On Thu, 7 Nov 2024, Sn!pe wrote:

> 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.

This is the correct interpretation. I our times of polarization and
net-hating, having a modicum of anonymity and privacy is very nice.

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:
>>>
>>> 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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:

> 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.

Sinister! I'm happy I don't have any mainstream social media! =) Mastodon
is bad enough. Usenet, at its current level of posts, is quite pleasant!

On Thu, 7 Nov 2024, Wolfgang Agnes wrote:

> 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.
>

True, let's put our trust in the lord! He will show us the way!

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.

>
>
> [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".
>
>

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.

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
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote:
>
>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.

Indeed we tried that with anon.penet.fi and it seemed like a good idea
for a while, until it didn't. That is an interesting bit of history
that the modern social media people don't seem to have learned.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On Thu, 7 Nov 2024, Wolfgang Agnes wrote:

> 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.
>

What food do they eat daily, and why is that enough? I suspect that I am
not eating the standard fare, and I am very unconscious of what man in
general tends to eat.

On Thu, 7 Nov 2024, Rich wrote:

> 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.

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.

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.

D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
> 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". ;)

It does leave the decision process of what part of "the firehose" to
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.

D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
> 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.

Yes, and a lot of that goes with "usenet" being their primary
provision.

@mit.edu provided Usenet as but a small extra benefit by being a
mit.edu student/alum/employee. Making mit.edu look bad meant they
could cut you off usenet, and not even notice the change for the rest
of mit.edu.

But a "usenet" provider, the only thing they provide is "usenet", and
esp. if it is a paid provider, it is against their business interest to
cut off user X (meaning less revenue) just because random fool on
usenet was triggered.

Most of them have very simple rules: no SPAMming, no SWATting, and then
that's about it. So unless the offense is directly against their
simple rules, or just clearly well beyond anything anyone should
expect, most of the "usenet only" providers will simply tell the
'sensitive' to go pound sand (and, preferably, to "grow a thicker
skin").

On Fri, 8 Nov 2024, Rich wrote:

> 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.

This is the truth!

>> 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.

Yep... I only see it working on a small scale. On a big scale, it will
be abused and slowly deteriorate until no posts at all are let through.

> 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.

Also true.