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>

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!

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...

--
^Ï^. Sn!pe, PTB, FIBS

My pet rock Gordon just is.

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.)

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?

On Wed, 6 Nov 2024, Wolfgang Agnes wrote:

> 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.

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:

> 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.

--
^Ï^. Sn!pe, PTB, FIBS

My pet rock Gordon just is.

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.

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!

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> 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.

Most Usenet news servers weren't blocked in China last time I
checked, and Russians even have their own news servers.

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#

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, 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?

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?

On Wed, 7 Nov 2024, Computer Nerd Kev 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.

Same for me.

>> 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!

Well, I grant you that with my terminal based, key driven interface, I
breeze through posts way, way quicker than a web forum. But even that is
not enough if the content would be 10x.

On Wed, 6 Nov 2024, Rich wrote:

> 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.

I do have vague memories from around 1995-1997 of toying with usenet and
almost getting crushed by the content.

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.

--
^Ï^. Sn!pe, PTB, FIBS

My pet rock Gordon just is.

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 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.

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#

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.

--
^Ï^. Sn!pe, PTB, FIBS

My pet rock Gordon just is.

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.

not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) 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.
>>
>> 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 do the same. I couldn't handle the volume of the early 2000s, but I
was amazed seeing people who do. Experts can read messages very quickly
and don't need to think much---they're so well trained that they
recognize things very quickly. I miss seeing that. I always liked to
be around to just watch that happening.

I'd choose one of two threads and try to exhaust them. I think it's
quite okay to let most of the content go by. Nevertheless, I do think
that when communities get large, a certain new kind of organization must
take place. For example, let's consider comp.lang.c back in 2002, say.
There was one guy there called ``Dan Pop''. If I recall correctly, he
worked at CERN. He was a language lawyer that was fun to watch. In
many ways he was setting the tone for the group and people respected
that. He'd reply various posts telling people that was not C. I
learned a lot from that. The busier the group, the more strict we must
be on topics choice and so on. I think that's alright. Right now, I'm
totally laid back here because we have so little content going on here.
If it increases, I'd try not to waste people time reading so much chat
or getting a thank-you-for-posting article (as I did in this thread).
We have so little content right now that I do think it's nice to tell
someone---yeah, keep these posts coming.

>> 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!

Tell me about it. It's so weird how we change good things for bad
things and even think that we've done very well.

On 7 Nov 2024 10:10:57 +1000, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:

> ... mercifully without forcing everyone to use them all the
> time like with HTTPS on the Web.

One key point with having encryption on all the time is that you don’t
stand out from the crowd just because you use it.

This can be important for users living under ... certain oppressive
regimes.

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, Sn!pe wrote:

> 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

And some light hearted trolling as well... must not forget that!

> 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.

Hmm, I see what you just did there.