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