Yes, it is in the form of a pdf, but be that as it may, it makes for an interesting view into the start of Usenet:
<https://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb/papers/netnews-hist.pdf>
Wolfgang Agnes <wagnes@jemoni.to> wrote:
Rich <rich@example.invalid> writes:
Yes, it is in the form of a pdf, but be that as it may, it makes for an
interesting view into the start of Usenet:
<https://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb/papers/netnews-hist.pdf>
Thank you for posting!
Writing as someone addicted to Usenet for 30 years it's good to see the
whole story, much of which was new to me; I've saved it, thanks again.
# Usenet was my first love
# And it will be my last...
Wolfgang Agnes <wagnes@jemoni.to> wrote:
Rich <rich@example.invalid> writes:
Yes, it is in the form of a pdf, but be that as it may, it makes for an
interesting view into the start of Usenet:
<https://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb/papers/netnews-hist.pdf>
Thank you for posting!
Writing as someone addicted to Usenet for 30 years it's good to see the
whole story, much of which was new to me; I've saved it, thanks again.
# Usenet was my first love
# And it will be my last...
snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) writes:
Wolfgang Agnes <wagnes@jemoni.to> wrote:
Rich <rich@example.invalid> writes:
Yes, it is in the form of a pdf, but be that as it may, it makes for an >>>> interesting view into the start of Usenet:
<https://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb/papers/netnews-hist.pdf>
Thank you for posting!
Writing as someone addicted to Usenet for 30 years it's good to see the
whole story, much of which was new to me; I've saved it, thanks again.
# Usenet was my first love
# And it will be my last...
Lol---amazing. For some reason, I am deeply involved with it too,
though by the time I got involved with it (early 2000s) it was perhaps
at the end of its heyday. Nevertheless, I continue to believe in it.
Not in its ``success'', ``popularity'' or whatever. I believe in the
idea.
(*) The paper
I just finished reading the paper. Almost everything in it was new to
me, so I'd like to thank the author very much for having written it.
(When I realized it was a 2024-paper, I was amazed! At first I thought
it was a pretty old paper.)
I was struck by the conclusions regarding abuse and governance. Perhaps
it is not hard to notice that these are the problems and that they were
never solved. I have been thinking a bit about these things for many
years. I think I've tried to solve these problems myself. Not very seriously, but in my mind. I never did. And recently I think I
convinced myself that I should not even try anymore. This giving up
seems to have been fruitful because I actually believe that we should
have smaller groups, smaller networks. It seems that it's the small
ones that actually do very well.
In other words, I came to the conclusion that anonimity is not that
important and having a boss dictating the local rules isn't so bad when anyone can duplicate the whole software-server-thing and start your own.
I was also struck by the author's apparent opinion that they should've
used cryptography if it were easier and more available back then. In
other words, it does seem that Steven Bellovin would care for
authenticity and not necessarily confidentiality (after all these
discussions are mostly public).
Now that Google Groups has left and that sysadmins have been keeping
spam out (THANK YOU SO MUCH, sysadmins of the USENET!), I think the
USENET is pretty good again. The volume is low, so it's been great fun
to be here again sharing ideas and learning with the rest of the world
once again without the ads and all the unnecessary whistles and bells of
the web. (Though I miss more people with expertise knowledge in all
areas, so I do wish that the volume grows a bit and I believe it will
because the network seems to be in order once again. Thanks to everyone
who has contributed to this.)
This is the truth! As a thought experiment I sometimes think about
how I would be able to handle usenet if it had 10x the nr of posts,
and I don't think I would.
It would have to be either a laser focus on a very small nr of
groups, or aggressive filtering of the subject lines.
"The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around It." <https://quoteinvestigator.com/2021/07/12/censor/>
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
This is the truth! As a thought experiment I sometimes think about
how I would be able to handle usenet if it had 10x the nr of posts,
and I don't think I would.
It would have to be either a laser focus on a very small nr of
groups, or aggressive filtering of the subject lines.
True, although in desperation for content my focus has expanded to
lurking in groups I'm barely interested in. I might not mind needing
to narrow my focus back a lot.
This is the truth! As a thought experiment I sometimes think about how I would be able to handle usenet if it had 10x the nr of posts, and I don't think I would.
It would have to be either a laser focus on a very small nr of groups, or aggressive filtering of the subject lines.
I don't know how else I would be able to handle 10x the content.
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
This is the truth! As a thought experiment I sometimes think about
how I would be able to handle usenet if it had 10x the nr of posts,
and I don't think I would.
Been there, seen that.... Circa 1995 (I forget which groups now) the
text posting volume was so great in the few groups I was following that
it was not possible to keep up. I was always behind, and falling
further behind each day. Eventually the fall behind problem reached a
point where I decided to just drop out. So I disappeared for a good
ten years or so. Of course, when I did return again, Usenet was a
shadow of its former self as far as text posting rates go.
It would have to be either a laser focus on a very small nr of
groups, or aggressive filtering of the subject lines.
One did have to do both, and even so, the volume was impossible to keep
up with if the group was at all active.
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
This is the truth! As a thought experiment I sometimes think about how I
would be able to handle usenet if it had 10x the nr of posts, and I don't
think I would.
It would have to be either a laser focus on a very small nr of groups, or
aggressive filtering of the subject lines.
True, although in desperation for content my focus has expanded to
lurking in groups I'm barely interested in. I might not mind
needing to narrow my focus back a lot.
I don't know how else I would be able to handle 10x the content.
