Re: 3rd RfD: Mass-deletion of moderated groups without a moderator

In article <vqujqc$bid$1@reader1.panix.com>,
Paul W. Schleck <pschleck@panix.com> wrote:

In <vqtir0$2ukis$1@dont-email.me> Rayner Lucas
<usenet2025@magic-cookie.co.ukNOSPAMPLEASE> writes:
>

[snip suggestion of robo-moderating some groups]

>
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).

This is the reason I suggested that it could be a temporary measure. If no
on-topic posts materialise after a set period, despite making it known that
the group is accepting submissions, that's a very strong argument in favour
of proceeding with deletion.

You may even be criticized for doing the "wrong" things (whatever others
think "wrong" is).

Criticism, on Usenet? Surely not! :-)

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?

I already co-moderate several groups, so I have a rough idea of what's
likely to be required in terms of bandwidth and resources.

The intent here would specifically be not to end up doing it long-term.
And if I got hit by a bus, the groups would be in no worse state than they
are now.

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?

TBH I don't think it'd be reasonable to make it entirely automated. There
comes a point of diminishing returns where you spend more time writing 
convoluted, error-prone filters than you would by just blocking the
easiest 80% and rejecting the remaining abuse manually.

Do the laws in your jurisdiction protect you?  Do you have the resources
to obtain legal advice and representation if you get into trouble?

A good question. The UK's Online Safety Act has been written by people who
have almost certainly never heard of Usenet, let alone understood it, with
the result that it's unclear how current legislation applies. At least one
Usenet-based service, Newsgrouper, plans to block UK users to avoid
potential liability. The lobste.rs discussion forum has also considered
geoblocking UK users, but for now has decided against it; their notes and
explanations are here: lobste.rs/c/xevn8a

As a moderation system does not display online content to the general
public, and one could reasonably argue that it's an exempt email-based
service, it seems likely to me that it would not be affected by this
legislation. However, I'd want to consult someone qualified to be sure.

I am not committing to anything at this point, and I'd only want to do it
for groups that seem to me to have a decent chance of being used. But if
it looks like something that might help, I have the ability and will to
give it a try.

R