X-Message-Number: 779
From: Kevin Q. Brown
Subject: USENET Cryonics Newsgroup 
Date: 29 Apr 1992

Subject: USENET cryonics newsgroup

Recent messages have declared that we are missing a lot of potential
cryonicists because of insufficient exposure of the cryonics meme.
Of course, some good, hard experimental proof that cryonic suspension
preserves memory would be even more valuable, but, unfortunately, is
beyond the scope of activities of a mailing list.  Spreading the meme,
though, is something that a mailing list or newsgroup is better equipped
to do.

Perry Metzger has kindly offered to set up an alt.cryonics newsgroup
(moderated by me) to make cryonics news readily accessible to more
people.  Unless I hear compelling evidence that we should NOT create
an alt.cryonics newsgroup, my inclination is to take advantage of
Perry's offer and have him set up alt.cryonics soon.  Since he recently
submitted the proposal for alt.cryonics to the alt.config newsgroup,
chances are that we could get started soon.

We previously discussed creating a USENET cryonics newsgroup (messages
407 411 414 419 426 429), but the only thing that got done was the
creation of the digest format.  That helped contain the perceived
volume (by improved packaging), but did little for making cryonics
better known throughout the Internet.  From that previous discussion
I can anticipate a few of the concerns people on the cryonics mailing
list may have about the creation of an alt.cryonics newsgroup:
  (1) people who do not have access to USENET alt.* groups will get dropped,
  (2) added noise (ie. flame-fests rather than useful information),
  (3) more exposure / perceived loss of "privacy", and
  (4) should we create sci.med.cryonics rather than alt.cryonics?

No Access to USENET alt.* Groups

The cryonics mailing list will not disappear.  Instead, the proposed
alt.cryonics newsgroup will be an additional means of receiving (and
responding to) the cryonics messages.  Messages will not be posted
directly to a moderated alt.cryonics; they will have to go through
the moderator, as they do for the mailing list, and both the cryonics
mailing list and alt.cryonics will receive the same messages.
The packaging could be done differently since the alt.cryonics messages
would not have to be in digest format, but my preference is to
continue using the digest format for the newsgroup.  This not only
simplifies my job but also preserves the opportunity to put
administrivia information in the "masthead" part of the digest
such as moderation policy, email address for submissions, etc.
If my current digest format is incompatible with standard USENET
news readers, please let me know.

Added Noise

Since alt.cryonics would be a moderated newsgroup, the noise content
can be controlled, provided the moderator is doing his job well.
The moderation of the cryonics mailing list has, to date, been
surprisingly light.  But the people on the cryonics mailing list are a
self-selected group; one generally joins a mailing list because of an
interest in the topic, not to take a few pot shots to start a flame-war.
Access to a USENET newsgroup, on the other hand, does not require anyone
to mail a request to a "List Lord" to receive the messages.  It's free
pickins; you can post your bait (provocative message) and see what
happens!  For example, some of the sci.med readers must have considered
postings about cryonics to be "noise" that they, unfortunately, could
not control.  (I suspect that cryonics is no longer considered as crazy
in sci.med as it once was, though, thanks to the thoughtful replies of
a number of people on this mailing list.)  Partly because of the potential
for added noise, developing a more explicit, better-thought-out moderation
policy might be a good idea before starting an alt.cryonics newsgroup.
(Wording similar to that used in comp.risks put in the "masthead" section
of each digest might be sufficient.)

On the other hand, noise may not be a problem at all.  Remember that
Michael Paulle pointed out that the problem is ... silence ... not a
lot of noise and junk messages when the topic is cryonics.  In fact,
if, for some reason, a moderated version of alt.cryonics cannot be
created, one might think that creating an UN-moderated alt.cryonics would
not be all that bad.  If the UN-moderated route were to be taken, then
the message flow would be like this:
    cryonics mailing list -- unfiltered --> alt.cryonics
    cryonics mailing list <--- filtered --- alt.cryonics
just in case some flame war does somehow start up on alt.cryonics.
We cannot be confident that an unmoderated alt.cryonics would usually
have a high S/N ratio, though, and if we really want an unmoderated
newsgroup, we can always simulate it by simply passing all incoming
messages straight through.  Attempting to moderate an unmoderated
newsgroup would be a much more difficult task.