What I don't know is how people handle 10x this content on popular
Web forums. On Usenet you can skip through things quickly with an
interface of your choice. On a Web forum just ten new threads in
five sub-forums are a chore to navigate through, and then you have
things like "mega" threads that are hundreds of pages of flat
posts. I've never worked out how people cope with those, let alone
prefer them!
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
On Wed, 6 Nov 2024, Sn!pe wrote:
Wolfgang Agnes <wagnes@jemoni.to> wrote:
Rich <rich@example.invalid> writes:
Yes, it is in the form of a pdf, but be that as it may, it makes for an >>>>> interesting view into the start of Usenet:
<https://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb/papers/netnews-hist.pdf>
Thank you for posting!
Writing as someone addicted to Usenet for 30 years it's good to see the
whole story, much of which was new to me; I've saved it, thanks again.
# Usenet was my first love
# And it will be my last...
What has made you stick with it through all these years? How come you have >> not been swept up by the winds of facebook and other social media?
"The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around It." <https://quoteinvestigator.com/2021/07/12/censor/>
If I fall out with a NSP admin, I can regain access by using a different
NSP. Fuckerbergs* have the power of individual censorship.
Also, Fuckerbergs drive a coach and horses through user privacy
to facilitate commercial gain. I fart in their general direction.
* Fuckerberg: generic term for controllers of proprietary networks.
Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote:
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
This is the truth! As a thought experiment I sometimes think about
how I would be able to handle usenet if it had 10x the nr of posts,
and I don't think I would.
It would have to be either a laser focus on a very small nr of
groups, or aggressive filtering of the subject lines.
True, although in desperation for content my focus has expanded to
lurking in groups I'm barely interested in. I might not mind needing
to narrow my focus back a lot.
In it's heyday in the mid 90's, the posting rate was such that in
popular groups, one could spend hours reading, clearing the rest of a
thread that went off the rails, marking all as read on entirely
uninteresting threads, and managing to clear what seemed like a
thousand or two posts. And then, at the end of it all, if one had
managed to sift through, say, 1000 posts, finding that the group had
received 1250 new posts during the time one had cleared the 1000.
The rate of the firehose of posts is hard to imagine if one wasn't
active on usenet at the time to witness it in person.
On Wed, 6 Nov 2024 17:17:25 +0000, Sn!pe wrote:
"The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around It."
<https://quoteinvestigator.com/2021/07/12/censor/>
China and Russia being the biggest counterexamples to date.
On Wed, 6 Nov 2024, Rich wrote:
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
This is the truth! As a thought experiment I sometimes think about
how I would be able to handle usenet if it had 10x the nr of posts,
and I don't think I would.
Been there, seen that.... Circa 1995 (I forget which groups now) the
text posting volume was so great in the few groups I was following that
it was not possible to keep up. I was always behind, and falling
further behind each day. Eventually the fall behind problem reached a
point where I decided to just drop out. So I disappeared for a good
ten years or so. Of course, when I did return again, Usenet was a
shadow of its former self as far as text posting rates go.
It would have to be either a laser focus on a very small nr of
groups, or aggressive filtering of the subject lines.
One did have to do both, and even so, the volume was impossible to keep
up with if the group was at all active.
This is an interesting problem. How is it solved in modern social media?
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
This is a good point! But you are not worried about the essentially
unencrypted nature of usenet?
AFAIAC Usenet is for chat and technical discussion -- there's no need to encrypt that.
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
This is the truth! As a thought experiment I sometimes think about
how I would be able to handle usenet if it had 10x the nr of posts,
and I don't think I would.
Been there, seen that.... Circa 1995 (I forget which groups now) the
text posting volume was so great in the few groups I was following that
it was not possible to keep up. I was always behind, and falling
further behind each day. Eventually the fall behind problem reached a
point where I decided to just drop out. So I disappeared for a good
ten years or so. Of course, when I did return again, Usenet was a
shadow of its former self as far as text posting rates go.
It would have to be either a laser focus on a very small nr of
groups, or aggressive filtering of the subject lines.
One did have to do both, and even so, the volume was impossible to keep
up with if the group was at all active.
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
This is the truth! As a thought experiment I sometimes think about how I
would be able to handle usenet if it had 10x the nr of posts, and I don't
think I would.
It would have to be either a laser focus on a very small nr of groups, or
aggressive filtering of the subject lines.
True, although in desperation for content my focus has expanded to
lurking in groups I'm barely interested in. I might not mind
needing to narrow my focus back a lot.
I don't know how else I would be able to handle 10x the content.
What I don't know is how people handle 10x this content on popular
Web forums. On Usenet you can skip through things quickly with an
interface of your choice. On a Web forum just ten new threads in
five sub-forums are a chore to navigate through, and then you have
things like "mega" threads that are hundreds of pages of flat
posts. I've never worked out how people cope with those, let alone
prefer them!
... mercifully without forcing everyone to use them all the
time like with HTTPS on the Web.
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
On Wed, 6 Nov 2024, Rich wrote:
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
This is the truth! As a thought experiment I sometimes think about
how I would be able to handle usenet if it had 10x the nr of posts,
and I don't think I would.
Been there, seen that.... Circa 1995 (I forget which groups now) the
text posting volume was so great in the few groups I was following that
it was not possible to keep up. I was always behind, and falling
further behind each day. Eventually the fall behind problem reached a
point where I decided to just drop out. So I disappeared for a good
ten years or so. Of course, when I did return again, Usenet was a
shadow of its former self as far as text posting rates go.
It would have to be either a laser focus on a very small nr of
groups, or aggressive filtering of the subject lines.
One did have to do both, and even so, the volume was impossible to keep
up with if the group was at all active.
