google groups users may not realize the fundamental differences between
the autonomous/decentralized usenet, versus the proprietary/centralized
alphabet/google corporation; the isolation of google groups from usenet
provides incentive for multitudes of google's users to seek free usenet
news servers, apps, and websites, that will help them to stay connected

D <J@M> wrote:
>google groups users may not realize the fundamental differences between
>the autonomous/decentralized usenet, versus the proprietary/centralized
>alphabet/google corporation; the isolation of google groups from usenet
>provides incentive for multitudes of google's users to seek free usenet
>news servers, apps, and websites, that will help them to stay connected

i do not have much to
add, but i admire the
spacing of your lines

--
Steven O'Neill steveo@panix.com
Brooklyn, NY http://www.panix.com/~steveo

On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 16:40:18 -0000 (UTC), steveo@panix.com (Steven M. O'Neill) wrote:
>D <J@M> wrote:
>>google groups users may not realize the fundamental differences between
>>the autonomous/decentralized usenet, versus the proprietary/centralized
>>alphabet/google corporation; the isolation of google groups from usenet
>>provides incentive for multitudes of google's users to seek free usenet
>>news servers, apps, and websites, that will help them to stay connected
>
>i do not have much to
>add, but i admire the
>spacing of your lines

old habit (was typesetter back in the day) . . . monospaced justification

D <J@M> wrote:
>On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 16:40:18 -0000 (UTC), steveo@panix.com (Steven M. O'Neill) wrote:
>>D <J@M> wrote:
>>>google groups users may not realize the fundamental differences between
>>>the autonomous/decentralized usenet, versus the proprietary/centralized
>>>alphabet/google corporation; the isolation of google groups from usenet
>>>provides incentive for multitudes of google's users to seek free usenet
>>>news servers, apps, and websites, that will help them to stay connected
>>
>>i do not have much to
>>add, but i admire the
>>spacing of your lines
>
>old habit (was typesetter back in the day) . . . monospaced justification
>
yes, justification, that's the word I was looking for :)

--
Steven O'Neill steveo@panix.com
Brooklyn, NY http://www.panix.com/~steveo

On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 15:55:11 +0100 (CET), D <J@M> said:

> google groups users may not realize the fundamental differences between
> the autonomous/decentralized usenet, versus the proprietary/centralized
> alphabet/google corporation; the isolation of google groups from usenet
> provides incentive for multitudes of google's users to seek free usenet
> news servers, apps, and websites, that will help them to stay connected

Not gonna happen... trust me on this one.

They've gotten used to being breast-fed by Mother Google, and they will be
as helpless as infants once the milk supply dries up in a few days.

On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 09:09:25 +0000 (GMT), Stainless Steel Rat <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 15:55:11 +0100 (CET), D <J@M> said:
>> google groups users may not realize the fundamental differences between
>> the autonomous/decentralized usenet, versus the proprietary/centralized
>> alphabet/google corporation; the isolation of google groups from usenet
>> provides incentive for multitudes of google's users to seek free usenet
>> news servers, apps, and websites, that will help them to stay connected
>
>Not gonna happen... trust me on this one.
>They've gotten used to being breast-fed by Mother Google, and they will be
>as helpless as infants once the milk supply dries up in a few days.

could be playing devil's advocate, but some of the more respectable news
server administrators have maintained that there are at least a few what
they call "legit" (perhaps quasi-legitimate) google groups users, so for
their sake and for everyone else looking for ways to connect with usenet
it's common courtesy to welcome strangers into this untamed wild west of
unmoderated discussion forums, while encouraging them to avoid predators

In article <20240219090925.733D41200AF@fleegle.mixmin.net>,
Stainless Steel Rat <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 15:55:11 +0100 (CET), D <J@M> said:
>
>> google groups users may not realize the fundamental differences between
>> the autonomous/decentralized usenet, versus the proprietary/centralized
>> alphabet/google corporation; the isolation of google groups from usenet
>> provides incentive for multitudes of google's users to seek free usenet
>> news servers, apps, and websites, that will help them to stay connected
>
>Not gonna happen... trust me on this one.
>
>They've gotten used to being breast-fed by Mother Google, and they will be
>as helpless as infants once the milk supply dries up in a few days.

