ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) wrote or quoted:
>Now, my system only shows me about two or three headlines from the

On the flip side, having too few news articles can be a time suck too!
I'm used to squeezing in a quick Usenet read and firing off a couple
replies between household chores. Back in the day, I'd mostly chime
in to help newbies in programming groups. These days, though, it's
like crickets in there. So I end up checking the newsgroups only to
come up empty-handed. And that also eats up time. There's just too
much nothing burger going on in those newsgroups now!

|Too much of nothing
|Can make a man feel ill at ease
|One man's temper might rise
|While another man's temper might freeze
|In the day of confession
|We cannot mock a soul
|Oh, when there's too much of nothing
|No one has control

Stefan Ram <ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
> Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote or quoted:
>>ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes:
>>>Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote or quoted:
>>>>My point is that the “manage your own filters” model is a good
>>>>candidate for why almost everybody (expert or not) left Usenet.
>>>That's a trip, 'cause I'm totally the "roll your own filters" kind of
>>>guy.
>>Do you get that for most people it looks like a waste of time?
>
> But for me, the whole point is just to save time! I used to get
> tangled up in reading news about vanity or trivial stuff that had
> zero relevance to me. There was this one news source where I'd
> skim through about 40 headlines with article descriptions daily,
> and end up reading stories about some bartender's teenage years.
> Now, my system only shows me about two or three headlines from the
> same source. I only need a fraction of the time. Sure, I had to put
> in some time upfront to write my Python script, but it was worth it.

Except... The typical computer user thinks Python is a particular kind
of snake with scales and fangs.

And the typical computer user also is quite incapable of recognizing
accumulated effort over time (i.e., the integral of "effort vs.
time"). In fact this is typical of most people in general, they are
incapabile of recognizing that "extra effort today, for 1h, will save
me effort for every tomorrow to come". They see only the instantaneous
effort right now, and if it looks too to be too much, right now, they
never bother making the effort.

On Sun, 28 Jul 2024, Richard Kettlewell wrote:

> ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes:
>> Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote or quoted:
>>> My point is that the “manage your own filters” model is a good
>>> candidate for why almost everybody (expert or not) left Usenet.
>>
>> That's a trip, 'cause I'm totally the "roll your own filters" kind of
>> guy.
>
> Do you get that for most people it looks like a waste of time?
>

I asked most people and they said it is not a waste of time.

On Sa 27 Jul 2024 at 17:24, Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes:
>> Johanne Fairchild <jfairchild@tudado.org> wrote or quoted:
>>> Let's translate that to ``the experts are not here''. The experts
>>> who are in social networks seem to be a minority, so I conjecture
>>> that most experts are off the radar, perhaps waiting for something
>>> better.
>>
>> The experts used to be here. Linux was announced in comp.os.minix.
>> Tim Berners Lee published a summary of the World Wide Web project to
>> the alt.hypertext newsgroup. Marc Andreessen announced Netscape in
>> comp.infosystems.www.users. The launch of AltaVista was announced in
>> biz.digital.announce. "Uncle Bob" wrote in comp.objects. Greg Egan
>> asked about the science for his SF novels in sci.physics.research.
>> Dennis Ritchie wrote in comp.lang.c. They just disappeared.
>
> The ‘expert’ conversations are still happening, just not on Usenet. You
> can find them in mailing lists, blogs, issue trackers, papers, etc.
>
> A core problem with Usenet is that you can’t exclude people whose net
> contribution to a discussion is negative.

Oh you can. That is what killfiles are for.
Or you can use scoring if you like.
That is, if you are using a good newsreader like gnus.

'Andreas

--
ceterum censeo redmondinem esse delendam

Rich <rich@example.invalid> writes:
> Stefan Ram <ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
>> Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote or quoted:
>>>ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes:
>>>>Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote or quoted:
>>>>>My point is that the “manage your own filters” model is a good
>>>>>candidate for why almost everybody (expert or not) left Usenet.
>>>>That's a trip, 'cause I'm totally the "roll your own filters" kind of
>>>>guy.
>>>Do you get that for most people it looks like a waste of time?
>>
>> But for me, the whole point is just to save time! I used to get
>> tangled up in reading news about vanity or trivial stuff that had
>> zero relevance to me. There was this one news source where I'd
>> skim through about 40 headlines with article descriptions daily,
>> and end up reading stories about some bartender's teenage years.
>> Now, my system only shows me about two or three headlines from the
>> same source. I only need a fraction of the time. Sure, I had to put
>> in some time upfront to write my Python script, but it was worth it.
>
> Except... The typical computer user thinks Python is a particular
> kind of snake with scales and fangs.

