Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.misc > #22054 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2022-07-21 01:41 +0000 |
| Last post | 2023-02-11 19:24 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 65 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.misc
An open letter to Elon Musk Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2022-07-21 01:41 +0000
Re: An open letter to Elon Musk "25B.Z959" <25B.Z959@nada.net> - 2022-07-20 22:22 -0400
Re: An open letter to Elon Musk not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2022-07-23 09:02 +1000
Re: An open letter to Elon Musk "25B.Z959" <25B.Z959@nada.net> - 2022-07-23 00:15 -0400
Re: An open letter to Elon Musk Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2022-07-23 09:01 +0100
Re: An open letter to Elon Musk "25B.Z959" <25B.Z959@nada.net> - 2022-07-23 14:33 -0400
Re: An open letter to Elon Musk Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2022-07-25 19:18 +0100
Re: An open letter to Elon Musk "25B.Z959" <25B.Z959@nada.net> - 2022-07-25 23:15 -0400
Re: An open letter to Elon Musk Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2022-07-23 11:39 +0100
Re: An open letter to Elon Musk Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2022-08-02 17:14 +0000
Re: An open letter to Elon Musk Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2022-08-02 18:36 +0000
Re: An open letter to Elon Musk Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2022-08-02 21:27 +0100
Re: An open letter to Elon Musk Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2022-08-03 12:44 +0000
Re: An open letter to Elon Musk Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2022-08-03 16:26 +0100
Re: An open letter to Elon Musk Jan van den Broek <balglaas@dds.nl> - 2022-08-03 18:35 +0000
Re: An open letter to Elon Musk Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2022-08-03 22:26 +0100
Re: An open letter to Elon Musk Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2022-08-13 14:51 +0000
Re: An open letter to Elon Musk Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2022-08-04 09:17 +0100
Re: An open letter to Elon Musk Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2022-08-14 12:47 +0000
Re: An open letter to Elon Musk Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2022-08-14 14:17 +0100
Re: An open letter to Elon Musk Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2022-08-14 14:01 +0000
Re: An open letter to Elon Musk Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2022-08-13 14:42 +0000
Re: An open letter to Elon Musk Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2022-08-13 21:25 +0100
Re: An open letter to Elon Musk Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2022-08-14 14:22 +0000
Re: An open letter to Elon Musk Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2022-08-14 18:00 +0100
Re: An open letter to Elon Musk Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2022-08-14 18:13 +0000
Re: An open letter to Elon Musk "25B.Z969" <25B.Z969@noda.net> - 2022-08-16 12:14 -0400
Re: An open letter to Elon Musk Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2022-08-16 18:15 +0000
Re: An open letter to Elon Musk "25B.Z969" <25B.Z969@noda.net> - 2022-08-16 20:51 -0400
Re: An open letter to Elon Musk Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2022-08-17 08:02 +0100
Re: An open letter to Elon Musk Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2022-08-17 20:12 -0300
Re: An open letter to Elon Musk kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2022-08-18 02:15 +0000
Re: An open letter to Elon Musk James Warren <jwwarren987@gmail.com> - 2022-09-05 19:50 -0300
Re: An open letter to Elon Musk Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2022-08-03 15:27 +0000
Re: An open letter to Elon Musk kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2022-07-23 13:23 +0000
Re: An open letter to Elon Musk Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2022-08-02 17:31 +0000
Re: An open letter to Elon Musk kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2022-08-03 01:10 +0000
Re: An open letter to Elon Musk "25B.Z969" <25B.Z969@noda.net> - 2022-08-02 22:34 -0400
Re: An open letter to Elon Musk Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2022-08-03 13:04 +0000
Re: An open letter to Elon Musk "25B.Z969" <25B.Z969@noda.net> - 2022-08-04 00:05 -0400
Re: An open letter to Elon Musk Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2022-08-14 09:36 +0000
Re: An open letter to Elon Musk kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2022-08-05 23:40 +0000
Re: An open letter to Elon Musk "25B.Z969" <25B.Z969@noda.net> - 2022-08-05 22:12 -0400
Re: An open letter to Elon Musk Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2022-08-06 02:40 -0300
Re: An open letter to Elon Musk kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2022-08-06 18:09 +0000
Re: An open letter to Elon Musk Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2022-08-14 13:58 +0000
Re: An open letter to Elon Musk kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2022-08-14 17:22 +0000
Re: An open letter to Elon Musk Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2022-08-16 18:58 +0000
Re: An open letter to Elon Musk Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2022-08-16 19:10 +0000
Re: An open letter to Elon Musk kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2022-08-18 02:12 +0000
Re: An open letter to Elon Musk kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2022-08-18 02:11 +0000
Re: An open letter to Elon Musk Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2022-08-23 08:35 +0000
Re: An open letter to Elon Musk "voyager55" <voyager55@none.none> - 2022-07-23 17:13 -0400
Re: An open letter to Elon Musk Bud Spencer <bud@campo.verano.it> - 2022-07-24 00:50 +0300
Re: An open letter to Elon Musk "voyager55" <voyager55@none.none> - 2022-07-24 12:14 -0400
Re: An open letter to Elon Musk Bud Spencer <bud@campo.verano.it> - 2022-07-25 03:18 +0300
Re: An open letter to Elon Musk "25B.Z959" <25B.Z959@nada.net> - 2022-07-24 22:26 -0400
Re: An open letter to Elon Musk Bud Spencer <bud@campo.verano.it> - 2022-07-25 16:17 +0300
Re: An open letter to Elon Musk "25B.Z959" <25B.Z959@nada.net> - 2022-07-25 09:49 -0400
Re: An open letter to Elon Musk Bud Spencer <bud@campo.verano.it> - 2022-07-25 17:09 +0300
Re: An open letter to Elon Musk "25B.Z959" <25B.Z959@nada.net> - 2022-07-25 23:01 -0400
Re: An open letter to Elon Musk Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2022-08-03 12:02 +0000
Re: An open letter to Elon Musk Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2022-08-14 15:09 +0000