The most recent Google-originated spam is not an attempt to advertise to
Usenet users, but an attempt to poison the Google search engine with
spurious Google Groups ads. This will go away once Google Groups is
disconnected and there will be no motivation for these people to move
elsewhere because even were they to spam via NNTP, their spam would not
be found by the Google search engine.

Spammers who are attempting to advertise to Usenet users will remain, but
these are comparatively sparse and much easier to deal with. Spam will
not go away with the disconnection of Google Groups, but it will cease to
be more than a minor annoyance.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 14:39:10 +0100 (CET), D <J@M> said:

> On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 09:09:25 +0000 (GMT), Stainless Steel Rat <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 15:55:11 +0100 (CET), D <J@M> said:
>>> google groups users may not realize the fundamental differences between
>>> the autonomous/decentralized usenet, versus the proprietary/centralized
>>> alphabet/google corporation; the isolation of google groups from usenet
>>> provides incentive for multitudes of google's users to seek free usenet
>>> news servers, apps, and websites, that will help them to stay connected
>>
>> Not gonna happen... trust me on this one.
>> They've gotten used to being breast-fed by Mother Google, and they will be
>> as helpless as infants once the milk supply dries up in a few days.
>
> could be playing devil's advocate, but some of the more respectable news
> server administrators have maintained that there are at least a few what
> they call "legit" (perhaps quasi-legitimate) google groups users, so for
> their sake and for everyone else looking for ways to connect with usenet
> it's common courtesy to welcome strangers into this untamed wild west of
> unmoderated discussion forums, while encouraging them to avoid predators

I have no doubts whatsoever that there are some decent Google Groups users
out there. I /wish/ you were right, that there were a multitude of former
Google Groups users who would migrate to providers like Eternal September,
and who are motivated to learn to use tools like newsreaders and PGP and
mail2news gateways to post.

Sadly, I haven't seen any evidence of people fitting that description. Most
of those soon-to-be-former Google Groups users are just going to throw up
their hands in frustration and give up.

Stainless Steel Rat <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>I have no doubts whatsoever that there are some decent Google Groups users
>out there. I /wish/ you were right, that there were a multitude of former
>Google Groups users who would migrate to providers like Eternal September,
>and who are motivated to learn to use tools like newsreaders and PGP and
>mail2news gateways to post.

We've seen an awful lot of them in the past couple weeks.

>Sadly, I haven't seen any evidence of people fitting that description. Most
>of those soon-to-be-former Google Groups users are just going to throw up
>their hands in frustration and give up.

I can't imagine anything more frustrating than the horrible Google Groups
interface and all the spam that appears there. A normal Usenet service is
so much easier.

I am sure that some people will be lost but quite honestly after twenty
years of my yelling at them and telling them to get off Google Groups I
can't have much sympathy for them not doing so now.
--scott

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

On 19 Feb 2024 14:50:26 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey), said in
Message-ID: <uqvpri$3b2$1@panix2.panix.com>:

> In article <20240219090925.733D41200AF@fleegle.mixmin.net>,
> Stainless Steel Rat <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 15:55:11 +0100 (CET), D <J@M> said:
>>
>>> google groups users may not realize the fundamental differences between
>>> the autonomous/decentralized usenet, versus the proprietary/centralized
>>> alphabet/google corporation; the isolation of google groups from usenet
>>> provides incentive for multitudes of google's users to seek free usenet
>>> news servers, apps, and websites, that will help them to stay connected
>>
>> Not gonna happen... trust me on this one.
>>
>> They've gotten used to being breast-fed by Mother Google, and they will be
>> as helpless as infants once the milk supply dries up in a few days.
>
> The most recent Google-originated spam is not an attempt to advertise to
> Usenet users, but an attempt to poison the Google search engine with
> spurious Google Groups ads. This will go away once Google Groups is
> disconnected and there will be no motivation for these people to move
> elsewhere because even were they to spam via NNTP, their spam would not
> be found by the Google search engine.
>
> Spammers who are attempting to advertise to Usenet users will remain, but
> these are comparatively sparse and much easier to deal with. Spam will
> not go away with the disconnection of Google Groups, but it will cease to
> be more than a minor annoyance.
> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

There are certain NGs where something like 99% of the posters use Google
Groups, and I'm NOT referring to the spammers. In another couple of days,
they will be left high and dry.