Perceived Loss of Privacy

Both the cryonics mailing list and (proposed) alt.cryonics messages go to
an unknown number of people.  Anybody receiving the messages can archive
them, redistribute them, etc. since I have no control over what people
do with the messages after they are sent out.  It always has been
possible, though not likely, that the message you post today would
show up on the front page of the New York Times tomorrow.  Nevertheless,
since alt.cryonics messages will be accessible to casual, rather than
self-selected, people, the distribution of the readership will change.
The occasional faux pas that are basically tolerated (after an
appropriate amount of complaint, of course) by the self-selected people
on the mailing list may be more likely to raise a less tolerant response
from people casually dropping in.  Also, to increase your paranoia
quotient a little more, newsgroups are more likely to be monitored by
"the authorities" than mailing lists, which operate more like private email.

As I mentioned above, the moderation of the cryonics mailing list has
been light.  Basically, if you want to post something that makes you
look silly, that is your privilege.  As long as your message is not
likely to bring trouble to other people or organizations there shouldn't
be much of a problem.  And since I'm not able to verify everything people
say before mailblast time, that is what we have had to live with.
When your messages could potentially cause wide-ranging repercussions,
though, please double-check your facts, consult your lawyers, etc.
before sending your messages out, because I can't protect you.
(I do what I can, of course, but I have a full-time job and plenty of
other activities to handle, too.)  Just remember that the stakes will be
higher when posting to a newsgroup than when posting to a mailing list;
good postings will get more coverage and bad postings will inflict more
damage.

People who requested to be listed in message #0002 (the directory of
people on the cryonics mailing list) may choose to become unlisted if
they do not want to be exposed to this wider audience.

Create sci.med.cryonics, Not alt.cryonics

Personally, I think that sci.med.cryonics would be a better and more
appropriate place than alt.cryonics.  It is more logical, since
cryonics really is a (currently nonstandard) medical procedure, and,
to use marketing terminology, it is how we want to "position" ourselves,
too.  A "sci" group also is more prestigious than an "alt" group;
it has the "official USENET seal-of-approval", unlike those renegade
"alt" groups, and more sites carry the "sci" groups than the "alt" groups.

But sometimes you have to take what you can get.  An alt.xxx group
can be created almost immediately; no voting is required, although an
announcement/discussion posted in advance to alt.config is good
practice.  We may have to declare that since cryonics is NONstandard
medical practice, its newsgroup should go into the NONstandard USENET
hierarchy. :-)

Creating a sci.xxx newsgroup requires a discussion period followed
by a voting process in which "Yes" and "No" votes get tallied over
a suitable period (a month?).  The new group gets created only if
  (1) at least two thirds of the votes are "Yes" and
  (2) the number of "Yes" votes exceeds the number of "No" votes
      by at least a hundred.
(Please correct me if I am wrong about this procedure.)

The cryonics mailing list currently has a little over 120 email
addresses, some of which are redistribution points for
I-don't-know-how-many-people.  I would expect a few "No" votes
from the sci.med readers. :-(  Also, I would expect "No" votes
from anybody who doesn't understand cryonics very well. 8-(
So even if the people on the cryonics mailing list all got together
and submitted "Yes" votes, their ability to overwhelm the "No"
votes looks marginal at best.

You may dispute that conclusion.  For example, we are not completely
alone.  We may get a lot of extropians "Yes" votes, too.  (The cryonics
and extropians lists do not completely overlap - actually far from it.)
Also, FYI, CompuServe users can vote, too, even though they do not
receive USENET directly.

But can our "Yes" votes counteract the "No" votes from sci.med and
other newsgroups?  I cannot be sure.  If we attempt to create
sci.med.cryonics and fail, then it would be in very poor form to go
create alt.cryonics; the sysadmins would be likely to issue "rmgroups"
to get rid of us.  If we create an alt.cryonics first and use that
to build up our membership and spread the cryonics meme, then we will
not only become better able to successfully create sci.med.cryonics, but
we also will have a better fall-back position in case we do not succeed.

That is why alt.cryonics looks to me like the most viable method for
electronic cryonics "outreach" at this time.  If you see any reason
why we should NOT go ahead with this, please let us know ASAP.

                              Kevin Q. Brown
                              UUCP        ...att!whscad1!kqb
                              INTERNET    

PS: My thanks not only to Perry Metzger, but also to Russell Whitaker
    and Steve Strong for their considerable assistance with developing
    the USENET cryonics newsgroup idea.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=779