This is an interesting problem. How is it solved in modern social media?
If by "modern social media" you mean the likes of FB and its ilk,
presumably by having "the algorithm" showing you stuff, and then you
just doom scroll through the algorithm driven feed. And if stuff does
not get put on your feed, you are unaware of its existance.
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
On Wed, 6 Nov 2024, Sn!pe wrote:
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
On Wed, 6 Nov 2024, Sn!pe wrote:
Wolfgang Agnes <wagnes@jemoni.to> wrote:
Rich <rich@example.invalid> writes:
Yes, it is in the form of a pdf, but be that as it may, it makes for an >>>>>>> interesting view into the start of Usenet:
<https://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb/papers/netnews-hist.pdf>
Thank you for posting!
Writing as someone addicted to Usenet for 30 years it's good to see the >>>>> whole story, much of which was new to me; I've saved it, thanks again. >>>>>
# Usenet was my first love
# And it will be my last...
What has made you stick with it through all these years? How come you have >>>> not been swept up by the winds of facebook and other social media?
"The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around It."
<https://quoteinvestigator.com/2021/07/12/censor/>
If I fall out with a NSP admin, I can regain access by using a different >>> NSP. Fuckerbergs* have the power of individual censorship.
Also, Fuckerbergs drive a coach and horses through user privacy
to facilitate commercial gain. I fart in their general direction.
* Fuckerberg: generic term for controllers of proprietary networks.
This is a good point! But you are not worried about the essentially
unencrypted nature of usenet?
AFAIAC Usenet is for chat and technical discussion -- there's no need to
encrypt that. I generally mark political discussion threads as read as
soon as it's obvious what they are.
Anyway, vg vfa'g qvssvphyg rapelcg nal grkg jvgu r.t. CTC.
Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote:
Sn!pe <snipeco.2@gmail.com> wrote:
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
This is a good point! But you are not worried about the essentially
unencrypted nature of usenet?
AFAIAC Usenet is for chat and technical discussion -- there's
no need to encrypt that.
Agreed. But many news servers and clients do support encrypted
connections, mercifully without forcing everyone to use them all
the time like with HTTPS on the Web. So it's there if you want it.
The encrypted connection to the server is just about posting and
retrieving, isn't it? Once the article is on the server it's available
to all in plain text.
The paper talked about the designer's consideration of using
cryptography for authenticating users posting or deleting Usenet
posts, so maybe that's what "D" is talking about.
I think D is more concerned about anonymity than other considerations,
then about 'eavesdropping'. I'm sure he'll tell us RSN.
Rich <rich@example.invalid> writes:
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
This is the truth! As a thought experiment I sometimes think about
how I would be able to handle usenet if it had 10x the nr of posts,
and I don't think I would.
Been there, seen that.... Circa 1995 (I forget which groups now) the
text posting volume was so great in the few groups I was following that
it was not possible to keep up. I was always behind, and falling
further behind each day. Eventually the fall behind problem reached a
point where I decided to just drop out. So I disappeared for a good
ten years or so. Of course, when I did return again, Usenet was a
shadow of its former self as far as text posting rates go.
It would have to be either a laser focus on a very small nr of
groups, or aggressive filtering of the subject lines.
One did have to do both, and even so, the volume was impossible to keep
up with if the group was at all active.
That's right. This gives me the idea that a community should not really
be that large. On the other hand, I do think the size we are right now
could be enlarged a bit.
On Wed, 6 Nov 2024, Rich wrote:
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
On Wed, 6 Nov 2024, Rich wrote:
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
This is the truth! As a thought experiment I sometimes think
about how I would be able to handle usenet if it had 10x the nr
of posts, and I don't think I would.
Been there, seen that.... Circa 1995 (I forget which groups now)
the text posting volume was so great in the few groups I was
following that it was not possible to keep up. I was always
behind, and falling further behind each day. Eventually the fall
behind problem reached a point where I decided to just drop out.
So I disappeared for a good ten years or so. Of course, when I
did return again, Usenet was a shadow of its former self as far as
text posting rates go.
It would have to be either a laser focus on a very small nr of
groups, or aggressive filtering of the subject lines.
One did have to do both, and even so, the volume was impossible to
keep up with if the group was at all active.
This is an interesting problem. How is it solved in modern social media?
If by "modern social media" you mean the likes of FB and its ilk,
presumably by having "the algorithm" showing you stuff, and then you
just doom scroll through the algorithm driven feed. And if stuff
does not get put on your feed, you are unaware of its existance.
Ah, so probably just setting some keywords in my client and filter based
on those. Not a very satisfactory solution.
On Wed, 6 Nov 2024, Wolfgang Agnes wrote:
Rich <rich@example.invalid> writes:
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
This is the truth! As a thought experiment I sometimes think about
how I would be able to handle usenet if it had 10x the nr of posts,
and I don't think I would.
Been there, seen that.... Circa 1995 (I forget which groups now) the
text posting volume was so great in the few groups I was following that
it was not possible to keep up. I was always behind, and falling
further behind each day. Eventually the fall behind problem reached a
point where I decided to just drop out. So I disappeared for a good
ten years or so. Of course, when I did return again, Usenet was a
shadow of its former self as far as text posting rates go.
It would have to be either a laser focus on a very small nr of
groups, or aggressive filtering of the subject lines.
One did have to do both, and even so, the volume was impossible to keep
up with if the group was at all active.
That's right. This gives me the idea that a community should not really
be that large. On the other hand, I do think the size we are right now
could be enlarged a bit.