Re: An open letter to Elon Musk Y A <y000000000000@ya.ee> - 2023-02-11 08:13 -0800
Re: An open letter to Elon Musk Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2023-02-11 19:24 +0000
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
| From | Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-08-14 14:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uZZrStbplvDqiGajk@bongo-ra.co> |
| In reply to | #22111 |
On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 14:17:39 +0100 Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote: > Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> writes: > > Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote: > >> Jan van den Broek <balglaas@dds.nl> writes: > >>> 2022-08-03, Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> schrieb: > >>>> First if you block one person you still see the responses. You may > >>>> be spared one particular idiot, but you still see the argument. You > >>>> can > >>> > >>> Ever thought of filtering on the "References"-header? > >> > >> Yes, and I do. But it’s additional effort for every discussion, and if > >> the subthread gets back on track then it produces false positives. > >> > >> The starting point of this subthread was “it’s a mystery why people > >> don’t use filtering”. It is really not a mystery if you’re paying > >> attention. > > > > Let me mention 2 specific cases. > > It seems pretty clear that most people (including Pascal and Scott) find > Usenet’s local filtering inadequate. The only remaining issue is that > you don’t believe anyone when they tell you this. The only people who could reliably have given this information were Pascal Bourguignon and Scott Burson and they didn't. If they had said that they find usenet filtering inadequate , I would have believed them. The rest of us can only speculate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-08-13 14:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <Mwg+qIyPG6JG7CDqq@bongo-ra.co> |
| In reply to | #22084 |
On Wed, 03 Aug 2022 16:26:38 +0100 Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote: > Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> writes: > > Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote: > >> 6) There was no good way to prevent bad behavior on Usenet. If you > >> wanted to escape bad actors (or just posters who can’t let go), Usenet’s > >> competitors offered an easy way out. > > > > Or you could and can use filtering. It is a minor mystery to me why > > people don't do that. I have indirect evidence that some people chose > > to leave a group which had posters they strongly disliked rather than > > filter those posters and I could see from the headers of the people > > who left that they were using a newsreader i.e. not googlegroups. My > > guess is that for some people there is a psychological factor involved > > and they find off-putting or distracting the idea that they are > > reading or posting on the same online discussion medium as some "bad" > > people. So even if they can apply filtering and not see any of the > > posts of the bad people , that's not good enough for them. > > Filtering as implemented on Usenet is inadequate for reasons that seems > pretty clear to me. > > First if you block one person you still see the responses. You may be > spared one particular idiot, but you still see the argument. You can > filter out everyone who likes arguing with idiots but then you miss > everything else they say outside those arguments. You can filter based on that any of the last N posts in the References: header field are from the idiot. You choose the value of N based on how obnoxious the idiot is. It's not going to be perfect but then I don't see how having someone else do the filtering , someone you don't even know , would be an improvement. > Secondly, everybody has to do their own filtering. It’s considerable > excess effort compared to centralized blocking and means that everyone > gets a different view of what would otherwise be a unified forum. It is more effort but I wouldn't call the effort excess. Doing things based on your own tastes , preferences , values , etc. is always going to be more work than letting someone else do it for you. It applies to what books or newspapers you read , what websites you visit , what movies you watch , etc. I don't see why usenet posts should be an exception and with usenet it's technically feasible for the content to be distributed everywhere and for everyone to make their own choices. As for being a unified forum , what's the value of being a unified forum if the unity is enforced rather than as a happy result of everyone making their own choices ? In any case , even with moderation , there's no guarantee that everyone opens the same threads or not do their own filtering on top of the centralised filtering or even obtain the same mental picture of that they read. I mean if you go to a page on amazon or IMDB where there is a large number of reviews for some book or movie , you will see that different people focus on different stuff. They have watched or read the same book or movie but what registered in their brains might be very different. So there is no "unified forum" , central filtering or not. > In contrast Usenet’s successors have, for the most part, distributed > decisions over blocking of bad actors to localized authorities. > Empirically it seems that most people prefer this model. Perhaps it's the only model they know of. I have certainly seen many times on message boards complaints "Why such and such poster was banned ? I liked that guy". Also complaints that the banning was done with no transparency (some message boards have a subforum where a short explanation is given as to why each person got banned). I have also come across message boards where some banned users had thousands of posts. Obviously these weren't some random spammers or trolls , it's just that at some point a too large gap appeared between what those posters wanted to post and what the administrators considered acceptable. Ultimately what I want is for people to make an informed choice. Usenet is an online discussion medium where the software allows each individual to make very precise and sophisticated filtering based on personal preferences with no centralised filtering (but centralised filtering is also possible). If someone does know that such a medium exists and they still prefer centralised filtering then fair enough. > Elsewhere you wrote: > > | Say you have an online discussion community with 1,000,000 people and > | 999,999 of them think that person A is a sage