Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #142933 > unrolled thread

Complaint sent to google

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c

Contents

  Complaint sent to google jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2019-04-10 00:20 +0200
    Re: Complaint sent to google James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-04-09 16:00 -0700
      Re: Complaint sent to google Chad <cdalten@gmail.com> - 2019-04-09 16:38 -0700
    Re: Complaint sent to google John McCue <jmccue@obsd2.Home> - 2019-04-10 00:31 +0000
      Re: Complaint sent to google gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2019-04-10 01:02 +0000
        Re: Complaint sent to google "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2019-04-09 19:01 -0700
          Re: Complaint sent to google fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2019-04-10 00:08 -0700
        Re: Complaint sent to google David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-04-10 08:28 +0200
    Re: Complaint sent to google Real Troll <real.troll@trolls.com> - 2019-04-10 02:15 +0100
      Re: Complaint sent to google David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-04-10 08:36 +0200
        Re: Complaint sent to google gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2019-04-10 09:03 +0000
          Re: Complaint sent to google David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-04-10 12:27 +0200
            Re: Complaint sent to google Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2019-04-11 18:36 +0200
      Re: Complaint sent to google Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2019-04-10 16:31 +0000
        Re: Complaint sent to google Chad <cdalten@gmail.com> - 2019-04-10 11:02 -0700
    Re: Complaint sent to google nobody@example.org (Scott) - 2019-04-10 06:25 +0000

#142933 — Complaint sent to google

I have sent the following message to google:
(groups-abuse@google.com)


Dear Sir/Madam

A "gmail" user:

Chad <cdalten@gmail.com>

posts off topic and obscene messages in the discussion group comp.lang.c 
since several months. It has grown out of proportion.
An example of a message posted by  this person:

<quote>
My co-worker told me that he can write code while getting a blowjob.
<end quote>

The group is about the programming language C. Here are the headers of 
the message:

X-Received: by 2002:a02:c986:: with SMTP id b6mr1869282jap.21.1554828221012;
         Tue, 09 Apr 2019 09:43:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:27e9:: with SMTP id 
c96mr25198170otb.206.1554828220756;
  Tue, 09 Apr 2019 09:43:40 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.gegeweb.eu!gegeweb.org!usenet-fr.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.166.216.MISMATCH!136no150312itk.0!news-out.google.com!w17ni190itb.0!nntp.google.com!b2no149669itd.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2019 09:43:40 -0700 (PDT)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; 
posting-host=2607:f140:6000:6:45d2:2ea3:ea82:737f;
  posting-account=kTs1ygoAAACgG1TSoyECpovEyy-V6_8b
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2607:f140:6000:6:45d2:2ea3:ea82:737f
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <9285987c-4b0b-4f8c-94c0-ac9269cd93d7@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Now for something new, exciting, and totally offensive.
From: Chad <cdalten@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2019 16:43:41 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Xref: reader01.eternal-september.org comp.lang.c:222003

Please take the necessary  actions to stop this person to go on posting 
this kind of rubbish.

Thanks in advance

Jacob Navia
Participant in comp.lang.c

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#142934

On Tuesday, April 9, 2019 at 6:20:54 PM UTC-4, jacobnavia wrote:
> I have sent the following message to google:
> (groups-abuse@google.com)
> 
> 
> Dear Sir/Madam
> 
> A "gmail" user:
> 
> Chad <cdalten@gmail.com>
> 
> posts off topic and obscene messages in the discussion group comp.lang.c 
> since several months.

On what grounds could they do anything about this? As far as I know, off-topic and obscene messages do not violate any relevant rules.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#142935

I don't *think* Google will do anything unless a person has gone through the proper channels first. And based on this post, it appears that Jacob is totally clueless on where to begin.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#142936

jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> wrote:
> I have sent the following message to google:
> (groups-abuse@google.com)
> 
> 
> Dear Sir/Madam
<snip>

> Please take the necessary  actions to stop this person to go on posting 
> this kind of rubbish.
> 

Will be interesting if you hear back from google,
but I think it is worth a try.

John

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#142937

In article <q8jdg8$61c$1@dont-email.me>,
John McCue  <jmclnx@SPAMisBADgmail.com> wrote:
>jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> wrote:
>> I have sent the following message to google:
>> (groups-abuse@google.com)
>> 
>> 
>> Dear Sir/Madam
><snip>
>
>> Please take the necessary  actions to stop this person to go on posting 
>> this kind of rubbish.
>> 
>
>Will be interesting if you hear back from google,
>but I think it is worth a try.

They haven't been able to do anything about loony Rick.

What's makes you think they can (or should) do anything about loony Chad?

