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