But where can we do our recruitment? I'm the only one I know who is
using usenet. The more avant garde are on mastodon.
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
On Wed, 6 Nov 2024, Rich wrote:
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
If by "modern social media" you mean the likes of FB and its ilk,
On Wed, 6 Nov 2024, Rich wrote:
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
This is the truth! As a thought experiment I sometimes think
about how I would be able to handle usenet if it had 10x the nr
of posts, and I don't think I would.
Been there, seen that.... Circa 1995 (I forget which groups now)
the text posting volume was so great in the few groups I was
following that it was not possible to keep up. I was always
behind, and falling further behind each day. Eventually the fall
behind problem reached a point where I decided to just drop out.
So I disappeared for a good ten years or so. Of course, when I
did return again, Usenet was a shadow of its former self as far as
text posting rates go.
It would have to be either a laser focus on a very small nr of
groups, or aggressive filtering of the subject lines.
One did have to do both, and even so, the volume was impossible to
keep up with if the group was at all active.
This is an interesting problem. How is it solved in modern social media? >>>
presumably by having "the algorithm" showing you stuff, and then you
just doom scroll through the algorithm driven feed. And if stuff
does not get put on your feed, you are unaware of its existance.
Ah, so probably just setting some keywords in my client and filter based
on those. Not a very satisfactory solution.
Except with "modern social media" you (the user) don't get to "just
set[ting] some keywords" for the "algorithm". The "algorithm" does it
all for you by magic. Which, unfortunately, leaves you at the mercy of
the allmighty "algorithm" as to what you see, and provides a great opportunity for the "algorithm" to bias your world view into whatever
its creators want your world view to be by selective showing or
omission of various posts to your feed.
Rich <rich@example.invalid> writes:
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
On Wed, 6 Nov 2024, Rich wrote:
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
If by "modern social media" you mean the likes of FB and its ilk,
On Wed, 6 Nov 2024, Rich wrote:
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
This is the truth! As a thought experiment I sometimes think
about how I would be able to handle usenet if it had 10x the nr
of posts, and I don't think I would.
Been there, seen that.... Circa 1995 (I forget which groups now)
the text posting volume was so great in the few groups I was
following that it was not possible to keep up. I was always
behind, and falling further behind each day. Eventually the fall
behind problem reached a point where I decided to just drop out.
So I disappeared for a good ten years or so. Of course, when I
did return again, Usenet was a shadow of its former self as far as >>>>>> text posting rates go.
It would have to be either a laser focus on a very small nr of
groups, or aggressive filtering of the subject lines.
One did have to do both, and even so, the volume was impossible to >>>>>> keep up with if the group was at all active.
This is an interesting problem. How is it solved in modern social media? >>>>
presumably by having "the algorithm" showing you stuff, and then you
just doom scroll through the algorithm driven feed. And if stuff
does not get put on your feed, you are unaware of its existance.
Ah, so probably just setting some keywords in my client and filter based >>> on those. Not a very satisfactory solution.
Except with "modern social media" you (the user) don't get to "just
set[ting] some keywords" for the "algorithm". The "algorithm" does it
all for you by magic. Which, unfortunately, leaves you at the mercy of
the allmighty "algorithm" as to what you see, and provides a great
opportunity for the "algorithm" to bias your world view into whatever
its creators want your world view to be by selective showing or
omission of various posts to your feed.
In other words, it's unacceptable---period.
On Thu, 7 Nov 2024, Sn!pe wrote:
I think D is more concerned about anonymity than other considerations,
then about 'eavesdropping'. I'm sure he'll tell us RSN.
This is the correct interpretation. I our times of polarization and net-hating, having a modicum of anonymity and privacy is very nice.
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
On Thu, 7 Nov 2024, Sn!pe wrote:
I think D is more concerned about anonymity than other considerations,
then about 'eavesdropping'. I'm sure he'll tell us RSN.
This is the correct interpretation. I our times of polarization and
net-hating, having a modicum of anonymity and privacy is very nice.
That's not about Usenet being unencrypted then. Your identity is
equally compromised whether you post here via NNTP or NNTPS. But
you might still not be individually identifiable if you take other
measures to protect it.
Wolfgang Agnes <wagnes@jemoni.to> wrote:
Rich <rich@example.invalid> writes:
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
On Wed, 6 Nov 2024, Rich wrote:
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
If by "modern social media" you mean the likes of FB and its ilk,
On Wed, 6 Nov 2024, Rich wrote:
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
This is the truth! As a thought experiment I sometimes think
about how I would be able to handle usenet if it had 10x the nr >>>>>>>> of posts, and I don't think I would.
Been there, seen that.... Circa 1995 (I forget which groups now) >>>>>>> the text posting volume was so great in the few groups I was
following that it was not possible to keep up. I was always
behind, and falling further behind each day. Eventually the fall >>>>>>> behind problem reached a point where I decided to just drop out. >>>>>>> So I disappeared for a good ten years or so. Of course, when I
did return again, Usenet was a shadow of its former self as far as >>>>>>> text posting rates go.
It would have to be either a laser focus on a very small nr of >>>>>>>> groups, or aggressive filtering of the subject lines.
One did have to do both, and even so, the volume was impossible to >>>>>>> keep up with if the group was at all active.
This is an interesting problem. How is it solved in modern social media? >>>>>
presumably by having "the algorithm" showing you stuff, and then you >>>>> just doom scroll through the algorithm driven feed. And if stuff
does not get put on your feed, you are unaware of its existance.
Ah, so probably just setting some keywords in my client and filter based >>>> on those. Not a very satisfactory solution.
