Understand that we don't believe we would necessarily fail.

Instead, the values of this network do not and cannot align with my
values.

This is why I am demotivated. The technical challenge is surmountable,
almost easy, in my estimation. I recommend everyone give it a go, at least
to start a private, non-Usenet NNTP forum. The social challenge makes me
wonder if I should not instead try to come to command an army and destroy
the entire network, collateral damage be damned.

When I come across Usenet admins, they cannot clearly say that they will
ban and filter anyone they come across committing harassment, nor that
they will institute a code of conduct which is actively antifascist,
because the values of the network are not actively antifascist and in fact
tend towards calling antifascists whiners.

As of Fri, 19 Apr 2024 15:35:54 +0000, in message
c433b7d454b6df388df6d6028084ac9b@www.novabbs.org, Retro Guy
<retroguy@novabbs.com> wrote:

> Grant Taylor wrote:
>
>> On 4/19/24 09:56, The Bjornsdottirs - Lightning wrote:
>>> I'm 24 and I've rattled the idea around my head a couple times. Each
>>> time, I am demotivated by the kind of person I come across,
>
>> ProTip: Aspire to more. You will fail. But failure part of the
>> learning process.
>
>> Even if you fail when aspiring to mire, you will quite likely be in a
>> better position than you were before you tried.
>
>> I think I'm qualified to say Pro because I've been paid for the last 20
>> years for 10:aspiring, 20:failing, 30:goto 10.
>
> I agree. Fear of failure will just keep a person from accomplishing much
> of anything.
>
> It's good to realize that people who end up producing something awesome
> didn't just get it done on the first try, they tried, and tried again
> with persistence.

--
Lightning Bjornsson <dragon.nntp@chatspeed.net> - Member Switchposters
United for Justice - <https://spufj.trd.is./>

Some people don't like multiline signatures. I kindly request that they
keep their concerns in their own brains. Usenet isn't what it used to be.
The servers are more powerful, have more storage, and have faster uplinks
in even the worst cases. Long sigs can't hurt you anymore.

On 20.04.2024 um 17:42 Uhr The Bjornsdottirs - Lightning wrote:

> When I come across Usenet admins, they cannot clearly say that they
> will ban and filter anyone they come across committing harassment,
> nor that they will institute a code of conduct which is actively
> antifascist, because the values of the network are not actively
> antifascist and in fact tend towards calling antifascists whiners.

This is something every newsmaster can decide himself.
If you don't want traffic from servers that allow such users, you are
free to reject those posts based on filter rules (e.g. when an article
contains some words, is being posted by a specific mail address, or
even all messages injected in a server).
Many servers have such filters enabled to fight spam. Some also have
them to stop certain unwanted messages.
Although, by design, there is no "moral authority" who decides what
admins have to do.
Some servers even allow spammers to use their service.

--
kind regards
Marco

Send spam to 1713627767muell@cartoonies.org

Marco Moock <mm+usenet-es@dorfdsl.de> writes:
> On 20.04.2024 um 17:42 Uhr The Bjornsdottirs - Lightning wrote:

>> When I come across Usenet admins, they cannot clearly say that they
>> will ban and filter anyone they come across committing harassment,
>> nor that they will institute a code of conduct which is actively
>> antifascist, because the values of the network are not actively
>> antifascist and in fact tend towards calling antifascists whiners.

> This is something every newsmaster can decide himself.

Sort of. The NNTP and netnews protocols have exceptionally poor support
for moderation compared to just about any other message board software,
since essentially everything else was designed after NNTP and netnews and
learned from its shortcomings.

You can insert an extremely heavy moderation step in front of all traffic
(but only for private groups or if you can reach an agreement with your
transitive peers), but the protocol is completely insecure, and while
there are patchwork solutions to that, you have to implement them
yourself. Or you have to rely on filtering, which is a very poor
moderation strategy that requires endless arms races with people trying to
bypass it.