The original context was the contemporary absence of ‘experts’ from
Usenet; the examples cited are perfectly well able to distinguish
programming languages from reptiles.

--
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Rich <rich@example.invalid> writes:
>> Stefan Ram <ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
>>> Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote or quoted:
>>>>ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes:
>>>>>Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote or quoted:
>>>>>>My point is that the “manage your own filters” model is a good
>>>>>>candidate for why almost everybody (expert or not) left Usenet.
>>>>>That's a trip, 'cause I'm totally the "roll your own filters" kind of
>>>>>guy.
>>>>Do you get that for most people it looks like a waste of time?
>>>
>>> But for me, the whole point is just to save time! I used to get
>>> tangled up in reading news about vanity or trivial stuff that had
>>> zero relevance to me. There was this one news source where I'd
>>> skim through about 40 headlines with article descriptions daily,
>>> and end up reading stories about some bartender's teenage years.
>>> Now, my system only shows me about two or three headlines from the
>>> same source. I only need a fraction of the time. Sure, I had to put
>>> in some time upfront to write my Python script, but it was worth it.
>>
>> Except... The typical computer user thinks Python is a particular
>> kind of snake with scales and fangs.
>
> The original context was the contemporary absence of ‘experts’ from
> Usenet; the examples cited are perfectly well able to distinguish
> programming languages from reptiles.

While true, at least you shifted the context to include non-experts
(note your own quote above):

>>>>>Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote or quoted:
>>>>>>My point is that the “manage your own filters” model is a good
>>>>>>candidate for why almost everybody (expert or not) left Usenet.

(expert or not) -- the 'not' shifting the context to include
non-experts.

And then your reply to ram@... shifted it some more to "most people":

>>> Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote or quoted:
>>>>ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes:
....
>>>>>That's a trip, 'cause I'm totally the "roll your own filters" kind of
>>>>>guy.
>>>>Do you get that for most people it looks like a waste of time?

And in any group of "most people" there will be a few 'experts' and a
large majority of non-experts, and some, likely sizable, chunk of those
non-experts will not think "programming language" when they see the
word "Python".

Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes:

> ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes:
>> Johanne Fairchild <jfairchild@tudado.org> wrote or quoted:
>>> Let's translate that to ``the experts are not here''. The experts
>>> who are in social networks seem to be a minority, so I conjecture
>>> that most experts are off the radar, perhaps waiting for something
>>> better.
>>
>> The experts used to be here. Linux was announced in comp.os.minix.
>> Tim Berners Lee published a summary of the World Wide Web project to
>> the alt.hypertext newsgroup. Marc Andreessen announced Netscape in
>> comp.infosystems.www.users. The launch of AltaVista was announced in
>> biz.digital.announce. "Uncle Bob" wrote in comp.objects. Greg Egan
>> asked about the science for his SF novels in sci.physics.research.
>> Dennis Ritchie wrote in comp.lang.c. They just disappeared.
>
> The ‘expert’ conversations are still happening, just not on Usenet. You
> can find them in mailing lists, blogs, issue trackers, papers, etc.
>
> A core problem with Usenet is that you can’t exclude people whose net
> contribution to a discussion is negative. If you have absolutist ideas
> about free speech then, or are part of the problem, that may be what you
> want. But if you actually want to get something useful done there are
> better options available.

I agree. I came to the conclusion that technical communities should be
semi-closed. Like mailing lists, they can be open for reading, but
closed for writing. I like NNTP. I think that closing NNTP servers for
writing is a good thing. I like the idea of getting an account by
invitation (from any other member). Perhaps we could have good
communities this way again.

What about the USENET? The USENET seems small again, so it seems to
work again.

ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes:

> Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote or quoted:
>>ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes:
>>>The experts used to be here. Linux was announced in comp.os.minix.
> . . .
>>The ‘expert’ conversations are still happening, just not on Usenet. You
>>can find them in mailing lists, blogs, issue trackers, papers, etc.
>
> BTW: I shouldn't be calling Linus Torvalds and the others
> I mentioned “experts.” That would be a serious downgrade for
> them! These folks are top-tier innovators. But yeah, there
> were definitely experts back in the Usenet days, and some
> of them are still around in certain Newsgroups.

Yes. ``Expert'' has been redefined.

>>A core problem with Usenet is that you can’t exclude people whose net
>>contribution to a discussion is negative.
>
> Or maybe the real issue is the folks who think you can't just block
> certain people out? Yeah, Usenet expects everyone to manage their
> own filters. If someone’s bugging you, you can totally filter them
> out of your feed. And if it drives you nuts to see how others respond
> to them, just find a newsreader that lets you filter that too!
> Heck, you can filter posts that have a specific word pattern in them!
> But it’s not like there’s a central authority doing that for you.

It's true that NNTP is able to handle the job, but most people are not
willing to be experts at using NNTP clients.

On 7/28/24 6:00 PM, Johanne Fairchild wrote:
> ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes:
>
>> Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote or quoted:
>>>ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes:
>>>>The experts used to be here. Linux was announced in comp.os.minix.
>> . . .
>>>The ‘expert’ conversations are still happening, just not on Usenet. You
>>>can find them in mailing lists, blogs, issue trackers, papers, etc.
>>
>> BTW: I shouldn't be calling Linus Torvalds and the others
>> I mentioned “experts.” That would be a serious downgrade for
>> them! These folks are top-tier innovators. But yeah, there
>> were definitely experts back in the Usenet days, and some
>> of them are still around in certain Newsgroups.
>
> Yes. ``Expert'' has been redefined.
>
>>>A core problem with Usenet is that you can’t exclude people whose net
>>>contribution to a discussion is negative.
>>
>> Or maybe the real issue is the folks who think you can't just block
>> certain people out? Yeah, Usenet expects everyone to manage their
>> own filters. If someone’s bugging you, you can totally filter them
>> out of your feed. And if it drives you nuts to see how others respond
>> to them, just find a newsreader that lets you filter that too!
>> Heck, you can filter posts that have a specific word pattern in them!
>> But it’s not like there’s a central authority doing that for you.
>
> It's true that NNTP is able to handle the job, but most people are not
> willing to be experts at using NNTP clients.

Most people are not able to be experts at anything.

--
Cheers, Bev
"I love to go down to the schoolyard and watch all the
little children jump up and down and run around yelling and
screaming...They don't know I'm only using blanks." --Emo

Johanne Fairchild <jfairchild@tudado.org> writes:
> Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes:
>> A core problem with Usenet is that you can’t exclude people whose net
>> contribution to a discussion is negative. If you have absolutist
>> ideas about free speech then, or are part of the problem, that may be
>> what you want. But if you actually want to get something useful done
>> there are better options available.
>
> I agree. I came to the conclusion that technical communities should be
> semi-closed. Like mailing lists, they can be open for reading, but
> closed for writing. I like NNTP. I think that closing NNTP servers for
> writing is a good thing. I like the idea of getting an account by
> invitation (from any other member). Perhaps we could have good
> communities this way again.

They do exist, including closed NNTP networks, not just single servers.

I’m sentimental about NNTP too. But the decentralization (of clients as
well as servers) leads, at scale, to insoluble structural problems. The
impossibility of exclusion referred to above is one of the consequences.
Another is that’s very hard to upgrade: any innovation will only really
work properly either if it degrades gracefully on legacy servers and/or
clients, or if it’s so compelling that essentially everyone is motivated
to upgrade.

For example Unicode has existed for more than half of Usenet’s lifetime
and yet adoption in the client software remains partial.

--
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> They do exist, including closed NNTP networks, not just single servers.

closed NNTP *networks* in 2024? I cannot think of anything besides a
backup server of a private server. Let's say a backup of the main
GMANE server in case of an outage. The only people I can think
running those networks are SDF. And BTW their private sdf.* hierarchy
had very little activity (as I witnessed myself a few years ago).