For far too many of them, Google Groups is not only all they know, it's all
they have /ever/ known. Google has fostered a culture of dependency, and
people have become so accustomed to it, that they cannot even /conceive/ of
doing things any other way. Some people are even under the impression that
/Google/ is responsible for managing Usenet!

To them, I guess, Google Groups /is/ Usenet!

Given Google's history of abandoning projects, one would have thought that
people would have seen this coming, but no.

Stainless Steel Rat <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>
>There are certain NGs where something like 99% of the posters use Google
>Groups, and I'm NOT referring to the spammers. In another couple of days,
>they will be left high and dry.

What have you done to warn them? As for me, I have been telling people
for a couple decades to get off of Google Groups.

>For far too many of them, Google Groups is not only all they know, it's all
>they have /ever/ known. Google has fostered a culture of dependency, and
>people have become so accustomed to it, that they cannot even /conceive/ of
>doing things any other way. Some people are even under the impression that
>/Google/ is responsible for managing Usenet!

And what have you done about this? Have you pointed them at real news
services and suggested to them that perhaps they would be better off on a
real news server? There are even web services for people who cannot survive
without having a web interface.

>Given Google's history of abandoning projects, one would have thought that
>people would have seen this coming, but no.

I am personally kind of surprised that it happened before a UDP did. The
UDP was far, far overdue.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Stainless Steel Rat wrote:

> There are certain NGs where something like 99% of the posters use Google
> Groups, and I'm NOT referring to the spammers. In another couple of days,
> they will be left high and dry.

The death of a Usenet newsgroup due to changes in technology? I'm shocked!

Seriously, this cannot come as a surprise to the participants. If they
don't care enough about their participation in the group to make other
arrangements to access it, that's their decision. My suspicion, not
particularly based on fact, is that there are other ways they are
interacting with other humans about whatever the newsgroup covers, and
they simply don't care enough to put themselves out because there are
other alternatives that they're already using.

I will also say that the denizens of these technical newsgroups tend to
minimize the trauma of change for the general public. We download and
install software all the time; it's not a big deal. We climb learning
curves to new products; we've done it many times. But for many folks,
it's a big scary unknown, and it requires a LOT of motivation for them
to tackle it.

> For far too many of them, Google Groups is not only all they know, it's all
> they have /ever/ known. Google has fostered a culture of dependency, and
> people have become so accustomed to it, that they cannot even /conceive/ of
> doing things any other way. Some people are even under the impression that
> /Google/ is responsible for managing Usenet!
>
> To them, I guess, Google Groups /is/ Usenet!

To about 95% of the population, the web IS the Internet. Accessing
information via a web browser or a smartphone app is the extent of their
experience. And that's fine for them; it gives them what they want and
need.

> Given Google's history of abandoning projects, one would have thought that
> people would have seen this coming, but no.

I am seriously surprised that the interface stayed up as long as it did.
There's been vanishingly little in it for Google for many years; on
the other hand, there's been vanishingly little expense so no particular
motivation to rip it down. I suspect that some hardware got old and
cranky and would have required time and money to maintain, or maybe some
human got ready to retire, and that's what precipitated the decision to
dump it.

On 15/02/2024 15:55 D <J@M> wrote:
>
> google groups users may not realize the fundamental differences between
> the autonomous/decentralized usenet, versus the proprietary/centralized
> alphabet/google corporation; the isolation of google groups from usenet
> provides incentive for multitudes of google's users to seek free usenet
> news servers, apps, and websites, that will help them to stay connected
>
>

I hope UseNet will see a revival in the near future since Google Groups will remove its connection to Usenet tomorrow, Febuary 22nd 2024!