And all of the more advanced tools available in newer protocols simply
aren't there (for better or worse; Usenet people usually don't like most
of these, but people running other types of message board systems use them
heavily): migrating messages to different threads, closing threads, user
authentication and all the things that come with that such as poster bans
or pre-moderation for new users but not established users, etc. About the
only thing you can do is delete the message off your server after the
fact, and the tools for doing that are very primitive. You can simulate
some of this by writing a whole pile of custom software that sits in the
pre-moderation path, but now you've signed on for the project of writing a
moderation system from scratch. The protocol and existing software base
are doing essentially nothing for you.

A lot of people prefer the Usenet model for various reasons, and that's
fine, that's something people can argue about. But Usenet's moderation
and filtering facilities are staggeringly primitive, and if those are a
priority for you, Usenet is a bad technology choice and you should use
something else.

--
Russ Allbery (eagle@eyrie.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

Please post questions rather than mailing me directly.
<https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/faqs/questions.html> explains why.

The Bjornsdottirs - Lightning <zerda@umbrellix.net> top-posted:

> Understand that we don't believe we would necessarily fail.
>
> Instead, the values of this network do not and cannot align with my
> values.
>
> This is why I am demotivated. The technical challenge is surmountable,
> almost easy, in my estimation. I recommend everyone give it a go, at least
> to start a private, non-Usenet NNTP forum. The social challenge makes me
> wonder if I should not instead try to come to command an army and destroy
> the entire network, collateral damage be damned.
>
> When I come across Usenet admins, they cannot clearly say that they will
> ban and filter anyone they come across committing harassment, nor that
> they will institute a code of conduct which is actively antifascist,
> because the values of the network are not actively antifascist and in fact
> tend towards calling antifascists whiners.

[...]

You appear to be advocating censorship. Usenet is a rare bastion of
free speech. All shades of opinion are given equal weight in the court
of its readership, including those opinions that some do not like. This
is in the nature of debate. Valid arguments will win debates, others
will fail.

--
^Ï^. Sn!pe, PA, FIBS - Professional Crastinator

My pet rock Gordon admires J. Alfred Prufrock.

The Bjornsdottirs - Lightning <zerda@umbrellix.net> writes:

> This is why I am demotivated. The technical challenge is surmountable,
> almost easy, in my estimation.

How far are you with your install?

--
I do not bite, I just want to play.

I am, in fact, advocating censorship. Why shouldn't we censor someone
whose "contributions" amount to driving healthy discussion off the 'net?

There was something about good money being displaced by bad, and while it
does not apply to bullion money for various reasons, it does apply to
debates. Bad arguments displace good arguments when both are given equal,
rather than due, weight, because they are propounded more insistently
(have you ever seen Alex Jones?), and I've seen this time and time again.
This is why moderation is needed when there are arguments - to flag up
obvious bad arguments and bad ways of arguing, and ensure that bad
arguments cannot displace good.

That said, this subthread is, partially by my hand (or should I say 'paw'?
I am a dragon, after all...) becoming offtopic for this newsgroup. If
someone here might, in good faith, suggest another newsgroup to xpost to
and set as a singular FU-To:, I'd most appreciate that, and I suspect
anyone setting up or developing NNTP software would, as well.

As of Sat, 20 Apr 2024 21:45:21 +0100, in message
1qsc0up.13veal619hghjyN%snipeco.2@gmail.com, snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe)
wrote:

> The Bjornsdottirs - Lightning <zerda@umbrellix.net> top-posted:

Banish from thy mind the idea that I did not notice this remark.