Except with "modern social media" you (the user) don't get to "just
set[ting] some keywords" for the "algorithm". The "algorithm" does it
all for you by magic. Which, unfortunately, leaves you at the mercy of
the allmighty "algorithm" as to what you see, and provides a great
opportunity for the "algorithm" to bias your world view into whatever
its creators want your world view to be by selective showing or
omission of various posts to your feed.
In other words, it's unacceptable---period.
Indeed, yes. With a user-local killfile (i.e., the Usenet client
method) then you, the user, is explicitly deciding what you want to
exclude (or include, as most modern clients implement the 'kill' as a
score so one can up/down articles if one wants).
But with the allmightly algorithm, you are at the mercy of your
corporate overlords.
Sadly, as most social media users are very similar to the humans on the spaceship on the cartoon Wall-E, they are lazy and want "someone else"
to do all the work for them, expecting them to put in the even minimal
effort to curate their own local 'killfile' is likely too much to
expect.
D <nospam@example.net> writes:
On Wed, 6 Nov 2024, Wolfgang Agnes wrote:
Rich <rich@example.invalid> writes:
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
This is the truth! As a thought experiment I sometimes think about
how I would be able to handle usenet if it had 10x the nr of posts,
and I don't think I would.
Been there, seen that.... Circa 1995 (I forget which groups now) the
text posting volume was so great in the few groups I was following that >>>> it was not possible to keep up. I was always behind, and falling
further behind each day. Eventually the fall behind problem reached a >>>> point where I decided to just drop out. So I disappeared for a good
ten years or so. Of course, when I did return again, Usenet was a
shadow of its former self as far as text posting rates go.
It would have to be either a laser focus on a very small nr of
groups, or aggressive filtering of the subject lines.
One did have to do both, and even so, the volume was impossible to keep >>>> up with if the group was at all active.
That's right. This gives me the idea that a community should not really >>> be that large. On the other hand, I do think the size we are right now
could be enlarged a bit.
But where can we do our recruitment? I'm the only one I know who is
using usenet. The more avant garde are on mastodon.
I don't think we should do any recruitment. Let's let destiny guide
itself. If there's anything good here and intelligence out there,
things will converge.
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
On Wed, 6 Nov 2024, Rich wrote:
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
If by "modern social media" you mean the likes of FB and its ilk,
On Wed, 6 Nov 2024, Rich wrote:
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
This is the truth! As a thought experiment I sometimes think
about how I would be able to handle usenet if it had 10x the nr
of posts, and I don't think I would.
Been there, seen that.... Circa 1995 (I forget which groups now)
the text posting volume was so great in the few groups I was
following that it was not possible to keep up. I was always
behind, and falling further behind each day. Eventually the fall
behind problem reached a point where I decided to just drop out.
So I disappeared for a good ten years or so. Of course, when I
did return again, Usenet was a shadow of its former self as far as
text posting rates go.
It would have to be either a laser focus on a very small nr of
groups, or aggressive filtering of the subject lines.
One did have to do both, and even so, the volume was impossible to
keep up with if the group was at all active.
This is an interesting problem. How is it solved in modern social media? >>>
presumably by having "the algorithm" showing you stuff, and then you
just doom scroll through the algorithm driven feed. And if stuff
does not get put on your feed, you are unaware of its existance.
Ah, so probably just setting some keywords in my client and filter based
on those. Not a very satisfactory solution.
Except with "modern social media" you (the user) don't get to "just
set[ting] some keywords" for the "algorithm". The "algorithm" does it
all for you by magic. Which, unfortunately, leaves you at the mercy of
the allmighty "algorithm" as to what you see, and provides a great opportunity for the "algorithm" to bias your world view into whatever
its creators want your world view to be by selective showing or
omission of various posts to your feed.
Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote:
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
On Thu, 7 Nov 2024, Sn!pe wrote:
I think D is more concerned about anonymity than other considerations, >>>> then about 'eavesdropping'. I'm sure he'll tell us RSN.
This is the correct interpretation. I our times of polarization and
net-hating, having a modicum of anonymity and privacy is very nice.
That's not about Usenet being unencrypted then. Your identity is
equally compromised whether you post here via NNTP or NNTPS. But
you might still not be individually identifiable if you take other
measures to protect it.
Anonymity on Usenet is facilitated (in today's world) by the fact that
most every poster is using a "commercial" service [1] that does not
enforce strict naming requirements on the From: line contents. By
having the freedom to post as "From: D <nospam@example.net>" in the
From: line, D has more anonymity than they would have had back in the
mid 90's when their Usenet access would likely have been via $job or
college, and both $job and college would most likely have enforced use
of a "real name and real email address" in the From: line.
[1] I'm lumping eternal september in here as "commercial" -- I'm not
using "paid" as "commercial", instead the distinction is "signed up for/aquired by the user" vs. "supplied by $job or college to the
user".
Rich <rich@example.invalid> writes:
Wolfgang Agnes <wagnes@jemoni.to> wrote:
Rich <rich@example.invalid> writes:
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
On Wed, 6 Nov 2024, Rich wrote:
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
On Wed, 6 Nov 2024, Rich wrote:
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
This is the truth! As a thought experiment I sometimes think >>>>>>>>> about how I would be able to handle usenet if it had 10x the nr >>>>>>>>> of posts, and I don't think I would.
Been there, seen that.... Circa 1995 (I forget which groups now) >>>>>>>> the text posting volume was so great in the few groups I was
following that it was not possible to keep up. I was always
behind, and falling further behind each day. Eventually the fall >>>>>>>> behind problem reached a point where I decided to just drop out. >>>>>>>> So I disappeared for a good ten years or so. Of course, when I >>>>>>>> did return again, Usenet was a shadow of its former self as far as >>>>>>>> text posting rates go.