-- 
Modern Conservative: Someone who can take time out from demanding more
flag burning laws, more abortion  laws, more drug laws, more obscenity
laws, and more police authority  to make warrantless arrests to remind
us that we need to "get the government off our backs".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#142939

On Tuesday, April 9, 2019 at 9:02:24 PM UTC-4, Kenny McCormack wrote:
> They haven't been able to do anything about loony Rick.

By what standard do you label me "loony?"  Is it your arbitrary
assessment based on what you personally believe is and should be
right and true?

You will learn one day how weak my witness for Christ is given the
true authority and power He occupies.  You will see my weaknesses
amplified by my own frailties and inabilities to act and move as I
should given who He is.  My own flesh, my past, worldly interests,
etc., all conspiring against me to make me ineffective.

If such failures befall me and those like me ... how do you think
you will stand calling me "loony" before God?

Your position is destructive, Kenny.  You will suffer total loss before
Him as your unrepentant sin overtakes your soul ... unless you repent
that is.

-- 
Rick C. Hodgin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#142946

W dniu środa, 10 kwietnia 2019 04:02:09 UTC+2 użytkownik Rick C. Hodgin napisał:
> On Tuesday, April 9, 2019 at 9:02:24 PM UTC-4, Kenny McCormack wrote:
> > They haven't been able to do anything about loony Rick.
> 
> By what standard do you label me "loony?"  Is it your arbitrary

you will never know arrogant cow... its part of your doom .. on your way to hell for idiots

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#142944

On 10/04/2019 03:02, Kenny McCormack wrote:
> In article <q8jdg8$61c$1@dont-email.me>,
> John McCue  <jmclnx@SPAMisBADgmail.com> wrote:
>> jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> wrote:
>>> I have sent the following message to google:
>>> (groups-abuse@google.com)
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear Sir/Madam
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Please take the necessary  actions to stop this person to go on posting 
>>> this kind of rubbish.
>>>
>>
>> Will be interesting if you hear back from google,
>> but I think it is worth a try.
> 
> They haven't been able to do anything about loony Rick.
> 
> What's makes you think they can (or should) do anything about loony Chad?
> 

There is a difference between posting religious waffle and posting stuff
as unpleasant, rude, and sexist as Chad often does.  I have no idea what
criteria Google will use here, and whether they treat such things
differently.

In the meantime, it would be nice if Chad and Rick both kept reasonably
on-topic, and reasonably polite, in this group.  There are plenty of
alt.religion and alt.sex groups for other hobbies and other kinds of posts.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#142938

On 09/04/2019 23:20, jacobnavia wrote:
> I have sent the following message to google:
> (groups-abuse@google.com)
>
>
> Dear Sir/Madam
>
> A "gmail" user:
>
> Chad <cdalten@gmail.com>
>
>
>

I don't see any of his posts but i have created filters for some people 
here so that I don't see anything from nutters, & religious bigots 
unless someone like you quotes their post in full here.

Do you know how to create a filter?  Google is not going to take any 
action because they don't care about their forums any more.  I read 
somewhere that they are thinking of dumping them soon to reduce costs.  
There is no money in running those forums!! and google isn't a charity 
just for the sake of it.


>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#142945

On 10/04/2019 03:15, Real Troll wrote:
> On 09/04/2019 23:20, jacobnavia wrote:
>> I have sent the following message to google:
>> (groups-abuse@google.com)
>>
>>
>> Dear Sir/Madam
>>
>> A "gmail" user:
>>
>> Chad <cdalten@gmail.com>
>>
>>
>>
> 
> I don't see any of his posts but i have created filters for some people
> here so that I don't see anything from nutters, & religious bigots
> unless someone like you quotes their post in full here.
> 

Filters and kill-files are a good way to avoid bad posters bothering
/you/.  But they are not a good way to stop them bothering others,
bothering the group, or reducing its appeal.  Imagine if some young new
C programmer finds this group and looks to see if it is a good place to
discuss C - and the first thing they see is one of Chad's "classic"
posts.  Any decent person is going to ask themselves if that is the kind
of people they want to associate with.  Filters change only your own
view of a newsgroup - they don't change the public view.

> Do you know how to create a filter?  Google is not going to take any
> action because they don't care about their forums any more.  I read
> somewhere that they are thinking of dumping them soon to reduce costs. 
> There is no money in running those forums!! and google isn't a charity
> just for the sake of it.
> 

Google groups and their appalling interface has been a bad thing for
Usenet.  The searchable archives are useful, but if posting from GG were
stopped today, there would be few babies thrown out with a great deal of
bathwater.  And the useful contributors would mostly move to proper
Usenet readers and servers, improving their own experience of Usenet as
well as everyone else's.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#142948

In article <q8k2th$38m$1@dont-email.me>,
David Brown  <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
...
>> I don't see any of his posts but i have created filters for some people
>> here so that I don't see anything from nutters, & religious bigots
>> unless someone like you quotes their post in full here.

