal-to-noise ratio.
>  
>
I agree with that. See my previous statement.

>3. Most exciting, in our opinion, is the fact that opening the archives
>to all members would make HPfGU Google-able. No more dickering
>around with the Yahoomort search engine. Simply head over to
>Google, restrict the search to the message archive (we might be able
>to create a link that does this automatically) and search the archives
>to your hearts content. Multiple search terms, author and date search
>(not exact ones, of course, but pretty close), the works.
>
>  
>
I'm not sure if we can restrict Google search to only our Archives. But 
nevertheless, the results would be superb.

>Cons:
>
>1. First, the obvious - HPfGU would become Google-able. Anything
>that any of us have posted would now be visible not only to the 11,000
>members of HPfGU but to anyone online. This does not include our
>e-mail addresses, to those of us who are concerned about spammers
>- Yahoo automatically shields them - but it might include personal
>information. There's also the issue of copyright - anyone can access
>the posts and copy them at will. Right now, we feel that there is no
>significant difference between exposing yourself to 11,000 strangers
>and to the entire internet, but some of you may feel otherwise.
>
>  
>
Let me be blunt here. If someone posts to a list that contains over 10 
000 users and believe that she/he can be anonymous, that someone is 
seriously mistaken. Virtually nothing (beside not having famous yahoo 
archive downloading app), can stop me, or anybody else for that matter, 
from downloading archives and publishing it on any other, google'able 
site. Why do we need to protect others from their own stupidity? If 
admins would like to be nice to people who want their names removed 
(which I view as totally unnecessary), they might want to issue warning 
asking them to withdraw their messages from archive or to anonymize them.

Regarding copyright, it does not matter here. Copyright is, very 
basically, "right to copy". It does not matter if the copyrighted work 
is google'able or not. If NYTimes: http://www.nytimes.com does not worry 
about unauthorized copying, neither should we.

>2. HPfGU is, fundamentally, a group for adults. That means that some
>of our discussions might touch upon issues that are inappropriate for
>children. By opening the archives to all visitors, we might be exposing
>ourselves to possible legal issues, as children will be able to access the
>messages. Since, at this point, any child who wants to can sign up to
>the group - we have no way of verifying that a person is truly over 18
>- this seems like a moot point to us, but a lawyer might feel otherwise.
>
>  
>
Sometimes I feel that owners are too much afraid of lawyers. Content of 
this list are for sure suitable for anybody. I understand that some 
parents would likely to hide from their children that humans are created 
by sex, some humans are evil, and Santa Claus does not exists. But for 
Merlin's beard, there is something called 'free speech', and it usually 
is in the Constutions of almost all countries.
Specifically, since I think you are afraid of US Lawyers, let me point 
you to US Supreme Court case Reno v ACLU 
(http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-511.ZS.html). We can read in 
J. Stevens' opinion: 'The District Court categorically determined that 
there "is no effective way to determine the identity or the age of a 
user who is accessing material through e mail, mail exploders, 
newsgroups or chat rooms."'
That case struck down law prohibiting transmitting obscene and indecent 
material to minors.
See also my message: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Feedback/message/250 for further 
discussion of that matter.

(As a side note, I just can not understand, why some HP fanfics where 
two teenagers are just hugging and kissing are classified as NC-17. But 
then again, I'm a European -- our women sunbathe topless...)

While I do have Master degree in Law (in Polish law, mind you), and 
technically I could practice, I don't  -- take my opinions with prejudice.

Regards,

-- 
Przemyslaw 'Pshemekan' Plaskowicki
Let the fear of danger be a spur to prevent it; he that fears not, gives advantage to the danger. (Francis Quarles)