On Wed, 21 Feb 2024, The Running Man wrote:

> On 15/02/2024 15:55 D <J@M> wrote:
>>
>> google groups users may not realize the fundamental differences between
>> the autonomous/decentralized usenet, versus the proprietary/centralized
>> alphabet/google corporation; the isolation of google groups from usenet
>> provides incentive for multitudes of google's users to seek free usenet
>> news servers, apps, and websites, that will help them to stay connected
>>
>>
>
> I hope UseNet will see a revival in the near future since Google Groups will remove its connection to Usenet tomorrow, Febuary 22nd 2024!
>
>

Let's hope for the best! =) Would be nice to have a federated space for
long form discussions that is not dependent on a single for-profit
company.

On 21/02/2024 15:06 D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 21 Feb 2024, The Running Man wrote:
>
>> On 15/02/2024 15:55 D <J@M> wrote:
>>>
>>> google groups users may not realize the fundamental differences between
>>> the autonomous/decentralized usenet, versus the proprietary/centralized
>>> alphabet/google corporation; the isolation of google groups from usenet
>>> provides incentive for multitudes of google's users to seek free usenet
>>> news servers, apps, and websites, that will help them to stay connected
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I hope UseNet will see a revival in the near future since Google Groups will remove its connection to Usenet tomorrow, Febuary 22nd 2024!
>>
>>
>
> Let's hope for the best! =) Would be nice to have a federated space for
> long form discussions that is not dependent on a single for-profit
> company.

Indeed. Google simply isn't trustworthy.

Sad thing is: many software projects have moved their discussion fora to Google Groups (like wxWidgets). I hope they'll consider returning sometime in the future.

The Running Man wrote:
> On 21/02/2024 15:06 D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 21 Feb 2024, The Running Man wrote:
>>
>>> On 15/02/2024 15:55 D <J@M> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> google groups users may not realize the fundamental differences between
>>>> the autonomous/decentralized usenet, versus the proprietary/centralized
>>>> alphabet/google corporation; the isolation of google groups from usenet
>>>> provides incentive for multitudes of google's users to seek free usenet
>>>> news servers, apps, and websites, that will help them to stay connected
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I hope UseNet will see a revival in the near future since Google Groups will remove its connection to Usenet tomorrow, Febuary 22nd 2024!
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Let's hope for the best! =) Would be nice to have a federated space for
>> long form discussions that is not dependent on a single for-profit
>> company.
>
> Indeed. Google simply isn't trustworthy.
>
> Sad thing is: many software projects have moved their discussion fora to Google Groups (like wxWidgets). I hope they'll consider returning sometime in the future.
What you are saying is that a group of people in an established
discussion on Google or another platform is going to say, "Oh look!
Google is disconnecting with Usenet! That means we can uproot our
established discussion and move it to Usenet!"

What are the chances that participants of any significant group are
willing to uproot the group from one platform and re-establish it on a
different one? If they were dissatisfied with where they are, they
would have taken action already. Google's decision to cut the cord on
Usenet has about as much correlation with that move as a solar eclipse.

Steve Bonine <spb@pobox.com> writes:
> What you are saying is that a group of people in an established
> discussion on Google or another platform is going to say, "Oh look!
> Google is disconnecting with Usenet! That means we can uproot our
> established discussion and move it to Usenet!"
>
> What are the chances that participants of any significant group are
> willing to uproot the group from one platform and re-establish it on a
> different one? If they were dissatisfied with where they are, they
> would have taken action already. Google's decision to cut the cord on
> Usenet has about as much correlation with that move as a solar
> eclipse.

It is more or less a truism that any attempt to move a community will
lose a significant number of people. Migrating from a dying forum to a
new one, moving from one subreddit to another, switching IRC servers (in
every case except libera.chat which did a damn good job).

I agree that it's pretty much a joke to suggest that somebody posting on
the Google Groups-hosted wxWidgets mailing list (for example) might see
that Google is no longer peering with Usenet and think, ah, finally, we
can move off this Google mailing list which works fine and onto the
corpse of an entirely different system Google has just departed.