It would have to be either a laser focus on a very small nr of >>>>>>>>> groups, or aggressive filtering of the subject lines.
One did have to do both, and even so, the volume was impossible to >>>>>>>> keep up with if the group was at all active.
This is an interesting problem. How is it solved in modern social media?
If by "modern social media" you mean the likes of FB and its ilk,
presumably by having "the algorithm" showing you stuff, and then you >>>>>> just doom scroll through the algorithm driven feed. And if stuff
does not get put on your feed, you are unaware of its existance.
Ah, so probably just setting some keywords in my client and filter based >>>>> on those. Not a very satisfactory solution.
Except with "modern social media" you (the user) don't get to "just
set[ting] some keywords" for the "algorithm". The "algorithm" does it >>>> all for you by magic. Which, unfortunately, leaves you at the mercy of >>>> the allmighty "algorithm" as to what you see, and provides a great
opportunity for the "algorithm" to bias your world view into whatever
its creators want your world view to be by selective showing or
omission of various posts to your feed.
In other words, it's unacceptable---period.
Indeed, yes. With a user-local killfile (i.e., the Usenet client
method) then you, the user, is explicitly deciding what you want to
exclude (or include, as most modern clients implement the 'kill' as a
score so one can up/down articles if one wants).
But with the allmightly algorithm, you are at the mercy of your
corporate overlords.
Sadly, as most social media users are very similar to the humans on the
spaceship on the cartoon Wall-E, they are lazy and want "someone else"
to do all the work for them, expecting them to put in the even minimal
effort to curate their own local 'killfile' is likely too much to
expect.
And that's a very interesting phenomenon---that people are so
uninterested in such relevant matters. The laziness looks more like a depression, a state of total uninterest in one's life.
On Thu, 7 Nov 2024, Rich wrote:
Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote:
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
On Thu, 7 Nov 2024, Sn!pe wrote:
I think D is more concerned about anonymity than other considerations, >>>>> then about 'eavesdropping'. I'm sure he'll tell us RSN.
This is the correct interpretation. I our times of polarization and
net-hating, having a modicum of anonymity and privacy is very nice.
That's not about Usenet being unencrypted then. Your identity is
equally compromised whether you post here via NNTP or NNTPS. But
you might still not be individually identifiable if you take other
measures to protect it.
Anonymity on Usenet is facilitated (in today's world) by the fact that
most every poster is using a "commercial" service [1] that does not
enforce strict naming requirements on the From: line contents. By
having the freedom to post as "From: D <nospam@example.net>" in the
From: line, D has more anonymity than they would have had back in the
mid 90's when their Usenet access would likely have been via $job or
college, and both $job and college would most likely have enforced use
of a "real name and real email address" in the From: line.
That's a very good point and a very interesting historical
perspective. Thank you very much for sharing.
On Thu, 7 Nov 2024, Wolfgang Agnes wrote:
Rich <rich@example.invalid> writes:
Wolfgang Agnes <wagnes@jemoni.to> wrote:
Rich <rich@example.invalid> writes:
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
On Wed, 6 Nov 2024, Rich wrote:
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
On Wed, 6 Nov 2024, Rich wrote:
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
This is the truth! As a thought experiment I sometimes think >>>>>>>>>> about how I would be able to handle usenet if it had 10x the nr >>>>>>>>>> of posts, and I don't think I would.
Been there, seen that.... Circa 1995 (I forget which groups now) >>>>>>>>> the text posting volume was so great in the few groups I was >>>>>>>>> following that it was not possible to keep up. I was always >>>>>>>>> behind, and falling further behind each day. Eventually the fall >>>>>>>>> behind problem reached a point where I decided to just drop out. >>>>>>>>> So I disappeared for a good ten years or so. Of course, when I >>>>>>>>> did return again, Usenet was a shadow of its former self as far as >>>>>>>>> text posting rates go.
It would have to be either a laser focus on a very small nr of >>>>>>>>>> groups, or aggressive filtering of the subject lines.
One did have to do both, and even so, the volume was impossible to >>>>>>>>> keep up with if the group was at all active.
This is an interesting problem. How is it solved in modern social media?
If by "modern social media" you mean the likes of FB and its ilk, >>>>>>> presumably by having "the algorithm" showing you stuff, and then you >>>>>>> just doom scroll through the algorithm driven feed. And if stuff >>>>>>> does not get put on your feed, you are unaware of its existance. >>>>>>>
Ah, so probably just setting some keywords in my client and filter based >>>>>> on those. Not a very satisfactory solution.
Except with "modern social media" you (the user) don't get to "just
set[ting] some keywords" for the "algorithm". The "algorithm" does it >>>>> all for you by magic. Which, unfortunately, leaves you at the mercy of >>>>> the allmighty "algorithm" as to what you see, and provides a great
opportunity for the "algorithm" to bias your world view into whatever >>>>> its creators want your world view to be by selective showing or
omission of various posts to your feed.
In other words, it's unacceptable---period.
Indeed, yes. With a user-local killfile (i.e., the Usenet client
method) then you, the user, is explicitly deciding what you want to
exclude (or include, as most modern clients implement the 'kill' as a
score so one can up/down articles if one wants).
But with the allmightly algorithm, you are at the mercy of your
corporate overlords.
Sadly, as most social media users are very similar to the humans on the
spaceship on the cartoon Wall-E, they are lazy and want "someone else"
to do all the work for them, expecting them to put in the even minimal
effort to curate their own local 'killfile' is likely too much to
expect.