and person B is an idiot > | but there is one person C who thinks that B says more worthwhile stuff > | than A ; C should still have the ability to read B's messages. If the > | 999,999 people can use their preferences to prevent C from reading B's > | posts (or make it very hard) , it goes against freedom of speech > | regardless of what algorithms these 999,999 people use to achieve > | that. > > The reality is different. What actually happens is different in two > ways: > > 1) The controllers of the discussion community ban person B, usually > with very little reference to the 999,999 other readers. Those readers > stay or go elsewhere depending on their views of the moderation policy, > the quality of the discussion, etc. Right. And do you consider this preferable over people making their own choices about specific posters or threads rather than only being able to make the much cruder choice of whether to leave the community altogether ? > 2) If B and C still want to communicate then they can can make a new > online discussion community to do so. How are they going to do that ? Say B and C are on a message board and B gets banned. How are they going to communicate after that ? And it's not just about B and C. People who may come across the message board in the future get deprived of the opportunity of forming their own opinions. Perhaps some of those would also like B's posts but they won't get to find out (at least for newer posts B might have made , older posts tend to remain available even for banned posters). > No communication that anyone actually wants to receive is blocked. The > only thing that B is denied is access to an audience that don’t want to > hear from them anyway. > > To me, “freedom of speech” means freedom to speak to those who wish to > hear you. It does not give anyone a claim over other people’s attention. Totally agree with your 2nd paragraph. In the scenario I presented C wants to read B's posts and the other 999,999 people do not. With individual filtering everyone gets what they want. Without it , the 999,999 people possibly get what they want (I say "possibly" because , even if they don't want to read B's posts , they might still not want for B to get banned for reasons of principle) , C does not get what he wants and people who join the board in the future do not get to make up their minds. > >> IMO Usenet is dying due to lack of demand, not lack of supply. > > > > I don't think it's dying but advertising it more is desirable. > > It’s dying in the sense that the numbers of users and posts have sharply > and consistently declined from their peak (IIRC somewhere around the > turn of the century). "Dying" suggests it's on its way to not exist anymore. Perhaps it will turn out like this or perhaps it will remain at its current low numbers of perhaps it will experience some kind of rebirth. I don't think that the evidence is conclusive. -- That evening she was sitting in her hotel room when the phone rang. It was the fellow she had met in that far off train station, just wanting to chat a bit more. How did he find her? Quite simple really. He assumed there was only one place for a foreigner to stay in Ibusuki-the big international hotel. So he called there and asked to have himself connected to the Dutch woman's room. http://www.debito.org/beggarsresults.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-08-13 21:25 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <875yivsxfu.fsf@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk> |
| In reply to | #22105 |
Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> writes: > Ultimately what I want is for people to make an informed choice. Usenet is an > online discussion medium where the software allows each individual to make > very precise and sophisticated filtering based on personal preferences with > no centralised filtering (but centralised filtering is also possible). If > someone does know that such a medium exists and they still prefer centralised > filtering then fair enough. People did make an informed choice. When alternatives to Usenet appeared they started to abandon Usenet. -- https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-08-14 14:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1fdOfjRIFCL2qTpp8@bongo-ra.co> |
| In reply to | #22108 |
On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 21:25:25 +0100 Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote: > Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> writes: > > Ultimately what I want is for people to make an informed choice. Usenet is an > > online discussion medium where the software allows each individual to make > > very precise and sophisticated filtering based on personal preferences with > > no centralised filtering (but centralised filtering is also possible). If > > someone does know that such a medium exists and they still prefer centralised > > filtering then fair enough. > > People did make an informed choice. When alternatives to Usenet appeared > they started to abandon Usenet. Decades ago it might have been the case that anyone who went online also learned about usenet. This no longer applies (apparently , there are even people who don't realise that being on facebook counts as being on the internet. But presumably such people wouldn't be a good match for usenet anyway) so it would be good that people *now* knew about usenet and its capabilities and made a choice. I cannot absolutely exclude that they do know and have made a choice but , based on some comments I have seen from people who post through googlegroups , there are people who don't have a clear picture. -- vlaho.ninja/prog
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-08-14 18:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87r11irc8l.fsf@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk> |
| In reply to | #22114 |
Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> writes: > Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote: >> Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> writes: >>> Ultimately what I want is for people to make an informed >>> choice. Usenet is an online discussion medium where the software >>> allows each individual to make very precise and sophisticated >>> filtering based on personal preferences with no centralised >>> filtering (but centralised filtering is also possible). If someone >>> does know that such a medium exists and they still prefer >>> centralised filtering then fair enough. >> >> People did make an informed choice. When alternatives to Usenet >> appeared they started to abandon Usenet. > > Decades ago it might have been the case that anyone who went online > also learned about usenet. This no longer applies (apparently , there > are even people who don't realise that being on facebook counts as > being on the internet. But presumably such people wouldn't be a good > match for usenet anyway) so it would be good that people *now* knew > about usenet and its capabilities and made a choice. I cannot > absolutely exclude that they do know and have made a choice but , > based on some comments I have seen from people who post through > googlegroups , there are people who don't have a clear picture. Obviously I meant that the people _who were on Usenet_ made an informed choice. But unless you think people have fundamentally changed in the last couple of decades there’s no reason to think the outcome would be any different if today’s Internet population were introduced to Usenet. I think you’re just in denial about Usenet going the way of telegrams and fax. Sometimes the world moves on. -- https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-08-14 18:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <eqIYFUIrNZoFLZCWZ@bongo-ra.co> |
| In reply to | #22116 |
On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 18:00:58 +0100 Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote: > Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> writes: > > Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote: > >> People did make an informed choice. When alternatives to Usenet > >> appeared they started to abandon Usenet. > > > > Decades ago it might have been the case that anyone who went online > > also learned about usenet. This no longer applies (apparently , there > > are even people who don't realise that being on facebook counts as > > being on the internet. But presumably such people wouldn't be a good > > match for usenet anyway) so it would be good that people *now* knew > > about usenet and its capabilities and made a choice. I cannot > > absolutely exclude that they do know and have made a choice but , > > based on some comments I have seen from people who post through > > googlegroups , there are people who don't have a clear picture. > > Obviously I meant that the people _who were on Usenet_ made an informed > choice. But unless you think people have fundamentally changed in the > last couple of decades there’s no reason to think the outcome would be > any different if today’s Internet population were introduced to Usenet. What has certainly changed in the last 2 decades is the population of the planet which has gone up (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population : 6,143,494,000 in 2000 , 7,795,000,000 in 2020) and the percentage of that population who have internet access. I imagine (but can't be bothered to search for statistics) that that percentage has also gone up due to technological and economic development. So there are a lot more potential usenet users. Beyond that , where one decides to conduct one's discussion , especially political discussion , is among other things a political decision. In the last few years there have been many complaints , justified or not , that a few social media big players have too much control over which political opinions get heard. So the conditions are ripe for people to use a much more decentralised medium for online discussion. Usenet is here and it is technologically mature. > I think you’re just in denial about Usenet going the way of telegrams > and fax. Sometimes the world moves on. We'll see. -- vlaho.ninja/prog
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "25B.Z969" <25B.Z969@noda.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-08-16 12:14 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <3SCdnf-b45KEX2b_nZ2dnZfqn_jNnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #22118 |
On 8/14/22 2:13 PM, Spiros Bousbouras wrote: > On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 18:00:58 +0100 > Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote: >> Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> writes: >>> Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>> People did make an informed choice. When alternatives to Usenet >>>> appeared they started to abandon Usenet. >>> >>> Decades ago it might have been the case that anyone who went online >>> also learned about usenet. This no longer applies (apparently , there >>> are even people who don't realise that being on facebook counts as >>> being on the internet. But presumably such people wouldn't be a good >>> match for usenet anyway) so it would be good that people *now* knew >>> about usenet and its capabilities and made a choice. I cannot >>> absolutely exclude that they do know and have made a choice but , >>> based on some comments I have seen from people who post through >>> googlegroups , there are people who don't have a clear picture. >> >> Obviously I meant that the people _who were on Usenet_ made an informed >> choice. But unless you think people have fundamentally changed in the >> last couple of decades there’s no reason to think the outcome would be >> any different if today’s Internet population were introduced to Usenet. > > What has certainly changed in the last 2 decades is the population of the > planet which has gone up (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population : > 6,143,494,000 in 2000 , 7,795,000,000 in 2020) and the percentage of that > population who have internet access. I imagine (but can't be bothered to > search for statistics) that that percentage has also gone up due to > technological and economic development. So there are a lot more potential > usenet users. > > Beyond that , where one decides to conduct one's discussion , especially > political discussion , is among other things a political decision. In the > last few years there have been many complaints , justified or not , that a > few social media big players have too much control over which political > opinions get heard. So the conditions are ripe for people to use a much > more decentralised medium for online discussion. Usenet is here and it > is technologically mature. > >> I think you’re just in denial about Usenet going the way of telegrams >> and fax. Sometimes the world moves on. > > We'll see. > I still have a FAX, and it has its uses. So does usenet. But you can't really post pix of your lunch or that weird looking toenail looking for a minute of nano-fame and cheers - so, for 99%, it's useless. IMHO, it's better if the shallow-water people DON'T know about usenet or any similar options. Keep them occupied with cat videos. Usenet is basically what used to be called a "BBS" - but one that nobody owns. I'd like to see people hosting it to ECHO it on a standard web page on the same server. Doesn't have to be fancy at all, just functional. Hey, you can (I have) run a simple web page on a damned ARDUINO UNO ... so it's not like it'd put a strain on anybody's decacore i9 box. The idea is to not rely on an odd port number ISPs/govts can trivially cut off off, micromanage or charge money for.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-08-16 18:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ME=dVdF=fgV5sE4In@bongo-ra.co> |
