Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!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: Thu, 13 Mar 2025 09:42:02 EDT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC
Approved: NGP Approval Key <ngp-approval-key@ngp.big-8.org>
Message-ID: <vqujqc$bid$1@reader1.panix.com>
References: <vqq7tf$ehn$1@reader1.panix.com> <vqtir0$2ukis$1@dont-email.me>
Injection-Info: reader1.panix.com; posting-host="panix6.panix.com:166.84.1.6";
	logging-data="21472"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@panix.com"
User-Agent: nn/6.7.3
Bytes: 4715
Lines: 56

In <vqtir0$2ukis$1@dont-email.me> Rayner Lucas <usenet2025@magic-cookie.co.ukNOSPAMPLEASE> writes:

 [...]
 
>For groups in the latter category, I'm considering setting up some kind of 
>robo-moderation service for them. This would have a couple of benefits: 
>it would give time to try converting a group to unmoderated as a test 
>case, and would also permit seeing whether anyone is still attempting 
>to post to the groups. It could therefore serve as a temporary measure 
>if it's unclear what the best course of action would be.

>A robo-moderation system could also be a starting point for a more 
>general moderation platform. Currently, a serious problem is that 
>prospective moderators can't simply start moderating a group: they need 
>to set up email addresses, install and configure software (most of which 
>is outdated and awkward to set up), and get their Usenet provider to 
>allow them to post approved messages (which not all providers will be 
>willing to do). If we're going to have a mass deletion of groups without 
>moderators, I think we also ought to make sure that moderating a group
>is not an unreasonably difficult thing to start doing.

>Thoughts?

>R

Two main issues come to mind:

- Long-term commitment

Not necessarily saying that it applies here, but there have been
multiple past efforts to save or robo-moderate newsgroups by parties who
might have even had a direct subject-matter interest in the specific
newsgroups.  They eventually gave up because the newsgroups were empty
or they wound up only relaying trash (abuse, off-topic, and SPAM).  They
didn't have topic knowledge for the newsgroups to try and jump-start
activity with informational postings and/or discussion starters. Also,
don't expect gratitude or financial support from the Usenet community
for your efforts.  You may even be criticized for doing the "wrong"
things (whatever others think "wrong" is).  Will your provider charge by
the byte?  Do you have the resources to pay for long-term access to bulk
Usenet?  What happens if you go away (other time commitments, health,
death, etc.).  Who will take over?

- 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 (offshore
gambling, marketing scams, drugs, human trafficking, etc.) or
denial-of-service flooding?  Will others understand that even though you
are the poster, you are just automatically relaying it without review?
Do the laws in your jurisdiction protect you?  Do you have the resources
to obtain legal advice and representation if you get into trouble?

--
Paul W. Schleck
pschleck@panix.com