And that's a very interesting phenomenon---that people are so
uninterested in such relevant matters. The laziness looks more like a
depression, a state of total uninterest in one's life.
Could very well be. What's the statistics on prescribed happy-pills?
Is it increaseing over the world?
I would not be surprised if a lot of people are looking to be
constantly distracted, in order not to feel the pain of the empty
gaping hole in their souls.
Instead they could work on themselves, their values, achievements and
goal, which would feedback positively, and improve their lives.
I do hope that the pill-people are the exception and not the rule.
On Wed, 6 Nov 2024, Rich wrote:
One did have to do both, and even so, the volume was impossible to keep
up with if the group was at all active.
This is an interesting problem. How is it solved in modern social media?
That's not about Usenet being unencrypted then. Your identity is
equally compromised whether you post here via NNTP or NNTPS. But
you might still not be individually identifiable if you take other
measures to protect it.
D <nospam@example.net> writes:
On Thu, 7 Nov 2024, Wolfgang Agnes wrote:
Rich <rich@example.invalid> writes:
Wolfgang Agnes <wagnes@jemoni.to> wrote:
Rich <rich@example.invalid> writes:
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
On Wed, 6 Nov 2024, Rich wrote:
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
On Wed, 6 Nov 2024, Rich wrote:
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
This is the truth! As a thought experiment I sometimes think >>>>>>>>>>> about how I would be able to handle usenet if it had 10x the nr >>>>>>>>>>> of posts, and I don't think I would.
Been there, seen that.... Circa 1995 (I forget which groups now) >>>>>>>>>> the text posting volume was so great in the few groups I was >>>>>>>>>> following that it was not possible to keep up. I was always >>>>>>>>>> behind, and falling further behind each day. Eventually the fall >>>>>>>>>> behind problem reached a point where I decided to just drop out. >>>>>>>>>> So I disappeared for a good ten years or so. Of course, when I >>>>>>>>>> did return again, Usenet was a shadow of its former self as far as >>>>>>>>>> text posting rates go.
It would have to be either a laser focus on a very small nr of >>>>>>>>>>> groups, or aggressive filtering of the subject lines.
One did have to do both, and even so, the volume was impossible to >>>>>>>>>> keep up with if the group was at all active.
This is an interesting problem. How is it solved in modern social media?
If by "modern social media" you mean the likes of FB and its ilk, >>>>>>>> presumably by having "the algorithm" showing you stuff, and then you >>>>>>>> just doom scroll through the algorithm driven feed. And if stuff >>>>>>>> does not get put on your feed, you are unaware of its existance. >>>>>>>>
Ah, so probably just setting some keywords in my client and filter based
on those. Not a very satisfactory solution.
Except with "modern social media" you (the user) don't get to "just >>>>>> set[ting] some keywords" for the "algorithm". The "algorithm" does it >>>>>> all for you by magic. Which, unfortunately, leaves you at the mercy of >>>>>> the allmighty "algorithm" as to what you see, and provides a great >>>>>> opportunity for the "algorithm" to bias your world view into whatever >>>>>> its creators want your world view to be by selective showing or
omission of various posts to your feed.
In other words, it's unacceptable---period.
Indeed, yes. With a user-local killfile (i.e., the Usenet client
method) then you, the user, is explicitly deciding what you want to
exclude (or include, as most modern clients implement the 'kill' as a
score so one can up/down articles if one wants).
But with the allmightly algorithm, you are at the mercy of your
corporate overlords.
Sadly, as most social media users are very similar to the humans on the >>>> spaceship on the cartoon Wall-E, they are lazy and want "someone else" >>>> to do all the work for them, expecting them to put in the even minimal >>>> effort to curate their own local 'killfile' is likely too much to
expect.
And that's a very interesting phenomenon---that people are so
uninterested in such relevant matters. The laziness looks more like a
depression, a state of total uninterest in one's life.
Could very well be. What's the statistics on prescribed happy-pills?
Is it increaseing over the world?
I would not be surprised if a lot of people are looking to be
constantly distracted, in order not to feel the pain of the empty
gaping hole in their souls.
Instead they could work on themselves, their values, achievements and
goal, which would feedback positively, and improve their lives.
I do hope that the pill-people are the exception and not the rule.
I don't have the statistics at hand, but I would be very surprised if it
is not increasing world wide. And people don't need to stay off pills
to go depressed. Just the food they eat daily is enough to bring them
down little by little. And the dim outlook is that they seem to never
figure it out.
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
On Thu, 7 Nov 2024, Rich wrote:
Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote:
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
On Thu, 7 Nov 2024, Sn!pe wrote:
I think D is more concerned about anonymity than other considerations, >>>>>> then about 'eavesdropping'. I'm sure he'll tell us RSN.
This is the correct interpretation. I our times of polarization and
net-hating, having a modicum of anonymity and privacy is very nice.
That's not about Usenet being unencrypted then. Your identity is
equally compromised whether you post here via NNTP or NNTPS. But
you might still not be individually identifiable if you take other
measures to protect it.
Anonymity on Usenet is facilitated (in today's world) by the fact that
most every poster is using a "commercial" service [1] that does not
enforce strict naming requirements on the From: line contents. By
having the freedom to post as "From: D <nospam@example.net>" in the
From: line, D has more anonymity than they would have had back in the
mid 90's when their Usenet access would likely have been via $job or
college, and both $job and college would most likely have enforced use
of a "real name and real email address" in the From: line.