| In reply to | #22124 |
On Tue, 16 Aug 2022 12:14:45 -0400 "25B.Z969" <25B.Z969@noda.net> wrote: > On 8/14/22 2:13 PM, Spiros Bousbouras wrote: > > On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 18:00:58 +0100 > > Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote: [...] > >> I think you’re just in denial about Usenet going the way of telegrams > >> and fax. Sometimes the world moves on. > > > > We'll see. > > > > I still have a FAX, and it has its uses. So does usenet. To give another technological example , several years ago vinyl records looked like they were on their way out. But they're making a comeback. Such things are fashion up to a point and fashions are unpredictable. > But you can't really post pix of your lunch or that > weird looking toenail looking for a minute of nano-fame > and cheers - so, for 99%, it's useless. IMHO, it's better > if the shallow-water people DON'T know about usenet or any > similar options. Keep them occupied with cat videos. One can both be interested in shallow stuff and deeper stuff. By all means let people have twitter for light stuff including 1 sentence comments. > Usenet is basically what used to be called a "BBS" - but > one that nobody owns. I'd like to see people hosting it > to ECHO it on a standard web page on the same server. > Doesn't have to be fancy at all, just functional. > > Hey, you can (I have) run a simple web page on a damned > ARDUINO UNO ... so it's not like it'd put a strain on > anybody's decacore i9 box. Or indeed running a newsserver. > The idea is to not rely on > an odd port number ISPs/govts can trivially cut off off, > micromanage or charge money for. -- Every theatre is an insane asylum, but an opera theatre is the ward for the incurables. Franz Schalk
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "25B.Z969" <25B.Z969@noda.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-08-16 20:51 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <qa6dnZURZ_LRpmH_nZ2dnZfqnPXNnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #22126 |
On 8/16/22 2:15 PM, Spiros Bousbouras wrote: > On Tue, 16 Aug 2022 12:14:45 -0400 > "25B.Z969" <25B.Z969@noda.net> wrote: >> On 8/14/22 2:13 PM, Spiros Bousbouras wrote: >>> On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 18:00:58 +0100 >>> Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote: > > [...] > >>>> I think you’re just in denial about Usenet going the way of telegrams >>>> and fax. Sometimes the world moves on. >>> >>> We'll see. >>> >> >> I still have a FAX, and it has its uses. So does usenet. > > To give another technological example , several years ago vinyl records > looked like they were on their way out. But they're making a comeback. > Such things are fashion up to a point and fashions are unpredictable. > >> But you can't really post pix of your lunch or that >> weird looking toenail looking for a minute of nano-fame >> and cheers - so, for 99%, it's useless. IMHO, it's better >> if the shallow-water people DON'T know about usenet or any >> similar options. Keep them occupied with cat videos. > > One can both be interested in shallow stuff and deeper stuff. By all means > let people have twitter for light stuff including 1 sentence comments. Remember the purpose of NewSpeak ... to so dumb-down and abbreviate language and thus ideas that it would be impossible to organize a rebellion, or even the complex thoughts to understand that there might be a reason for one. The word itself might be obsoleted. No more "Common Sense", no more DeclarationsVE ..... just frenetic postings of lunch menus and cute kittens forever. I would rather have the Twits NOT discover Usenet. Won't prevent them, but won't help them either. >> Usenet is basically what used to be called a "BBS" - but >> one that nobody owns. I'd like to see people hosting it >> to ECHO it on a standard web page on the same server. >> Doesn't have to be fancy at all, just functional. >> >> Hey, you can (I have) run a simple web page on a damned >> ARDUINO UNO ... so it's not like it'd put a strain on >> anybody's decacore i9 box. > > Or indeed running a newsserver. My premise was BOTH at the same time. And below was the primary reason WHY. >> The idea is to not rely on >> an odd port number ISPs/govts can trivially cut off off, >> micromanage or charge money for. VERY few ISPs offer Usenet anymore. In part because it's less popular these days, but also because it's uncontrolled, unpurified, a liability risk. Some offer VERY few groups, "uncontroversial"/"safe" ones. Some even block the port. So, translating it also to ports they CAN'T block, servers that get lost in the multitudes, seems a good idea. Usenet-LIKE text-based uncensored servers, I'd like to see more of those too. Safety in numbers. Make sure they can crosspost to 'real' usenet too.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-08-17 08:02 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87v8qr9wtk.fsf@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk> |
| In reply to | #22130 |
"25B.Z969" <25B.Z969@noda.net> writes: > Remember the purpose of NewSpeak ... to so dumb-down and abbreviate > language and thus ideas that it would be impossible to organize a > rebellion, or even the complex thoughts to understand that there might > be a reason for one. The word itself might be obsoleted. No more > "Common Sense", no more DeclarationsVE ..... just frenetic postings of > lunch menus and cute kittens forever. There’s plenty wrong with Twitter but if you think it’s just food and cat pictures then you’re obviously not paying attention. -- https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-08-17 20:12 -0300 |
| Message-ID | <87mtc2o45p.fsf@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> |
| In reply to | #22131 |
Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes: > There's plenty wrong with Twitter but if you think it's just food and > cat pictures then you're obviously not paying attention. Yeah. For an old guy like me, it's utterly bizarre that the president of the USA made policy announcements, fired high-ranking staff and the like using a medium designed for trivial nattering among people with tiny attention spans. -- Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-08-18 02:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tdk7b5$s4$1@panix2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #22148 |
Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote: >Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes: > >> There's plenty wrong with Twitter but if you think it's just food and >> cat pictures then you're obviously not paying attention. > >Yeah. For an old guy like me, it's utterly bizarre that the president >of the USA made policy announcements, fired high-ranking staff and the >like using a medium designed for trivial nattering among people with >tiny attention spans. I assure you that it was not just old guys like us who found this bizarre. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Warren <jwwarren987@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-09-05 19:50 -0300 |
| Message-ID | <PAidnV8GSP-14Iv-nZ2dnZfqnPqdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #22148 |
On 2022-08-17 8:12 PM, Mike Spencer wrote: > Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes: > >> There's plenty wrong with Twitter but if you think it's just food and >> cat pictures then you're obviously not paying attention. > > Yeah. For an old guy like me, it's utterly bizarre that the president > of the USA made policy announcements, fired high-ranking staff and the > like using a medium designed for trivial nattering among people with > tiny attention spans. > I don't tweet but my attention span is somewhat reduced as I get older. Perhaps I don't tolerate repetitious nattering as much as I did when younger. Is twitter for me then?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-08-03 15:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tce45a$2a6su$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #22082 |
Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, 02 Aug 2022 21:27:23 +0100 > Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote: >> Rich <rich@example.invalid> writes: >> > If you go digging, you can probably find as many explanations as you >> > wish, all of which in isolation will sound plausable. There is one >> > floating around related to a New York AG who was going hard at child >> > porn circa 1997-1999 and targeted Usenet in his 'sweep' that is offered >> > up as a reason why ISP's started dropping Usenet. >> >> There were various legal issues in the UK but Usenet provision largely >> continued despite them. Virgin Media appear to have only stopped in 2021 >> (TBH I?m surprised they carried on that long.) > > Yes , virginmedia were providing usenet until 2021-06-30 . The retention on > some groups was more than 10 years. Very nice. There is a U.S. based ISP who > still provide usenet access : > https://secure.dslextreme.com/support/kb/email-and-newsgroups/newsgroups/news-settings-for-clients > > I have a vague recollection that I've come across a Canadian ISP doing similar > but I couldn't find an entry in my bookmarks and perhaps I'm misremembering. > I guess this is as good a place as any to ask if anyone knows of any ISP in > any country who automatically provide usenet access to their subscribers. > >> > Reality is more likely a combination of: >> [...] >> >> 6) There was no good way to prevent bad behavior on Usenet. If you >> wanted to escape bad actors (or just posters who can?t let go), >> Usenet?s competitors offered an easy way out. > > Or you could and can use filtering. Which is the reason proper usenet readers include killfiles. Of course, killfiling "troll-54@troll.farm.com" does not help when a bunch of other members respond to that troll, because now one sees the replys from "valuable-members-*@good.poster.com" often containing quoted matter from killfiled "troll-54@troll.farm.com", somewhat negating the value of the killfile. And, sadly, a very many of those "troll engagement" replies, that allow the troll to sneak in around one's killfile, do come from the clueless google groupers. > It is a minor mystery to me why people don't do that. I have > indirect evidence that some people chose to leave a group which had > posters they strongly disliked rather than filter those posters and I > could see from the headers of the people who left that they were > using a newsreader i.e. not googlegroups. My guess is that for some > people there is a psychological factor involved and they find > off-putting or distracting the idea that they are reading or posting > on the same online discussion medium as some "bad" people. Without asking them we can only guess (likely incorrectly) as to their reasons. I've often suspected part of it to be the inherent "nanny" desire of some where they expect "others" to do the work so they can experience a "pre-cleaned environment" within which to play. And with web forums and third party "moderators" those who wanted their "nanny" to "clean up their room" got what they wanted, the web forum was (mostly) "clean of trolls" because the moderator played the part of "nanny" and kept the trolls at bay.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-23 13:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tbgso8$2v8$1@panix2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #22055 |
25B.Z959 <25B.Z959@nada.net> wrote: > > Usenet doesn't belong to anybody ... ergo there's not > much money in it. You can't buy it, you can't sell it, > it's just an IP port number. It's also basically a > text-only kind of media, very 70s/80s, and not even as > interactive as those old 300-baud dial-up BBS systems. When Usenet was popular, it belonged to the people that ran the machines. Some of those people, like the ones that ran PSUVM, were less active about controlling users than others. But believe me, if you posted something that was problematic, it was entirely possible to get kicked off a server. Carasso managed it at least a dozen times. Now, the point is that the system was distributed so that if you found yourself kicked off one server you could likely get an account elsewhere, until you go to the point where UDP was threatened for the servers that would accept you. So there was some de facto freedom here but it had limits. But the freedom of Usenet was in no way unlimited, and there were many fights between the anon.penet.fi people and the cs.utexas.edu people and people trying to control traffic which are well-documented. --scott "You have the freedom to say whatever you want but you do not have the freedom to use my computer to do it." -- Newsmistress, U. Chicago -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-08-02 17:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <JmZILH8+mi7I1lmQt@bongo-ra.co> |