Nevertheless, I like Usenet and hope for the best -- people seem more
aware of it and interested in it these days than any time over the last,
oh, 20 years.

john

On Wed, 21 Feb 2024, The Running Man wrote:

> On 21/02/2024 15:06 D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 21 Feb 2024, The Running Man wrote:
>>
>>> On 15/02/2024 15:55 D <J@M> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> google groups users may not realize the fundamental differences between
>>>> the autonomous/decentralized usenet, versus the proprietary/centralized
>>>> alphabet/google corporation; the isolation of google groups from usenet
>>>> provides incentive for multitudes of google's users to seek free usenet
>>>> news servers, apps, and websites, that will help them to stay connected
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I hope UseNet will see a revival in the near future since Google Groups will remove its connection to Usenet tomorrow, Febuary 22nd 2024!
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Let's hope for the best! =) Would be nice to have a federated space for
>> long form discussions that is not dependent on a single for-profit
>> company.
>
> Indeed. Google simply isn't trustworthy.
>
> Sad thing is: many software projects have moved their discussion fora to Google Groups (like wxWidgets). I hope they'll consider returning sometime in the future.

Yuck! I try to stay away from open source projects that use slck, discord
or any other closed/proprietary platform.

I cannot understand how the young generation has forgotten all the lessons
of the older. =(

But I'll keep indoctrinating the younger and hopefully I'll make it stick!
;)

On Wed, 21 Feb 2024 22:38:55 +0100, D wrote:

> On Wed, 21 Feb 2024, The Running Man wrote:
>
>> On 21/02/2024 15:06 D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, 21 Feb 2024, The Running Man wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 15/02/2024 15:55 D <J@M> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> google groups users may not realize the fundamental differences between
>>>>> the autonomous/decentralized usenet, versus the proprietary/centralized
>>>>> alphabet/google corporation; the isolation of google groups from usenet
>>>>> provides incentive for multitudes of google's users to seek free usenet
>>>>> news servers, apps, and websites, that will help them to stay connected
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I hope UseNet will see a revival in the near future since Google Groups will remove its connection to Usenet tomorrow, Febuary 22nd 2024!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Let's hope for the best! =) Would be nice to have a federated space for
>>> long form discussions that is not dependent on a single for-profit
>>> company.
>>
>> Indeed. Google simply isn't trustworthy.
>>
>> Sad thing is: many software projects have moved their discussion fora to Google Groups (like wxWidgets). I hope they'll consider returning sometime in the future.
>
> Yuck! I try to stay away from open source projects that use slck, discord
> or any other closed/proprietary platform.
>
> I cannot understand how the young generation has forgotten all the lessons
> of the older. =(
>
> But I'll keep indoctrinating the younger and hopefully I'll make it stick!
> ;)

I think the younger generation knows nothing at all about privacy on the
internet, and most like wouldn't care at all if you tried to explain it to
them.

Thinking about the fact that a web forum can just disappear, and all the
posts with it doesn't even enter people's minds.

On Wed, 21 Feb 2024, Retro Guy wrote:

> On Wed, 21 Feb 2024 22:38:55 +0100, D wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 21 Feb 2024, The Running Man wrote:
>>
>>> On 21/02/2024 15:06 D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, 21 Feb 2024, The Running Man wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 15/02/2024 15:55 D <J@M> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> google groups users may not realize the fundamental differences between
>>>>>> the autonomous/decentralized usenet, versus the proprietary/centralized
>>>>>> alphabet/google corporation; the isolation of google groups from usenet
>>>>>> provides incentive for multitudes of google's users to seek free usenet
>>>>>> news servers, apps, and websites, that will help them to stay connected
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I hope UseNet will see a revival in the near future since Google Groups will remove its connection to Usenet tomorrow, Febuary 22nd 2024!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Let's hope for the best! =) Would be nice to have a federated space for
>>>> long form discussions that is not dependent on a single for-profit
>>>> company.
>>>
>>> Indeed. Google simply isn't trustworthy.
>>>
>>> Sad thing is: many software projects have moved their discussion fora to Google Groups (like wxWidgets). I hope they'll consider returning sometime in the future.
>>
>> Yuck! I try to stay away from open source projects that use slck, discord
>> or any other closed/proprietary platform.
>>
>> I cannot understand how the young generation has forgotten all the lessons
>> of the older. =(
>>
>> But I'll keep indoctrinating the younger and hopefully I'll make it stick!
>> ;)
>
> I think the younger generation knows nothing at all about privacy on the
> internet, and most like wouldn't care at all if you tried to explain it to
> them.
>
> Thinking about the fact that a web forum can just disappear, and all the
> posts with it doesn't even enter people's minds.
>

Yes, you are right. Some of the young ones are very naive. I teach, and
I'd say that 1-5 out of 35 per year "see the light". Those are also the
ones who get jobs quickest after their education is done.