That's a very good point and a very interesting historical
perspective. Thank you very much for sharing.
It was very much reality. Mid 90's, most internet users only had
access via either their employer or their college, as the very idea of
an ISP and/or "dialup internet" had not yet hit the general population mindset.
And 'internet' access in those days was, more often than not, via a
shared shell account Unix workstation to which one would connect (via
one or more of VT100 style serial terminal or dialup modem to a Unix
terminal server). One had one's choice of what software to run on
one's shell account (tin, rn, slrn, etc.) but the Usenet server to
which these all communicated on that Unix workstation/server was
controlled by the workstation sysadmin, and in almost all cases, it
enforced that your 'From:' line name in your Usenet posts was your
real, actual, identification on that server.
Which also meant if you posted something that someone took great
offense to, from your @mit.edu account, that the "offended" would
contact the mit.edu sysadmins, and the "offending" user would be "taken behind the woodshed" as it may be.
Granted, "offended" individuals still can contact whatever usenet host someone uses to access usenet and bitch up a storm (the necessary
headers are in every article). But that same host, being in the
'business' of usenet access, is much less likely to care about "From: Q@nowhere"'s offensive post than the @mit.edu folks would have been
back in the day.
And, of course, joe random stalker has a much harder time tracking down "Q@nowhere"'s real life identity and location than he does in tracking
down the same for john.smith.iii@mit.edu.
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
On Wed, 6 Nov 2024, Rich wrote:
One did have to do both, and even so, the volume was impossible to keep
up with if the group was at all active.
On Usenet, I often had very aggressive killfiles, not because I had anything against the postings but just because I wasn't interested in another thread about digital audio workstations again. Some groups I would go into to find that 90% of the traffic was taken out by the killfile. But there was still plenty, plenty to read.
This is an interesting problem. How is it solved in modern social media?
Very poorly. Most of those systems are just firehoses and they will prioritize postings based upon their own (profit-oriented) notions of what
is most important, not the user's.
--scott
On Fri, 8 Nov 2024, Scott Dorsey wrote:
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
On Wed, 6 Nov 2024, Rich wrote:
One did have to do both, and even so, the volume was impossible to keep >>>> up with if the group was at all active.
On Usenet, I often had very aggressive killfiles, not because I had
anything against the postings but just because I wasn't interested
in another thread about digital audio workstations again. Some
groups I would go into to find that 90% of the traffic was taken out
by the killfile. But there was still plenty, plenty to read.
This is an interesting problem. How is it solved in modern social
media?
Very poorly. Most of those systems are just firehoses and they will
prioritize postings based upon their own (profit-oriented) notions
of what is most important, not the user's.
--scott
Yes, it does seem like the killfile is the "state of the art". ;)
The only addition on top of the killfile I could imagine, would be
the "communal killfile" where you add accounts to a common list and
then use that list together.
The weakness is of course that it can be abused, so I think a communal killfile would most likely only work for a smaller group of individuals
with similar taste and ideology when it comes to politics and free speech.
On Thu, 7 Nov 2024, Rich wrote:
Which also meant if you posted something that someone took great
offense to, from your @mit.edu account, that the "offended" would
contact the mit.edu sysadmins, and the "offending" user would be
"taken behind the woodshed" as it may be.
Granted, "offended" individuals still can contact whatever usenet
host someone uses to access usenet and bitch up a storm (the
necessary headers are in every article). But that same host, being
in the 'business' of usenet access, is much less likely to care
about "From: Q@nowhere"'s offensive post than the @mit.edu folks
would have been back in the day.
And, of course, joe random stalker has a much harder time tracking
down "Q@nowhere"'s real life identity and location than he does in
tracking down the same for john.smith.iii@mit.edu.
Makes a lot of sense. I also think that a lot of (well some) amateur
usenet providers have a strong sense of freedom of speech, so it
would take a lot for them to even bother.
either ignore, or boost, up to the individual receiving "the firehose"
of information.
But it also requires that same user to have to put in the small effort
to "curate" it as it were. And that's part of its downfall. The lazy 'content consumer' user (i.e, the 90+ percentile of users) does not
even want to put in that effort. Plus it has one other item those with "fragile sensitivities" dislike. The user needs to be exposed to at
least one post on a topic they do not want to see in order to recognize
a need to add a killfile entry. For the "snowflakes" of the world (of
which there are way too many) they think their "sensitivities" are soo fragile that they can't even stand to see "one" of something they don't
like in order to be able to say "no, no more like this". They want
"god" (the algorithm) to provide it all to them, prefiltered in just
they way they want, with no effort on their part, and with never having
their sensitivities triggered by seeing something they don't want to
see.
The only addition on top of the killfile I could imagine, would be
the "communal killfile" where you add accounts to a common list and
then use that list together.
The weakness is of course that it can be abused, so I think a communal
killfile would most likely only work for a smaller group of individuals
with similar taste and ideology when it comes to politics and free speech.
As you say, the 'communal killfile' has the problem of abuse built in
from the start.
And, for countries that purport to support 'free speech' a communial
killfile is also very close to a 'free speech suppression' mechanism.
At least with personal kill files there's no 'free speech' erosion
situation, due to the simple fact that in all 'free speech' regimes,
the 'freedom' to 'speak' is what is allowed, but there is no
requirement that "I must listen to you speak". The personal killfile
fits that perfectly. Bob can "speak" all he likes, but I can set it so
I don't have to listen to what Bob is speaking.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 480 |
| Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
| Uptime: | 242:24:18 |
| Calls: | 9,532 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 13,650 |
| Messages: | 6,137,281 |