| In reply to | #22060 |
On 23 Jul 2022 13:23:20 -0000 kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote: > 25B.Z959 <25B.Z959@nada.net> wrote: > > > > Usenet doesn't belong to anybody ... ergo there's not > > much money in it. You can't buy it, you can't sell it, > > it's just an IP port number. It's also basically a > > text-only kind of media, very 70s/80s, and not even as > > interactive as those old 300-baud dial-up BBS systems. > > When Usenet was popular, it belonged to the people that ran the machines. > Some of those people, like the ones that ran PSUVM, were less active about > controlling users than others. But believe me, if you posted something > that was problematic, it was entirely possible to get kicked off a server. > Carasso managed it at least a dozen times. PSUVM ? Carasso ? I'm guessing you don't mean "Emmanuel Carasso or Emanuel Karasu was an Ottoman lawyer and a member of the prominent Sephardic Jewish Carasso family of Ottoman Salonica." > Now, the point is that the system was distributed so that if you found > yourself kicked off one server you could likely get an account elsewhere, > until you go to the point where UDP was threatened for the servers that > would accept you. So there was some de facto freedom here but it had > limits. And that's why we need as many servers as possible. Otherwise , yes freedom has de facto limits. After all , people have been jailed or killed for saying some things in public , usenet cannot magically remove such physical possibilities , it can at most make them harder. > But the freedom of Usenet was in no way unlimited, and there were many > fights between the anon.penet.fi people and the cs.utexas.edu people > and people trying to control traffic which are well-documented. Can you say a bit more on this or point me to some sources ? > "You have the freedom to say whatever you want but you do not have the > freedom to use my computer to do it." -- Newsmistress, U. Chicago Indeed. -- vlaho.ninja/prog
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-08-03 01:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tcchtc$8st$1@panix2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #22075 |
Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> wrote: >kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote: >> 25B.Z959 <25B.Z959@nada.net> wrote: >> > >> > Usenet doesn't belong to anybody ... ergo there's not >> > much money in it. You can't buy it, you can't sell it, >> > it's just an IP port number. It's also basically a >> > text-only kind of media, very 70s/80s, and not even as >> > interactive as those old 300-baud dial-up BBS systems. >> >> When Usenet was popular, it belonged to the people that ran the machines. >> Some of those people, like the ones that ran PSUVM, were less active about >> controlling users than others. But believe me, if you posted something >> that was problematic, it was entirely possible to get kicked off a server. >> Carasso managed it at least a dozen times. > >PSUVM ? Carasso ? I'm guessing you don't mean "Emmanuel Carasso or Emanuel >Karasu was an Ottoman lawyer and a member of the prominent Sephardic Jewish >Carasso family of Ottoman Salonica." Roger David Carasso may not have invented trolling on the internet, but he certainly perfected it. And there is some chance that he may have invented many of the more popular trolling techniques seen today. PSUVM was an IBM machine at Penn State which was full of undergraduates with Usenet access, I believe through some sort of BITNET gateway. It was famous for the huge flood of ignorant posts that appeared every September. >> Now, the point is that the system was distributed so that if you found >> yourself kicked off one server you could likely get an account elsewhere, >> until you go to the point where UDP was threatened for the servers that >> would accept you. So there was some de facto freedom here but it had >> limits. > >And that's why we need as many servers as possible. Otherwise , yes freedom >has de facto limits. After all , people have been jailed or killed for saying >some things in public , usenet cannot magically remove such physical >possibilities , it can at most make them harder. Having as many servers as possible means that people who really should be removed from the net do not get removed. That's kind of the problem today. The management system that worked for Usenet does not scale up. >> But the freedom of Usenet was in no way unlimited, and there were many >> fights between the anon.penet.fi people and the cs.utexas.edu people >> and people trying to control traffic which are well-documented. > >Can you say a bit more on this or point me to some sources ? Other than to look up news.admin from the eighties and early nineties, I am not sure where to point you. There were anonymizing services that would allow people to post with their source obscured somewhat or completely. Some people thought this was good. Some people thought it was bad. When a war over Scientology began it helped fuel the fire. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "25B.Z969" <25B.Z969@noda.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-08-02 22:34 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <icWdnUxrW_UiQ3T_nZ2dnUU7-VPNnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #22078 |
On 8/2/22 9:10 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote: > Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> wrote: >> kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote: >>> 25B.Z959 <25B.Z959@nada.