IP: More on Netcom Removal of alt.* Newsgroups

[Dave Farber <farber () central cis upenn edu>]

Date: Tue, 2 Jan 1996 20:54:52 -0600
From: shaynes () research westlaw com (Steve Haynes)
To: farber () central cis upenn edu


Dave -
 
Brendan Kehoe wrote:
 
---------------------Forwarded Mail-----------------------------
 
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 1996 11:15:09 -0800
From: Brendan Kehoe <brendan () zen org>
 
 From a friend who works for Netcom:
 
------- Forwarded Message
 
I can't imagine where people get these ideas.
#1.  you can sign up for any newsgroup you like using the software.  you
simply type in the name.
#2.  NETCOM removed a bunch of newsgroups from the list in September or
late August to get the stuff to fit on one disk.
#3.  NETCOM provides a search service to allow you to search for any
newsgroup via a web page.
 
Not a problem.  Never has been a problem.  Folks make up stuff.
 
----------------------End Forwarded Mail-------------------------
 
After having read several disputations of my assertion that 
Netcom has censored alt.* newsgroups, I conclude I should have 
made clear in my original message that I have a NetCruiser 
account (not a shell account, where there apparently is no 
problem).  With a NetCruiser account (which is updated by online 
downloads, not via diskettes, so limitations applicable to 
diskettes do not apply), #2 is definitely the case.  For those of 
us having had NetCruiser for more than a year, Netcom for all 
intents and purposes _deleted_ the alt.* listings during a 
downloaded update.  As to #s 1 & 3, the latter is certainly true, 
but to achieve #1 requires the user (in NetCruiser) _manually_ 
entering the newsgroup name each time he/she wishes to sign on 
(you can't add it to your list of "subscriptions," so far as I've 
been able to determine).  For unsophisticated users, this, added 
to the "apparent" unavailability because they are not listed on 
Netcom's list of "subscribable" newsgroups, is in effect 
censorship as far as I'm concerned.
 
Why remove alt.* groups from the listing, but not others, if not 
based on the presumption that they contain less "proper" material
than other groups?
 
Consider it interpretation and opinion, if you will.
 
Steve