>
>> Understand that we don't believe we would necessarily fail.
>>
>> Instead, the values of this network do not and cannot align with my
>> values.
>>
>> This is why I am demotivated. The technical challenge is surmountable,
>> almost easy, in my estimation. I recommend everyone give it a go, at
>> least to start a private, non-Usenet NNTP forum. The social challenge
>> makes me wonder if I should not instead try to come to command an army
>> and destroy the entire network, collateral damage be damned.
>>
>> When I come across Usenet admins, they cannot clearly say that they
>> will ban and filter anyone they come across committing harassment, nor
>> that they will institute a code of conduct which is actively
>> antifascist, because the values of the network are not actively
>> antifascist and in fact tend towards calling antifascists whiners.
>
> [...]
>
> You appear to be advocating censorship. Usenet is a rare bastion of
> free speech. All shades of opinion are given equal weight in the court
> of its readership, including those opinions that some do not like. This
> is in the nature of debate. Valid arguments will win debates, others
> will fail.

--
Lightning Bjornsson <dragon.nntp@chatspeed.net> - Member Switchposters
United for Justice - <https://spufj.trd.is./>

Some people don't like multiline signatures. I kindly request that they
keep their concerns in their own brains. Usenet isn't what it used to be.
The servers are more powerful, have more storage, and have faster uplinks
in even the worst cases. Long sigs can't hurt you anymore.

The Bjornsdottirs - Lightning <zerda@umbrellix.net> wrote:

> I am, in fact, advocating censorship. [...]
>

Disgraceful. You and I have nothing to discuss.

I note that you have silently altered the Subject to:

"[OFFTOPIC] Censorship is good, actually. If you don't like that fact,
maybe you should commit some client-side censorship, otherwise
known as the killfile."

Good advice indeed, troll.

--
^Ï^. Sn!pe, PA, FIBS - Professional Crastinator

My pet rock Gordon strongly deprecates censorship.

The Bjornsdottirs - Lightning <zerda@umbrellix.net> writes:

> That said, this subthread is, partially by my hand (or should I say 'paw'?
> I am a dragon, after all...) becoming offtopic for this newsgroup. If
> someone here might, in good faith, suggest another newsgroup to xpost to
> and set as a singular FU-To:, I'd most appreciate that, and I suspect
> anyone setting up or developing NNTP software would, as well.

Have you seen PF's NNTP in Lisp?

--> news.tilde.club tilde.meta:407 or <87ttke2rbj.fsf@example.com>

For the NG to switch to ... if no better ideas show up, maybe add some
more life to comp.infosystems?

--
Trust me, I know what I'm doing...

As of Sun, 21 Apr 2024 02:52:24 +0100, in message
1qscfld.1ctibjm1vx48dyN%snipeco.2@gmail.com, snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe)
wrote:

> The Bjornsdottirs - Lightning <zerda@umbrellix.net> wrote:
>
>> I am, in fact, advocating censorship. [...]
>>
>>
> Disgraceful. You and I have nothing to discuss.

And for once, myself and Snipe agree on something. *plonk*

--
Lightning Bjornsson <dragon.nntp@chatspeed.net> - Member Switchposters
United for Justice - <https://spufj.trd.is./>

Some people don't like multiline signatures. I kindly request that they
keep their concerns in their own brains. Usenet isn't what it used to be.
The servers are more powerful, have more storage, and have faster uplinks
in even the worst cases. Long sigs can't hurt you anymore.

Sn!pe <snipeco.1@gmail.com> wrote:
>The Bjornsdottirs - Lightning <zerda@umbrellix.net> wrote:

>>I am, in fact, advocating censorship. [...]

>Disgraceful. You and I have nothing to discuss.

Thank you for finally spitting out the hook.

>I note that you have silently altered the Subject to:

>"[OFFTOPIC] Censorship is good, actually. If you don't like that fact,
>maybe you should commit some client-side censorship, otherwise
>known as the killfile."

>Good advice indeed, troll.