Another trend I notice is that immigrants from authoritarian countries
also tend to "get" why privacy is important while locals from Shire do
not.

On Wed, 21 Feb 2024 15:09:34 -0700, Retro Guy <retroguy@novabbs.org> said:

[snip]

> I think the younger generation knows nothing at all about privacy on the
> internet, and most like wouldn't care at all if you tried to explain it to
> them.

This applies even in the former Warsaw Pact countries, where people were
really concerned about privacy, given their history (e.g. East Germany).
Most young people were born well after the Warsaw Pact dissolved, and they
know almost nothing about their history, except what they hear from parents
and grandparents. (A lot of it goes in one ear, and out the other).
> Thinking about the fact that a web forum can just disappear, and all the
> posts with it doesn't even enter people's minds.

Tell me about it. What really blew my mind, though, was when Amazon recalled
e-books (George Orwell - Animal Farm & 1984) apparently due to copyright/
permissions issues, and they just removed this book from all the Kindles or
other devices that people had downloaded their purchase to.

IIRC, they got sued, because a student was working on a paper based on that
book, and they had input their research notes onto that device along with
the book. When the book was removed, so were their notes and annotations.

Amazon Erases Orwell Books From Kindle
By Brad Stone
July 17, 2009

https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/technology/companies/18amazon.html

On 20 Feb 2024 02:43:54 -0000, Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> said in
Message-ID: <ur13la$4aj$1@panix2.panix.com>:

> Stainless Steel Rat <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>>
>> There are certain NGs where something like 99% of the posters use Google
>> Groups, and I'm NOT referring to the spammers. In another couple of days,
>> they will be left high and dry.
>
> What have you done to warn them? As for me, I have been telling people
> for a couple decades to get off of Google Groups.

Using /this/ pseudonym, not a great deal, as it's new. Using others, I have
been telling people to use nymservers, remailers, and mail2news gateways for
over two decades now.

>> For far too many of them, Google Groups is not only all they know, it's all
>> they have /ever/ known. Google has fostered a culture of dependency, and
>> people have become so accustomed to it, that they cannot even /conceive/ of
>> doing things any other way. Some people are even under the impression that
>> /Google/ is responsible for managing Usenet!
>
> And what have you done about this? Have you pointed them at real news
> services and suggested to them that perhaps they would be better off on a
> real news server? There are even web services for people who cannot survive
> without having a web interface.

I have, and I have been ignored. Even after one of the users in ASSD got
themselves busted just over two months ago, I thought this might spark some
interest in posting securely, but no... barely even a nibble.

The only web services I'm aware of are Narkive and Rocksolid. Neither of them
carry sex-related story NGs.

>> Given Google's history of abandoning projects, one would have thought that
>> people would have seen this coming, but no.
>
> I am personally kind of surprised that it happened before a UDP did. The
> UDP was far, far overdue.
Most people have just moved on, it would seem. Bloody shame, because Usenet
is the original distributed anarchy, much harder to censor than some web page.

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

I've been curious about your tagline... I googled Nagra, and just about fell
outta my chair when I saw they were still making reel-to-reel tape recorders.
I had thought those were as extinct as the dodo bird.

On Thu, 22 Feb 2024, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:

> On Wed, 21 Feb 2024 15:09:34 -0700, Retro Guy <retroguy@novabbs.org> said:
>
> [snip]
>
>> I think the younger generation knows nothing at all about privacy on the
>> internet, and most like wouldn't care at all if you tried to explain it to
>> them.
>
> This applies even in the former Warsaw Pact countries, where people were
> really concerned about privacy, given their history (e.g. East Germany).
> Most young people were born well after the Warsaw Pact dissolved, and they
> know almost nothing about their history, except what they hear from parents
> and grandparents. (A lot of it goes in one ear, and out the other).
>
>> Thinking about the fact that a web forum can just disappear, and all the
>> posts with it doesn't even enter people's minds.
>
> Tell me about it. What really blew my mind, though, was when Amazon recalled
> e-books (George Orwell - Animal Farm & 1984) apparently due to copyright/
> permissions issues, and they just removed this book from all the Kindles or
> other devices that people had downloaded their purchase to.
>
> IIRC, they got sued, because a student was working on a paper based on that
> book, and they had input their research notes onto that device along with
> the book. When the book was removed, so were their notes and annotations.
>
> Amazon Erases Orwell Books From Kindle
> By Brad Stone
> July 17, 2009
>
> https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/technology/companies/18amazon.html
>
>

Wow, had no idea! Thankfully annas archive exists and all my
ebook-darlings are saved locally on my computer, but had no idea that
amazon could reach into kindles and just delete stuff. That's horrible!

>> I am personally kind of surprised that it happened before a UDP did. The
>> UDP was far, far overdue.
>
> Most people have just moved on, it would seem. Bloody shame, because Usenet
> is the original distributed anarchy, much harder to censor than some web page.

Well, I think usenet will improve. Especially since google now will stop
sending spam. But let's see! I know at least one more person from my
neighbourhood mastodon instance also posts here.

On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 14:32:42 +0100, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:

> On Thu, 22 Feb 2024, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 21 Feb 2024 15:09:34 -0700, Retro Guy <retroguy@novabbs.org> said:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> I think the younger generation knows nothing at all about privacy on the
>>> internet, and most like wouldn't care at all if you tried to explain it to
>>> them.
>>
>> This applies even in the former Warsaw Pact countries, where people were
>> really concerned about privacy, given their history (e.g. East Germany).
>> Most young people were born well after the Warsaw Pact dissolved, and they
>> know almost nothing about their history, except what they hear from parents
>> and grandparents. (A lot of it goes in one ear, and out the other).
>>
>>> Thinking about the fact that a web forum can just disappear, and all the
>>> posts with it doesn't even enter people's minds.
>>
>> Tell me about it. What really blew my mind, though, was when Amazon recalled
>> e-books (George Orwell - Animal Farm & 1984) apparently due to copyright/
>> permissions issues, and they just removed this book from all the Kindles or
>> other devices that people had downloaded their purchase to.
>>
>> IIRC, they got sued, because a student was working on a paper based on that
>> book, and they had input their research notes onto that device along with
>> the book. When the book was removed, so were their notes and annotations.
>>
>> Amazon Erases Orwell Books From Kindle
>> By Brad Stone
>> July 17, 2009
>>
>> https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/technology/companies/18amazon.html
>>
>
> Wow, had no idea! Thankfully annas archive exists and all my
> ebook-darlings are saved locally on my computer, but had no idea that
> amazon could reach into kindles and just delete stuff. That's horrible!

There was a cartoon I remember seeing whose punchline was, if you really
want to be sure you owned something, pirate it! Amazon (and other publishers)
if you get down to the nitty-gritty, are just selling you a 'license' to
use/read the material. You never really own it. If you die, your inheritors
do not get a license to the materials on your Kindle -- that license dies
with you. (You can leave physical books/media to your inheritors, including
pirated media.)

That license can be changed/revoked/modified at any time, and you have no
real say in the matter.

According to that NYT article, Amazon pulled-in their horns, after a great
deal of public protest, and stated that they changed their policy, so they
will not do this again. My answer to that is: yeah, right.

Policies can be changed, modified or revoked at any time. I wouldn't accept
a Kindle as a gift, given this history. All it would take is for Amazon to
back-track on their policy, and they could do the same all over again.

When I /pirate/ something, it's mine, forever.

It's like privacy-by-policy versus privacy-by-design -- I would always want
the latter as opposed to the former. That is why I use a nymserver instead
of Protonmail. Protonmail is built on privacy by policy, whereas the nym-
server is based on privacy by *design*.

Proton has the private keys for its' users; the nymserver does not. Proton
can be potentially compelled to decrypt its' users emails, the nymserver
operator cannot, because they NEVER have access to the private half of the
PGP keypair.

Stainless Steel Rat