I've been worrying about how much longer Usenet is going to be around given how so many newsgroups are dead and/or absolutely drenched in spam for a while. The disappearance of Google Groups really struck me as the proverbial writing on the wall.
I had a chat with Claude.AI about the possibility of writing some kind of replacement for Usenet that would still let groups like rec.arts.tv function but with improvements, like being able to have more control over the formatting of posts, imbed pictures or videos directly in posts, block cross-posting, etc. and was told we could custom-code something like that relatively easily.
Basically, the process would look like "Hey Claude, I want to build a web-based alternative to Usenet so that any existing Usenet groups that want to carry on could do so outside of Usenet on pretty much the same basis. Make
some improvements though: we want to be able to add attachments of photos or videos to our posts rather than having to point to them elsewhere via links. We want to keep spam and cross-posts out. We want to be able to have more control over the formatting of posts, like colours and fonts. Use any programming language you like. Use only free services so it doesn't cost anyone anything. Go!" In other words, you wouldn't have to have coding skills
to drive the process and Claude would write all of the code and deploy what you've written to somewhere so that you could test the result, then direct it
to make changes for anything that you didn't like. For example: "the font used for the Subject of the post is too small, make it a little bigger and darker". Again, just standard English, no need to know a programming language.
And if all that sounds like too much work - and I could understand if you thought it was - there is another solution recommended by Claude, namely Discourse, a free existing package that is apparently quite similar to Usenet
in many ways but better. Claude said you could install that and have it up and running in a few hours.
I'm just posting this here and now so that I don't forget and so that you have a starting point if we ever get to the point where Usenet actually looks
like it is about to die OR if we get sick of the limitations of Usenet and opt to try a different way to get together to talk about our favourite TV shows (and all the other stuff we get into to).
Rhino wrote:
I've been worrying about how much longer Usenet is going to be around given
how so many newsgroups are dead and/or absolutely drenched in spam for a while. The disappearance of Google Groups really struck me as the proverbial
writing on the wall.
I had a chat with Claude.AI about the possibility of writing some kind of replacement for Usenet that would still let groups like rec.arts.tv function
but with improvements, like being able to have more control over the formatting of posts, imbed pictures or videos directly in posts, block cross-posting, etc. and was told we could custom-code something like that relatively easily.
I've been worrying about how much longer Usenet is going
to be around given how so many newsgroups are dead and/or
absolutely drenched in spam for a while. The disappearance
of Google Groups really struck me as the proverbial
writing on the wall.
I had a chat with Claude.AI about the possibility of
writing some kind of replacement for Usenet that would
still let groups like rec.arts.tv function but with
improvements, like being able to have more control over
the formatting of posts, imbed pictures or videos directly
in posts, block cross-posting, etc. and was told we could
custom-code something like that relatively easily.
Basically, the process would look like "Hey Claude, I want
to build a web-based alternative to Usenet so that any
existing Usenet groups that want to carry on could do so
outside of Usenet on pretty much the same basis. Make some
improvements though: we want to be able to add attachments
of photos or videos to our posts rather than having to
point to them elsewhere via links. We want to keep spam
and cross-posts out. We want to be able to have more
control over the formatting of posts, like colours and
fonts. Use any programming language you like. Use only
free services so it doesn't cost anyone anything. Go!" In
other words, you wouldn't have to have coding skills to
drive the process and Claude would write all of the code
and deploy what you've written to somewhere so that you
could test the result, then direct it to make changes for
anything that you didn't like. For example: "the font used
for the Subject of the post is too small, make it a little
bigger and darker". Again, just standard English, no need
to know a programming language.
And if all that sounds like too much work - and I could
understand if you thought it was - there is another
solution recommended by Claude, namely Discourse, a free
existing package that is apparently quite similar to
Usenet in many ways but better. Claude said you could
install that and have it up and running in a few hours.