On 04/20/2024 12:04 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Marco Moock <mm+usenet-es@dorfdsl.de> writes:
>> On 20.04.2024 um 17:42 Uhr The Bjornsdottirs - Lightning wrote:
>
>>> When I come across Usenet admins, they cannot clearly say that they
>>> will ban and filter anyone they come across committing harassment,
>>> nor that they will institute a code of conduct which is actively
>>> antifascist, because the values of the network are not actively
>>> antifascist and in fact tend towards calling antifascists whiners.
>
>> This is something every newsmaster can decide himself.
>
> Sort of. The NNTP and netnews protocols have exceptionally poor support
> for moderation compared to just about any other message board software,
> since essentially everything else was designed after NNTP and netnews and
> learned from its shortcomings.
>
> You can insert an extremely heavy moderation step in front of all traffic
> (but only for private groups or if you can reach an agreement with your
> transitive peers), but the protocol is completely insecure, and while
> there are patchwork solutions to that, you have to implement them
> yourself. Or you have to rely on filtering, which is a very poor
> moderation strategy that requires endless arms races with people trying to
> bypass it.
>
> And all of the more advanced tools available in newer protocols simply
> aren't there (for better or worse; Usenet people usually don't like most
> of these, but people running other types of message board systems use them
> heavily): migrating messages to different threads, closing threads, user
> authentication and all the things that come with that such as poster bans
> or pre-moderation for new users but not established users, etc. About the
> only thing you can do is delete the message off your server after the
> fact, and the tools for doing that are very primitive. You can simulate
> some of this by writing a whole pile of custom software that sits in the
> pre-moderation path, but now you've signed on for the project of writing a
> moderation system from scratch. The protocol and existing software base
> are doing essentially nothing for you.
>
> A lot of people prefer the Usenet model for various reasons, and that's
> fine, that's something people can argue about. But Usenet's moderation
> and filtering facilities are staggeringly primitive, and if those are a
> priority for you, Usenet is a bad technology choice and you should use
> something else.
>

Hello good sir, one thing I'd like to figure out is cleanfeed with
regards to the reference implementation in Perl and with regards to
extracting out the ruleset and making it so the same rules can be
evaluated according to a usual sort of cleanfeed convention.

It's similar with the config files of INND, with regards to that
they are normative, in a sense, and should have a sort of reference
implementation.

The rather esoteric moderation tools or as with respect to control
band and trust networks, has that it really is a great sort of invisible
hand in effect, that one hopes would be sort of stood up as modernizable.

Perhaps it you told the young people that Usenet was sort of like a
blockchain, of email, maybe that would make more sense.

About modernization, there's the client protocol which needs no
modernization, given that it has TLS and SASL pretty much, though
one might aver it would be something to "make a normative sort of
HTTP protocol about it", yet really NNTP is more aligned with Email
than Hypertext, then though about the server or compeer protocols,
and about the agreements and traditions in trust, your advice and
requirements about these kinds of things would be very appreciated,
with regards to context of the system and its surrounds and purpose.

On 21.04.2024 um 01:28 Uhr The Bjornsdottirs - Lightning wrote:

> There was something about good money being displaced by bad, and
> while it does not apply to bullion money for various reasons, it does
> apply to debates. Bad arguments displace good arguments when both are
> given equal, rather than due, weight, because they are propounded
> more insistently (have you ever seen Alex Jones?), and I've seen this
> time and time again. This is why moderation is needed when there are
> arguments - to flag up obvious bad arguments and bad ways of arguing,
> and ensure that bad arguments cannot displace good

That's what many people can do themselves.
Most readers offer filter mechanisms - sometimes called killfile by
people.

Feel free to filter what you don't want to read and share that filters
with others.

Moderated newsgroups also exist. One or more people have the power to
decide which posts are being submitted to the group or not.

--
kind regards
Marco

Send spam to 1713655732muell@cartoonies.org

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

> Sn!pe <snipeco.1@gmail.com> wrote:
> >The Bjornsdottirs - Lightning <zerda@umbrellix.net> wrote:
>
> >>I am, in fact, advocating censorship. [...]
>
> >Disgraceful. You and I have nothing to discuss.
>
> Thank you for finally spitting out the hook.
>

Indeed.

