Re: Note - ISP Screwed Up - Can WRITE But Not SEE

On 1/24/25 4:54 AM, Richard Kettlewell wrote:

"186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> writes:

   There must be something in-between usenet and 'X' - http
   rather than p119. Simple interface but hooks for better
   alternative reader apps.

 There’s multiple options out there. However by now Usenet users for the
most part have either found alternatives that suit them, or are so stuck
in their ways that nothing other than Usenet will do...

   I do *like* usenet ... have used it since the WWW kinda
   came into focus. LONG history. The predecessor for many
   was the Compuserve Forums - very similar.
   But access TO usenet - esp for free and/or anon - is
   shrinking. Number one issue is that nobody can OWN it,
   therefore little or no PROFIT.

   Remember BBS's ? The trick was that there was usually only ONE
   server holding all the messages. Depending, this is not necessarily
   terrible. The spreads-it-around nature of usenet is interesting,
   good redundancy, but the number of feed servers seems to be
   decreasing, fewer and fewer sources for the articles.

 I’m pretty sure most of my Usenet peers are essentially hobbyists. It’s
not hard to carry a text feed, a cheap Linux VPS is more than adequate.
But hobbyists generally don’t often want the hassle of a nontrivial
userbase.

   Usenet is not 'intensive' - but it's still shrinking.

   As for binaries ... you just set a reasonable limit for msg size,
   and forbid .part's. A detector for ascii-encoded bin will work too.

 Yes, it’s a few lines of config in my filter.

   At this point, likely should be a SERVER filter for
   various legal reasons.

   As such, a modern BBS - prob with one or two fail-over servers -
   would be the middle path. Structure everything like usenet,
   just NOT usenet. Could even pipe in actual usenet articles,
   for as long as they last.
>
   Again though the "liability" issue for un-PC content. It's sort of a
   prob in the USA but a much bigger prob in the EU and beyond. As
   said, such a system needs to be located in a who-knows/cares-country
   where it's hard to get at legally.

 Sites that can’t be reached legally get blocked (at least when they’re
big enough to matter). Not completely insurmountable (VPNs, proxies,
etc) but certainly a barrier to widespread adoption.
 An advantage of a distributed system (Usenet, ActivityPub, etc) is that
each node can deal with its prevailing legal environment without much
impacting the rest of the network. UK Usenet hosts were taking down CSAM
since the 1990s, with zero impact on anyone else (no doubt the UK wasn’t
the only jurisidiction doing it but I had no visibility of that).

   I agree with the merits of 'distributed' with each
   admin/nation deciding. Any ONE nation will be tempted
   to censor to its own advantage and/or prejudices.
   But usenet IS shrinking. Enough disinterested or threatened
   providers and they can make it largely inaccessible.

A closely related disadvantage is that there’s not always much you can
do about certain kinds of misbehavior originating on other nodes short
of blocking entire nodes, if their operators aren’t cooperative. On
Usenet, Google was the worst recent offender: huge amounts of spam, and
operators who didn’t care at all, but also huge numbers of legitimate
users who would be lost if you blocked the whole site.

   Oh, I remember the GG spam blizzards ... give people
   a chance to be total assholes and they WILL. It's not
   even political - it's a 'domination'/'status' thing
   kinda hardwired into many species.
   As such, ANY kinda free system IS gonna get the same.
   Only 'obscurity' saves you - but that also means less
   or no PROFIT in providing.
   No really great solutions here. Such is life.