On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 12:13:11 -0500, micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com>
wrote:

>In comp.mobile.android, on Fri, 15 Dec 2023 11:46:59 -0500, micky
><NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
>
>>In alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent, on Thu, 14 Dec 2023 21:08:59
>>-0500, Arthur T. <arthur@munged.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>In a couple of months, we may not need to filter out Google posters:
>>>
>>>https://support.google.com/groups/answer/11036538?visit_id=638381921477344227-87081626&p=usenet&rd=1#hcfe-content
>>
>>It doesn't say anything about Google returning the software and
>>connections to Dejanews. I think that's the least they could do.
>
>"Find a new public Usenet server. The new client you choose will likely
>have a default server or a set of curated options for you. If not, to
>find a server, do a web search for "public NNTP servers.""
>
>Will likely have a default server? I've never heard of that.
>
>"declined significantly because users have moved to more modern
>technologies and formats such as social media and web-based forums."
>Yes, they are more "modern" but they are certainly not as good. I once
>made a list of 15 reasons they are nowhere near as good as Usenet. But
>this is just a comment. It's not google's faulth that Usenet use
>declined.

Usenet is either going to become an ad based service or it will be a
subscription service. There ain't no free lunch.

On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 22:25:37 -0400, Wally J
<walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:

>In summary, the free newsservers may expect a possible inrush coming up.

The free news servers are free because they can sift enough customer
data to pay for the server and some profit.

The EULA nobody reads is different for a subscription contract. "Free"
is if they can get it, they can sell it.
If you pay enough, you can opt out entirely.

On Sat, 16 Dec 2023 21:31:23 -0500, micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com>
wrote:

>A basic problem here.
>
>You are using 'conspiracy theory' to mean something that does not exist,
>at the same time saying that google planned to destroy the usenet part
>of groups.google. That is, by most lights, a conspiracy.
>
>You're by far not the only one. Loads of people calling in about news
>and even reading the news on network tv ridicule conspiracies in one
>sentence while talking seriously about conspiracies to steal the
>election.

Isn't it just possible that younger people think Usenet is old
fashioned and too techy for them? They want their screen to have a lot
of flash, cartoons and you never type anything.

On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 15:47:16 -0800, Stan Brown
<the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote:

>On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 12:13:11 -0500, micky wrote:
>> It's not google's faulth that Usenet use
>> declined.
>
>That's a matter of opinion.
>
>It seems to me that Google did everything it could to destroy Usenet.
>It dumped spam into many groups to the point that they became
>unusable, and ignored complaints over a period of years. I may be
>misremembering this part, but I _think_ they used nonstandard headers
>that made problems for existing Usenet clients.
>
>And of course they made the archives unavailable, then available if
>you were lucky in your searching, then unavailable again, then
>available but you had to use effing Javascript, then unavailable, the
>available but not all groups were included, then ...

Im sure glad a few people are still on Usenet!

Im trying to come back to it.

On Thu, 28 Dec 2023 17:53:12 -0600, me@privacy.net wrote:

> Im sure glad a few people are still on Usenet!
>
> Im trying to come back to it.

Then you should change that fake e-mailadres; ES doesn't allow it and
I'm sure the real owner of privacy.net doesn't appreciate it either.

--
s|b

On Tue, 02 Jan 2024 20:49:29 +0100, "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:

>Then you should change that fake e-mailadres; ES doesn't allow it and
>I'm sure the real owner of privacy.net doesn't appreciate it either.

Privacy.net created that email address for people to use to keep there
anonymity. It is a valid address, but no one ever reads the emails.

On Tue, 02 Jan 2024 19:37:00 -0800, Sam wrote:

> Privacy.net created that email address for people to use to keep there
> anonymity. It is a valid address, but no one ever reads the emails.

I know, but AFAIK the domain has a different owner. It used to be that
the owner gave his explicit permission to use meATprivacy.net (I think
even me1, me2, ...), but it doesn't say so anymore.

--
s|b