I find it hard to believe that genuine new users of Usenet might
sincerely hold such regressive, trollish views. If "cancel culture"
takes root in Usenet one might as well be on Twitter.

> >I note that you have silently altered the Subject to:
>
> >"[OFFTOPIC] Censorship is good, actually. If you don't like that fact,
> >maybe you should commit some client-side censorship, otherwise
> >known as the killfile."
>
> >Good advice indeed, troll.

--
^Ï^. Sn!pe, PA, FIBS - Professional Crastinator

My pet rock Gordon admires J. Alfred Prufrock.

On 21.04.2024 um 09:45 Uhr Sn!pe wrote:

> I find it hard to believe that genuine new users of Usenet might
> sincerely hold such regressive, trollish views. If "cancel culture"
> takes root in Usenet one might as well be on Twitter.

In my age group (Gen Z), such views are widespread.

--
kind regards
Marco

Send spam to 1713685557muell@cartoonies.org

Marco Moock <mm+usenet-es@dorfdsl.de> wrote:

> On 21.04.2024 um 09:45 Uhr Sn!pe wrote:
>
> > I find it hard to believe that genuine new users of Usenet might
> > sincerely hold such regressive, trollish views. If "cancel culture"
> > takes root in Usenet one might as well be on Twitter.
>
> In my age group (Gen Z), such views are widespread.

"I wholly disapprove of what you say and will defend
to the death your right to say it." -- ascribed to Voltaire

--
^Ï^. Sn!pe, PA, FIBS - Professional Crastinator

My pet rock Gordon just is.

Marco Moock wrote:

> On 21.04.2024 um 09:45 Uhr Sn!pe wrote:

>> I find it hard to believe that genuine new users of Usenet might
>> sincerely hold such regressive, trollish views. If "cancel culture"
>> takes root in Usenet one might as well be on Twitter.

> In my age group (Gen Z), such views are widespread.

I've noticed that. The acceptance that a person would want someone else to decide for them what they can and can not read seems so foreign to me.

Is it fear of alternative views?

What do you feel is the main reason some people want views they disagree with to be removed from society?

--
Retro Guy

Retro Guy <retroguy@novabbs.com> wrote:

> Marco Moock wrote:
>
> > On 21.04.2024 um 09:45 Uhr Sn!pe wrote:
>
> >> I find it hard to believe that genuine new users of Usenet might
> >> sincerely hold such regressive, trollish views. If "cancel culture"
> >> takes root in Usenet one might as well be on Twitter.
>
> > In my age group (Gen Z), such views are widespread.
>
> I've noticed that. The acceptance that a person would want someone else to
> decide for them what they can and can not read seems so foreign to me.
>
> Is it fear of alternative views?
>
> What do you feel is the main reason some people want views they disagree
> with to be removed from society?

I find it remarkable that they apparently do not agree with the
sentiment "I wholly disapprove of what you say and will defend
to the death your right to say it." ascribed to Voltaire.

--
^Ï^. Sn!pe, PA, FIBS - Professional Crastinator

My pet rock Gordon just is.

On 21.04.2024 um 10:56 Uhr Retro Guy wrote:

> Marco Moock wrote:
>
> > On 21.04.2024 um 09:45 Uhr Sn!pe wrote:
>
> >> I find it hard to believe that genuine new users of Usenet might
> >> sincerely hold such regressive, trollish views. If "cancel
> >> culture" takes root in Usenet one might as well be on Twitter.
>
> > In my age group (Gen Z), such views are widespread.
>
> I've noticed that. The acceptance that a person would want someone
> else to decide for them what they can and can not read seems so
> foreign to me.

For me too, but many of them have exactly that.

> Is it fear of alternative views?

Sometimes, because they fear of racism, right-wing content etc.

> What do you feel is the main reason some people want views they
> disagree with to be removed from society?