On Sun, 28 Jul 2024, Johanne Fairchild wrote:

> ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes:
>
>> Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote or quoted:
>>> ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes:
>>>> The experts used to be here. Linux was announced in comp.os.minix.
>> . . .
>>> The ‘expert’ conversations are still happening, just not on Usenet. You
>>> can find them in mailing lists, blogs, issue trackers, papers, etc.
>>
>> BTW: I shouldn't be calling Linus Torvalds and the others
>> I mentioned “experts.” That would be a serious downgrade for
>> them! These folks are top-tier innovators. But yeah, there
>> were definitely experts back in the Usenet days, and some
>> of them are still around in certain Newsgroups.
>
> Yes. ``Expert'' has been redefined.
>
>>> A core problem with Usenet is that you can’t exclude people whose net
>>> contribution to a discussion is negative.
>>
>> Or maybe the real issue is the folks who think you can't just block
>> certain people out? Yeah, Usenet expects everyone to manage their
>> own filters. If someone’s bugging you, you can totally filter them
>> out of your feed. And if it drives you nuts to see how others respond
>> to them, just find a newsreader that lets you filter that too!
>> Heck, you can filter posts that have a specific word pattern in them!
>> But it’s not like there’s a central authority doing that for you.
>
> It's true that NNTP is able to handle the job, but most people are not
> willing to be experts at using NNTP clients.
>

People have no choice but to use a client regardless of what service or
system they are using to communicate with others. They don't need to be
experts. NNTP is simple, so if someone wants more users, they are always
free to write a web client or something, which seems to be what the masses
want these days.

Javier <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes:

> Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> They do exist, including closed NNTP networks, not just single servers.
>
> closed NNTP *networks* in 2024?

The Tildeverse's NNTP network was public writable until abuse happened,
now it still remains public readable while being writable only from
known systems, which in most cases seems to mean Tildeverse nodes.

> The only people I can think running those networks are SDF. And BTW
> their private sdf.* hierarchy had very little activity (as I witnessed
> myself a few years ago).

It IMO isn't even worth losing a tear, they just should take it down.

A more P2Pish NNTP would be nice. Maybe combined with bringing the
pubnix idea to everyones' home as peernixes. That'd be my favourite
Fediverse.

--
MESH THE PLANET!

Javier <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> They do exist, including closed NNTP networks, not just single servers.
>
> closed NNTP *networks* in 2024? I cannot think of anything besides a
> backup server of a private server.

By virtue of being *closed* it is unlikely you'd know about them.

If someone wanted a "team/slack" like ability for remote indivduals to
communicate, they /could/ setup a close NNTP network for themselves.

Granted, the likelyhood is small and said team is more likely to setup
msteams or slack -- but the *closed* nature means none of the rest of
us would know it existed.

Javier <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes:
> Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> They do exist, including closed NNTP networks, not just single servers.
>
> closed NNTP *networks* in 2024?

Yes.

> I cannot think of anything besides a backup server of a private
> server.

Why would you expect to know about a closed network that you weren’t
participating in?

--
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> writes:

> Most people are not able to be experts at anything.

I'm amazed at how many people seem to be experts at using a smart
phone. Might that be that the touchscreen GUI is like shopping?

The command line is like language but way more people are experts on
shopping than on language.

I can barely manage to use my cell phone for basic functions. There
are no manpages and no source code. There is a PDF "manual" which
appears to have been written by shopping consultants, not by wizard
hackers. Ho hum.

--
Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada

On 7/29/24 10:20 AM, Mike Spencer wrote:
> The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Most people are not able to be experts at anything.
>
> I'm amazed at how many people seem to be experts at using a smart
> phone. Might that be that the touchscreen GUI is like shopping?
>
> The command line is like language but way more people are experts on
> shopping than on language.
>
> I can barely manage to use my cell phone for basic functions. There
> are no manpages and no source code. There is a PDF "manual" which
> appears to have been written by shopping consultants, not by wizard
> hackers. Ho hum.

OTOH, the man pages written by wizards clearly are intended to make you
work for it just like the writers had to!

I'm ashamed to say that more and more I'm asking Gemini (and others)
how-to questions rather than doing an actual search, reading multiple
documents, etc. If something looks off I can look for the info myself,
but I wonder if the kids whose first experience with finding information
is an AI will be able to do that.