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> Usenet doesn't belong to anybody ... ergo there's not >>>> much money in it. You can't buy it, you can't sell it, >>>> it's just an IP port number. It's also basically a >>>> text-only kind of media, very 70s/80s, and not even as >>>> interactive as those old 300-baud dial-up BBS systems. >>> >>> When Usenet was popular, it belonged to the people that ran the machines. >>> Some of those people, like the ones that ran PSUVM, were less active about >>> controlling users than others. But believe me, if you posted something >>> that was problematic, it was entirely possible to get kicked off a server. >>> Carasso managed it at least a dozen times. >> >> PSUVM ? Carasso ? I'm guessing you don't mean "Emmanuel Carasso or Emanuel >> Karasu was an Ottoman lawyer and a member of the prominent Sephardic Jewish >> Carasso family of Ottoman Salonica." > > Roger David Carasso may not have invented trolling on the internet, but > he certainly perfected it. And there is some chance that he may have > invented many of the more popular trolling techniques seen today. > > PSUVM was an IBM machine at Penn State which was full of undergraduates with > Usenet access, I believe through some sort of BITNET gateway. It was famous > for the huge flood of ignorant posts that appeared every September. > >>> Now, the point is that the system was distributed so that if you found >>> yourself kicked off one server you could likely get an account elsewhere, >>> until you go to the point where UDP was threatened for the servers that >>> would accept you. So there was some de facto freedom here but it had >>> limits. >> >> And that's why we need as many servers as possible. Otherwise , yes freedom >> has de facto limits. After all , people have been jailed or killed for saying >> some things in public , usenet cannot magically remove such physical >> possibilities , it can at most make them harder. > > Having as many servers as possible means that people who really should be > removed from the net do not get removed. That's kind of the problem today. > The management system that worked for Usenet does not scale up. "Should be removed" ?????? Gee, how TOTALITARIAN of you ! NOBODY "should be removed from Usenet" - not even the worst pin-headed trolls. If you don't like them, there doesn't exist a newsreader where you can't plonk them so you're no longer bothered.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-08-03 13:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <R+jTmGkbg8scvxbCL@bongo-ra.co> |
| In reply to | #22079 |
On Tue, 2 Aug 2022 22:34:38 -0400 "25B.Z969" <25B.Z969@noda.net> wrote: > On 8/2/22 9:10 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote: > > Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> wrote: > >> And that's why we need as many servers as possible. Otherwise , yes freedom > >> has de facto limits. After all , people have been jailed or killed for saying > >> some things in public , usenet cannot magically remove such physical > >> possibilities , it can at most make them harder. > > > > Having as many servers as possible means that people who really should be > > removed from the net do not get removed. That's kind of the problem today. > > The management system that worked for Usenet does not scale up. > > > "Should be removed" ?????? Gee, how TOTALITARIAN of you ! > > NOBODY "should be removed from Usenet" - not even the > worst pin-headed trolls. If you don't like them, there > doesn't exist a newsreader where you can't plonk them > so you're no longer bothered. Yes , that's my feeling too. Having said that , with a huge amount of servers available , I expect some would do filtering. Say for example person A thinks that person B is a jerk. Then person A can run a news server which filters all posts by B. Those people who agree that B is indeed a jerk could connect to this server and not see any posts by B without bothering to do any filtering themselves. Those who still want to see posts by B could connect to a different server. But I'm totally against the idea that B should be prevented on a worldwide level from making available his/her views online. In extreme circumstances (like , B is sharing a realistic way to construct an atomic bomb using ordinary kitchen materials !) then maybe but in such cases the authorities would likely need to be involved anyway and handle the matter in the physical world and that's a whole different discussion. -- vlaho.ninja/prog
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "25B.Z969" <25B.Z969@noda.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-08-04 00:05 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <lYadnam19so72Hb_nZ2dnUU7-d3NnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #22083 |
On 8/3/22 9:04 AM, Spiros Bousbouras wrote: > On Tue, 2 Aug 2022 22:34:38 -0400 > "25B.Z969" <25B.Z969@noda.net> wrote: >> On 8/2/22 9:10 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote: >>> Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> And that's why we need as many servers as possible. Otherwise , yes freedom >>>> has de facto limits. After all , people have been jailed or killed for saying >>>> some things in public , usenet cannot magically remove such physical >>>> possibilities , it can at most make them harder. >>> >>> Having as many servers as possible means that people who really should be >>> removed from the net do not get removed. That's kind of the problem today. >>> The management system that worked for Usenet does not scale up. >> >> >> "Should be removed" ?????? Gee, how TOTALITARIAN of you ! >> >> NOBODY "should be removed from Usenet" - not even the >> worst pin-headed trolls. If you don't like them, there >> doesn't exist a newsreader where you can't plonk them >> so you're no longer bothered. > > Yes , that's my feeling too. Having said that , with a huge amount of servers > available , I expect some would do filtering. Say for example person A thinks > that person B is a jerk. Then person A can run a news server which filters > all posts by B. Those people who agree that B is indeed a jerk could connect > to this server and not see any posts by B without bothering to do any > filtering themselves. Those who still want to see posts by B could connect to > a different server. But I'm totally against the idea that B should be > prevented on a worldwide level from making available his/her views online. In > extreme circumstances (like , B is sharing a realistic way to construct an > atomic bomb using ordinary kitchen materials !) then maybe but in such cases > the authorities would likely need to be involved anyway and handle the matter > in the physical world and that's a whole different discussion. Everybody has favorite perspectives - and, even unconsciously, kinda tramps-down the "heretics". This is why we need some sources where such activity is just not tolerated, or possible. IMHO, the ability to make yourself heard is still too low - it NEEDS to be where even aggressive govts can't stop it. Bounce lasers off the moon if need-be. Sorry, but you're not gonna build a nuke based on Formula-409. That takes industrial-scale facilities. Now super-GERMS ... those ARE more worrisome. That can be done at a small scale, undetectable ; just requires some knowledge. Numerous fanatic and terrorist orgs already have access to the knowledge and cheapo tech. Don't let your stock of masks and sanitizer get too low ......
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.misc
csiph-web