Control over the debate. In some people's "worlds" opinion too far
from their own must not exist.
Some people I know have a huge problem when they are in a debate and
people have a completely contrary opinion about a certain topic,
especially in politics.

--
kind regards
Marco

Send spam to 1713689791muell@cartoonies.org

Marco Moock <mm+usenet-es@dorfdsl.de> wrote:
>On 21.04.2024 um 10:56 Uhr Retro Guy wrote:
>
>> Marco Moock wrote:
>>
>> > On 21.04.2024 um 09:45 Uhr Sn!pe wrote:
>>
>> >> I find it hard to believe that genuine new users of Usenet might
>> >> sincerely hold such regressive, trollish views. If "cancel
>> >> culture" takes root in Usenet one might as well be on Twitter.
>>
>> > In my age group (Gen Z), such views are widespread.
>>
>> I've noticed that. The acceptance that a person would want someone
>> else to decide for them what they can and can not read seems so
>> foreign to me.
>
>For me too, but many of them have exactly that.
>
>> Is it fear of alternative views?
>
>Sometimes, because they fear of racism, right-wing content etc.
>
>> What do you feel is the main reason some people want views they
>> disagree with to be removed from society?
>
>Control over the debate. In some people's "worlds" opinion too far
>from their own must not exist.
>Some people I know have a huge problem when they are in a debate and
>people have a completely contrary opinion about a certain topic,
>especially in politics.

It's impossible to have a debate if there isn't one speaker to argue in
favor of the proposition, and one to argue against. It's adversarial.

I suggest those people keep their opinions to themselves as they are
unwilling to hold their objections while others offer their own opinions.

Another option might be to grow up.

On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 10:42:19 +0100, snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) wrote:
>Marco Moock <mm+usenet-es@dorfdsl.de> wrote:
>> On 21.04.2024 um 09:45 Uhr Sn!pe wrote:
>> > I find it hard to believe that genuine new users of Usenet might
>> > sincerely hold such regressive, trollish views. If "cancel culture"
>> > takes root in Usenet one might as well be on Twitter.
>>
>> In my age group (Gen Z), such views are widespread.
>
>"I wholly disapprove of what you say and will defend
> to the death your right to say it." -- ascribed to Voltaire

"Monsieur l' abbe, je deteste ce que vous ecrivez, mais je donnerai
My sire of the abbey, I detest that which you write, but I would donate

ma vie pour que vous puissiez continuer a ecrire."
my life for that you have the puissance to continue to write.

--from a quotation by Norbert Guterman, editor of 'A Book of French
Quotations', alleged to be from an original Voltaire letter dated
6 Feurier 1771 to M. le Riche (possibly apocryphal, non sequitur).

On 21/04/2024 02:52, Sn!pe wrote:
>
> If you don't like that fact,
> maybe you should commit some client-side censorship, otherwise
> known as the killfile."
>
>

Why did you not tell this to neo-Nazi server administrators who were
crying about Google spam until they destroyed it completely.

You are a faceless swine who should be executed by Israel's elite forces
so that scum-bag like you don't exist on this planet. They are currently
killing innocent Palestinians but they should use their American donated
bombs to kill people like you. Israel has killed nearly 40,000
Palestinians in 6 months while it took Haitians 23 years to kill 32,000.
We have names for Haiti regime but we dare say anything about Israel. A
small country like Israel has more power to destroy anybody who
criticises them. They have got license to kill Muslims all over the world.

Mother fuckers should be dealt with by Allah.

Imran Zukhova <noreply@iran.com> wrote:

>>. . .

>Why did you not tell this to neo-Nazi server administrators who were
>crying about Google spam until they destroyed it completely.