--
Cheers, Bev
I've enjoyed just about as much of this as I can stand.

The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote or quoted:
>I'm ashamed to say that more and more I'm asking Gemini (and others)
>how-to questions rather than doing an actual search

I'm totally on the same wavelength! These days, I don't even bother
coding those little Python scripts myself anymore - I just whip up
prompts to crank them out (for the beefier Python projects, I have
it spit out the chunks one by one). Heck, I even use such a system
to churn out most of my Usenet posts in laid-back Cali-English . . .

Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote or quoted:
>The problem is that many people don't want to be bothered with managing
>their own personal killfile and would rather that work be offloaded to
>"the moderators" (which is mostly what they get on the centralized
>forums) so they don't have to bother with it.

BTW: As early as 1994, there was a suggestion called "GROUPLENS":
"An Open Architecture for Collaborative Filtering of Netnews."

We also have some moderated newsgroups in the USENET.

Rich <rich@example.invalid> writes:

> Javier <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> They do exist, including closed NNTP networks, not just single servers.
>>
>> closed NNTP *networks* in 2024? I cannot think of anything besides a
>> backup server of a private server.
>
> By virtue of being *closed* it is unlikely you'd know about them.
>
> If someone wanted a "team/slack" like ability for remote indivduals to
> communicate, they /could/ setup a close NNTP network for themselves.
>
> Granted, the likelyhood is small and said team is more likely to setup
> msteams or slack -- but the *closed* nature means none of the rest of
> us would know it existed.

Average people seem to want Slack or Discord a lot more than NNTP
servers. I think an explanation for this is in part psychological but
also a matter of training. NNTP is a lot more focused on writing than
Slack or Discord, say. People are not well-trained in writing, so
perhaps they can't quite distinguish good writing from bad writing.
It's also psychological. Posting a message and not knowing if the other
part has read it at all is too frightening for most people: it doesn't
alleviate their feeling of loneliness either. (And it's terrible for
the typical work, which is more involved with the notion that people are
doing something than actually getting it done.)

I think NNTP, however, is the better tool for people who do work with
writing such as thinkers of all sorts---programmers, writers,
scientists. These are people who prefer not to be distracted by
Christmas trees and know how to operate a computer.

Johanne Fairchild <jfairchild@tudado.org> wrote or quoted:
>Average people seem to want Slack or Discord a lot more than NNTP
>servers.

For comparison, a text from 2001:

|Since Usenet was created in 1979, it has seen an impressive
|growth from a small academic community to a network used by
|millions of people from a wide variety of backgrounds all
|over the world. The total size of the data flowing through
|Usenet has been more than tripling every year between 1993
|and 2001.
"Handling Information Overload on Usenet" (2001) - Jan Ingvoldstad.

ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes:

> Johanne Fairchild <jfairchild@tudado.org> wrote or quoted:
>>Average people seem to want Slack or Discord a lot more than NNTP
>>servers.
>
> For comparison, a text from 2001:
>
> |Since Usenet was created in 1979, it has seen an impressive
> |growth from a small academic community to a network used by
> |millions of people from a wide variety of backgrounds all
> |over the world. The total size of the data flowing through
> |Usenet has been more than tripling every year between 1993
> |and 2001.

This makes sense. I would not think these were really average people.
I think average people are more like someone in this thread put it:
shopping people. I would think that, for most of the world, the
Internet really took off around the year 2000, so up to this point it
makes sense that the USENET was still blossoming.

> "Handling Information Overload on Usenet" (2001) - Jan IngvoldstadF.

Thanks for the thesis reference.

On 30 Jul 2024 12:15:27 GMT, Stefan Ram wrote:

> For comparison, a text from 2001:
>
> |Since Usenet was created in 1979, it has seen an impressive |growth
> from a small academic community to a network used by |millions of people
> from a wide variety of backgrounds all |over the world. The total size
> of the data flowing through |Usenet has been more than tripling every
> year between 1993 |and 2001.
> "Handling Information Overload on Usenet" (2001) - Jan Ingvoldstad.

I for one welcome our new information overloads.