>Filters and kill-files are a good way to avoid bad posters bothering
>/you/.  But they are not a good way to stop them bothering others,
>bothering the group, or reducing its appeal.  Imagine if some young new
>C programmer finds this group and looks to see if it is a good place to
>discuss C - and the first thing they see is one of Chad's "classic"
>posts.  Any decent person is going to ask themselves if that is the kind
>of people they want to associate with.  Filters change only your own
>view of a newsgroup - they don't change the public view.

I get what you're saying and where you're coming from, and I generally
agree with the general sentiment of "All that is necessary for evil to
triumph is that good men do nothing".  However, ...

There is a long-standing tradition on Usenet of "You can do whatever you
want to edit/change your own view of things, but you can't do anything to
change/censor other people's views."  I.e., it is a tradition of everyone
being assumed to be an adult; we are not children here.  Usenet is not some
web-based forum with "moderators".  And, sad as it is, I am of the opinion
that "moderation" (as you see on web-based forums) is a cure that is worse
than the disease.

Note, BTW, that "moderation", to the extent that it exists at all on
Usenet, is only of the "prevent bad stuff being posted" variety.  It
doesn't have the "punish the guilty" aspect that you find on web-based
forums.  Usenet-style, "proactive", moderation really does slow things down
on Usenet - the extent that moderated newsgroups essentially cease to exist.

Again, what I'm saying (in the previous paragraph) is that moderation
causes more problems than it solves.  It is a net-negative.

>Google groups and their appalling interface has been a bad thing for
>Usenet.  The searchable archives are useful, but if posting from GG were
>stopped today, there would be few babies thrown out with a great deal of
>bathwater.  And the useful contributors would mostly move to proper
>Usenet readers and servers, improving their own experience of Usenet as
>well as everyone else's.

The question is: If GG were gone, would Usenet survive?  Like it or not, GG
supplies the fresh meat that keeps Usenet going (to the extent that it can
be said to be still going...).

-- 
 "They say if you play a Microsoft CD backwards, you hear satanic messages.
  Thats nothing, cause if you play it forwards, it installs Windows."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#142951

On 10/04/2019 11:03, Kenny McCormack wrote:
> In article <q8k2th$38m$1@dont-email.me>,
> David Brown  <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
> ...
>>> I don't see any of his posts but i have created filters for some people
>>> here so that I don't see anything from nutters, & religious bigots
>>> unless someone like you quotes their post in full here.
> 
>> Filters and kill-files are a good way to avoid bad posters bothering
>> /you/.  But they are not a good way to stop them bothering others,
>> bothering the group, or reducing its appeal.  Imagine if some young new
>> C programmer finds this group and looks to see if it is a good place to
>> discuss C - and the first thing they see is one of Chad's "classic"
>> posts.  Any decent person is going to ask themselves if that is the kind
>> of people they want to associate with.  Filters change only your own
>> view of a newsgroup - they don't change the public view.
> 
> I get what you're saying and where you're coming from, and I generally
> agree with the general sentiment of "All that is necessary for evil to
> triumph is that good men do nothing".  However, ...
> 
> There is a long-standing tradition on Usenet of "You can do whatever you
> want to edit/change your own view of things, but you can't do anything to
> change/censor other people's views."  I.e., it is a tradition of everyone
> being assumed to be an adult; we are not children here.  Usenet is not some
> web-based forum with "moderators".  And, sad as it is, I am of the opinion
> that "moderation" (as you see on web-based forums) is a cure that is worse
> than the disease.
> 

I would not be looking for moderation of posts - it does not work well
on general discussion groups.  Moderation of membership can work, but
you then lose the public nature of the group.

> Note, BTW, that "moderation", to the extent that it exists at all on
> Usenet, is only of the "prevent bad stuff being posted" variety.  It
> doesn't have the "punish the guilty" aspect that you find on web-based
> forums.  Usenet-style, "proactive", moderation really does slow things down
> on Usenet - the extent that moderated newsgroups essentially cease to exist.
> 

I am all for a "stop the bad stuff" solution rather than a "punish the
guilty" solution.  I am quite happy to have Chad here, I would just like
to hinder his "below the belt" posts.  (He is not the only one to have
made such posts, he is just the one who made them recently.)

> Again, what I'm saying (in the previous paragraph) is that moderation
> causes more problems than it solves.  It is a net-negative.

Agreed.

But currently, I don't know of any possible fixes other than "sent a
complaint to the poster's ISP".  The common alternative - ignore the
poster and hope he goes away - is rarely successful either.