>You are a faceless swine who should be executed by Israel's elite forces
>so that scum-bag like you don't exist on this planet. They are currently
>killing innocent Palestinians but they should use their American donated
>bombs to kill people like you. Israel has killed nearly 40,000
>Palestinians in 6 months while it took Haitians 23 years to kill 32,000.
>We have names for Haiti regime but we dare say anything about Israel. A
>small country like Israel has more power to destroy anybody who
>criticises them. They have got license to kill Muslims all over the world.

>Mother fuckers should be dealt with by Allah.

hi seamus

Imran Zukhova <noreply@iran.com> wrote: <~~~[point, laugh]~~~<<

> On 21/04/2024 02:52, Sn!pe quoted:
> >
> > "If you don't like that fact,
> > maybe you should commit some client-side censorship, otherwise
> > known as the killfile."
> >
> >
>
> Why did you not tell this to neo-Nazi server administrators who were
[...]
> Mother fuckers should be dealt with by Allah.
>

Troll Score: D- Try harder next time.

--
\|/
(((Ï))) - Mr Ön!on
When we shake the ketchup bottle
At first none comes and then a lot'll.

Russ Allbery <eagle@eyrie.org> wrote at 19:04 this Saturday (GMT):
> Marco Moock <mm+usenet-es@dorfdsl.de> writes:
>> On 20.04.2024 um 17:42 Uhr The Bjornsdottirs - Lightning wrote:
>
>>> When I come across Usenet admins, they cannot clearly say that they
>>> will ban and filter anyone they come across committing harassment,
>>> nor that they will institute a code of conduct which is actively
>>> antifascist, because the values of the network are not actively
>>> antifascist and in fact tend towards calling antifascists whiners.
>
>> This is something every newsmaster can decide himself.
>
> Sort of. The NNTP and netnews protocols have exceptionally poor support
> for moderation compared to just about any other message board software,
> since essentially everything else was designed after NNTP and netnews and
> learned from its shortcomings.
>
> You can insert an extremely heavy moderation step in front of all traffic
> (but only for private groups or if you can reach an agreement with your
> transitive peers), but the protocol is completely insecure, and while
> there are patchwork solutions to that, you have to implement them
> yourself. Or you have to rely on filtering, which is a very poor
> moderation strategy that requires endless arms races with people trying to
> bypass it.
>
> And all of the more advanced tools available in newer protocols simply
> aren't there (for better or worse; Usenet people usually don't like most
> of these, but people running other types of message board systems use them
> heavily): migrating messages to different threads, closing threads, user
> authentication and all the things that come with that such as poster bans
> or pre-moderation for new users but not established users, etc. About the
> only thing you can do is delete the message off your server after the
> fact, and the tools for doing that are very primitive. You can simulate
> some of this by writing a whole pile of custom software that sits in the
> pre-moderation path, but now you've signed on for the project of writing a
> moderation system from scratch. The protocol and existing software base
> are doing essentially nothing for you.
>
> A lot of people prefer the Usenet model for various reasons, and that's
> fine, that's something people can argue about. But Usenet's moderation
> and filtering facilities are staggeringly primitive, and if those are a
> priority for you, Usenet is a bad technology choice and you should use
> something else.

Well said.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On 14/04/24 19:55, Stefan Ram wrote:
> doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote or quoted:
>> What happened to the young people who wanted to set up a Usenet node?
>
> Bruh, Usenet? Seriously? I thought that shit died out in the 90s,
> like, who even uses that anymore? I mean, come on, it's 2024 -
> we got way better ways to get our info and connect with people
> these days. Why would I even bother setting up some old-school
> Usenet server when I got Reddit, Discord, and all these other
> modern platforms that are way more user-friendly and relevant?
>
> Like, Usenet was cool back in the day, I guess, but it's just so
> outdated now. The interface is clunky, the communities are tiny,
> and good luck finding anything useful that isn't buried in a
> million random posts. Nah, I'm good - I'll stick to the apps and
> sites I already use, where I can actually find the content and
> communities I care about. Usenet? That's some boomer shit, man.

Where are these magic apps full of worthwhile non-spam content?