D <nospam@example.net> wrote in news:fdc6b7b9-b22a-0fa3-83c7-1710be288c51
@example.net:

>
>
> On Wed, 24 Jul 2024, Anton Shepelev wrote:
>
>> [Followup-To: comp.misc]
>>
>> Athel Cornish-Bowden to Steve Hayes:
>>
>>>> Katy Jennison is another RR who doesn't seem to be here
>>>> any more. I still see her sometimes on Facebook.
>>>
>>> Yes, but she specifically announced that she was leaving.
>>
>> There is an epidemic abroad of people leaving clean, stable,
>> accessible, and independent venues such as Usenet, Fidonet,
>> Mailing lists, and IRC, for centralised capitalist
>> corporate-owned cenusured commercial "products" that are
>> huge, bloated, tasteless, and require up-to-date hardware,
>> OS, and software. To me, this is a reiteration of the story
>> of the red pottage[1]: selling one's freedom and cleanliness
>> for immediate comfort.
>> ____________________
>> 1. Genesis 25, 25-34.
>>
>>
>
> It is a shame, but when I walk the city streets and see the young with
> their faces in their smart phones, I am not surprised. You get all the
> evils as preinstalled little icons, and the good stuff requires a few
> hoops to jump through.
>
> But I do wonder if there will be a movement away from the corporate
> islands eventually?
>

I use USENET and foreign web sites to keep abreast of many things.

My wife uses her iPhone and Facebook for what she considers news.

Last week I pointed out to her the stories and opinions she thought were
hours old were actually weeks old, older, or just plein inaccurate. I had
to go over several news stories and alleged governement feedback responses
with her and verify the dates and untruths from other more reliable
resourses.

That got her looking at a few new web sites, but she still relies on her
biased FB feed to tell her what is going on.

Her initial inquiry to me was asking why Google had suddenly started giving
her very biased political reporting and not mentioning her hobby news. It
was a Google reset. She had to retrain her account to give her what she
wanted.

I'm happy reading all sides of stories and deciding for myself what is true
and what needs to be verified elsewhere before repeating it.

On Mon, 5 Aug 2024, David LaRue wrote:

> D <nospam@example.net> wrote in news:fdc6b7b9-b22a-0fa3-83c7-1710be288c51
> @example.net:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 24 Jul 2024, Anton Shepelev wrote:
>>
>>> [Followup-To: comp.misc]
>>>
>>> Athel Cornish-Bowden to Steve Hayes:
>>>
>>>>> Katy Jennison is another RR who doesn't seem to be here
>>>>> any more. I still see her sometimes on Facebook.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, but she specifically announced that she was leaving.
>>>
>>> There is an epidemic abroad of people leaving clean, stable,
>>> accessible, and independent venues such as Usenet, Fidonet,
>>> Mailing lists, and IRC, for centralised capitalist
>>> corporate-owned cenusured commercial "products" that are
>>> huge, bloated, tasteless, and require up-to-date hardware,
>>> OS, and software. To me, this is a reiteration of the story
>>> of the red pottage[1]: selling one's freedom and cleanliness
>>> for immediate comfort.
>>> ____________________
>>> 1. Genesis 25, 25-34.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> It is a shame, but when I walk the city streets and see the young with
>> their faces in their smart phones, I am not surprised. You get all the
>> evils as preinstalled little icons, and the good stuff requires a few
>> hoops to jump through.
>>
>> But I do wonder if there will be a movement away from the corporate
>> islands eventually?
>>
>
> I use USENET and foreign web sites to keep abreast of many things.
>
> My wife uses her iPhone and Facebook for what she considers news.
>
> Last week I pointed out to her the stories and opinions she thought were
> hours old were actually weeks old, older, or just plein inaccurate. I had
> to go over several news stories and alleged governement feedback responses
> with her and verify the dates and untruths from other more reliable
> resourses.
>
> That got her looking at a few new web sites, but she still relies on her
> biased FB feed to tell her what is going on.
>
> Her initial inquiry to me was asking why Google had suddenly started giving
> her very biased political reporting and not mentioning her hobby news. It
> was a Google reset. She had to retrain her account to give her what she
> wanted.
>
> I'm happy reading all sides of stories and deciding for myself what is true
> and what needs to be verified elsewhere before repeating it.
>

One site I enjoy is https://www.improvethenews.org/ . If you enjoy
multiple sides of a story, you might enjoy the site too! =)