> 
>> Google groups and their appalling interface has been a bad thing for
>> Usenet.  The searchable archives are useful, but if posting from GG were
>> stopped today, there would be few babies thrown out with a great deal of
>> bathwater.  And the useful contributors would mostly move to proper
>> Usenet readers and servers, improving their own experience of Usenet as
>> well as everyone else's.
> 
> The question is: If GG were gone, would Usenet survive?  Like it or not, GG
> supplies the fresh meat that keeps Usenet going (to the extent that it can
> be said to be still going...).
> 

It is a difficult question.

Maybe the best thing would be for GG to change their client to enforce
proper Usenet posting conventions like citations, quotations, line
lengths, etc.  It could have some of google's famed artificial
intelligence to filter out the worst posts (people who don't want their
posts censored can get a real newsclient and newsserver).

But I don't see where Google could make a profit out of that.  And while
their motto may be "do no evil", it is not "do nice stuff for free".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#143016

On 4/10/2019 12:27 PM, David Brown wrote:
> Maybe the best thing would be for GG to change their client to enforce
> proper Usenet posting conventions like citations, quotations, line
> lengths, etc.  It could have some of google's famed artificial
> intelligence to filter out the worst posts (people who don't want their
> posts censored can get a real newsclient and newsserver).

This could help, indeed

> 
> But I don't see where Google could make a profit out of that.  And while
> their motto may be "do no evil", it is not "do nice stuff for free".

Google has been able to make profit (a lot of it) where no one else saw it.
I could imagine that Google would keep an active interest in Usenet if 
generalist newsgroups were active and populous.
But I think (without having actually verified any of it) that the only 
groups with some level of activity are those similar to this one (and 
not very numerous as for amount of posters either), with an audience 
that is both limited and not much valuable market-wise (kinda geeks with 
a taste for old-fashioned Internet do not qualify as the best consumers, 
I would guess)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#142977

On 2019-04-10, Real Troll <real.troll@trolls.com> wrote:
> On 09/04/2019 23:20, jacobnavia wrote:
>> I have sent the following message to google:
>> (groups-abuse@google.com)
>>
>>
>> Dear Sir/Madam
>>
>> A "gmail" user:
>>
>> Chad <cdalten@gmail.com>
>>
>>
>>
>
> I don't see any of his posts but i have created filters for some people 
> here so that I don't see anything from nutters, & religious bigots 
> unless someone like you quotes their post in full here.
>
> Do you know how to create a filter?  Google is not going to take any 
> action because they don't care about their forums any more.  I read 
> somewhere that they are thinking of dumping them soon to reduce costs.  
> There is no money in running those forums!! and google isn't a charity 
> just for the sake of it.

Sooner, the better. Clueless tweets can's figure out what is usenet, let
alone what they need to read and post.
>
>
>>
>>
>


-- 
press any key to continue or any other to quit...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#142987

On Wednesday, April 10, 2019 at 9:32:06 AM UTC-7, Melzzzzz wrote:
> On 2019-04-10, Real Troll <real.troll@trolls.com> wrote:
> > On 09/04/2019 23:20, jacobnavia wrote:
> >> I have sent the following message to google:
> >> (groups-abuse@google.com)
> >>
> >>
> >> Dear Sir/Madam
> >>
> >> A "gmail" user:
> >>
> >> Chad <cdalten@gmail.com>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > I don't see any of his posts but i have created filters for some people 
> > here so that I don't see anything from nutters, & religious bigots 
> > unless someone like you quotes their post in full here.
> >
> > Do you know how to create a filter?  Google is not going to take any 
> > action because they don't care about their forums any more.  I read 
> > somewhere that they are thinking of dumping them soon to reduce costs.  
> > There is no money in running those forums!! and google isn't a charity 
> > just for the sake of it.
> 
> Sooner, the better. Clueless tweets can's figure out what is usenet, let
> alone what they need to read and post.
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
Uhh...can someone here please explain the formal mechanisms for how Google handles a situation like this? Because I have the formal documentation for handling things websites. And guess what? The entire process to remove a website isn't that straight forward. Now if one of you little crybabies would like to not only show me the documentation for removing me, by all me, now is the time to share it. Because from what I can tell, there isn't any.

The closet that I see is if I break some kind of State and/or Federal law.

But talking about my 11 inch schlong....

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#142943

On Wed, 10 Apr 2019 00:20:45 +0200, jacobnavia
<jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> wrote:

>I have sent the following message to google:
>(groups-abuse@google.com)

I actually like Chad, but in the bigger picture, if you can get Google
to quit carrying Usenet altogether the rest of us will owe you a debt
of gratitude. Good luck!

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c

csiph-web