Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<vr1b28$at4$1@reader1.panix.com> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!panix!.POSTED.panix6.panix.com!nan.users.panix.com!robomod!not-for-mail From: pschleck@panix.com (Paul W. Schleck) Newsgroups: news.groups.proposals,news.groups Subject: Re: 3rd RfD: Mass-deletion of moderated groups without a moderator Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2025 11:16:23 EDT Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC Approved: NGP Approval Key <ngp-approval-key@ngp.big-8.org> Message-ID: <vr1b28$at4$1@reader1.panix.com> References: <vqq7tf$ehn$1@reader1.panix.com> <vqtir0$2ukis$1@dont-email.me> <vqujqc$bid$1@reader1.panix.com> <vquse4$3d1t6$1@dont-email.me> Injection-Info: reader1.panix.com; posting-host="panix6.panix.com:166.84.1.6"; logging-data="2481"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@panix.com" User-Agent: nn/6.7.3 X-NGP-Policy: http://www.big-8.org/~ngp X-NGP-Info-1: Send submissions to ngp@nan.users.panix.com X-NGP-Info-2: Send technical/policy queries to ngp-admin@nan.users.panix.com X-Comment: Moderators do not necessarily agree or disagree with this article. X-Robomod: STUMP <https://savannah.gnu.org/projects/stump> X-Spam-Relay-Country: DE US US X-Spam-DCC: : Authentication-Results: mail2.panix.com; dkim=pass (Good 1024 bit rsa-sha256 signature) header.d=panix.com header.a=rsa-sha256 Authentication-Results: mail2.panix.com; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=panix.com Authentication-Results: mail2.panix.com; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=panix.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=panix.com; s=panix; t=1741959048; bh=1j6jvBhR0QpqxuMHEPlgHcOn/HVB8pRqvoO9sjQlVsg=; h=To:From:Subject:Date:References; b=OodVso6TiQm02jAutbh1FMqad7YTmhumPQT1YXdd0IFPLDxEFvEF5k2PDuDqWmeDM DrJVWtu3nsPfHHqfvcS6LJ3SEHDmk8C39TN82WV7woDhTyyzCiPKO4EL69rapm+Ut9 mpCKVEz2fN3hZaRC6seiGr+ao3VjLwTxOu4g2O5c= X-Auth: PGPMoose V2.0 PGP news.groups.proposals iEYEARECAAYFAmfUSEcACgkQrPkQbuk9hdssxgCgwHh32Aub8Z4QbpmRJ65M6UG+ 0nYAnAo5PJgnH56f9jd1nAbL864oGvQt =GjSK Bytes: 3705 Lines: 36 In <vquse4$3d1t6$1@dont-email.me> D Finnigan <dog_cow@macgui.com> writes: >On 3/13/25 8:42 AM, Paul W. Schleck wrote: >> >> >> - Ethical considerations >> >> What if you just wind up automatically relaying off-topic material and >> SPAM? What if some or all of the content is unlawful [...] >I expect that a reasonable person would shut off the robo-moderator in >that event. I expect that a reasonable person would not be able to react in time to an unpredictable and short-duration SPAM or flooding incident and the automatically approved articles would post to the newsgroups unimpeded. For a slow or no traffic newsgroup, the approved articles would be mostly or all SPAM and flooding, which still exists on moderator submission addresses, even post-Google Groups. Shutting off the robo-moderator would be closing the gate after the horse bolted. Do we expect the administrators of this robomoderation gateway to employ sophisticated monitoring and alerting, and that they would respond quickly to any incident, 24/7? That's a lot to ask. Furthermore, if they do shut off the robo-moderator, what do they do with any rejected submissions after shutoff? Dump all of them? Queue them up to manually go through them to pick out only the approvable ones? Such a service would realistically have to employ monitoring/alerting, SPAM filtering, keyword trapping, duplicate detection, rate limiting, and manual review of any queued articles for false positives. This is starting to resemble the duties of a human moderator, and a significant workload for one volunteer long-term. -- Paul W. Schleck pschleck@panix.com