I'm just posting this here and now so that I don't forget
and so that you have a starting point if we ever get to
the point where Usenet actually looks like it is about to
die OR if we get sick of the limitations of Usenet and opt
to try a different way to get together to talk about our
favourite TV shows (and all the other stuff we get into
to).
Rhino wrote:
I've been worrying about how much longer Usenet is going
to be around given how so many newsgroups are dead and/or
absolutely drenched in spam for a while. The disappearance
of Google Groups really struck me as the proverbial
writing on the wall.
I had a chat with Claude.AI about the possibility of
writing some kind of replacement for Usenet that would
still let groups like rec.arts.tv function but with
improvements, like being able to have more control over
the formatting of posts, imbed pictures or videos directly
in posts, block cross-posting, etc. and was told we could
custom-code something like that relatively easily.
Basically, the process would look like "Hey Claude, I want
to build a web-based alternative to Usenet so that any
existing Usenet groups that want to carry on could do so
outside of Usenet on pretty much the same basis. Make some
improvements though: we want to be able to add attachments
of photos or videos to our posts rather than having to
point to them elsewhere via links. We want to keep spam
and cross-posts out. We want to be able to have more
control over the formatting of posts, like colours and
fonts. Use any programming language you like. Use only
free services so it doesn't cost anyone anything. Go!" In
other words, you wouldn't have to have coding skills to
drive the process and Claude would write all of the code
and deploy what you've written to somewhere so that you
could test the result, then direct it to make changes for
anything that you didn't like. For example: "the font used
for the Subject of the post is too small, make it a little
bigger and darker". Again, just standard English, no need
to know a programming language.
And if all that sounds like too much work - and I could
understand if you thought it was - there is another
solution recommended by Claude, namely Discourse, a free
existing package that is apparently quite similar to
Usenet in many ways but better. Claude said you could
install that and have it up and running in a few hours.
I'm just posting this here and now so that I don't forget
and so that you have a starting point if we ever get to
the point where Usenet actually looks like it is about to
die OR if we get sick of the limitations of Usenet and opt
to try a different way to get together to talk about our
favourite TV shows (and all the other stuff we get into
to).
So what you'd end up with is Yet Another Web Forum.
Who registers the domain name for this creature? Pays
for the web hosting service? Would there be moderators
for it?
I've been on Usenet since the mid-1980s. I have always
liked that it *doesn't* have all the overhead and glitz
of embedded images, videos, and other distractions.
Ditto for any fancy fonts, colored text, and other
content-null add-ons.
Nyssa, who knows a gaggle of programming languages, but
has no interest in reinventing a wheel that already
works
I've been worrying about how much longer Usenet is going to be around
given how so many newsgroups are dead and/or absolutely drenched in spam
for a while. The disappearance of Google Groups really struck me as the proverbial writing on the wall.
I had a chat with Claude.AI about the possibility of writing some kind
of replacement for Usenet that would still let groups like rec.arts.tv function but with improvements, like being able to have more control
over the formatting of posts, imbed pictures or videos directly in
posts, block cross-posting, etc. and was told we could custom-code
something like that relatively easily.
Basically, the process would look like "Hey Claude, I want to build a web-based alternative to Usenet so that any existing Usenet groups that
want to carry on could do so outside of Usenet on pretty much the same basis. Make some improvements though: we want to be able to add
attachments of photos or videos to our posts rather than having to point
to them elsewhere via links. We want to keep spam and cross-posts out.
We want to be able to have more control over the formatting of posts,
like colours and fonts. Use any programming language you like. Use only
free services so it doesn't cost anyone anything. Go!" In other words,
you wouldn't have to have coding skills to drive the process and Claude would write all of the code and deploy what you've written to somewhere
so that you could test the result, then direct it to make changes for anything that you didn't like. For example: "the font used for the
Subject of the post is too small, make it a little bigger and darker". Again, just standard English, no need to know a programming language.
And if all that sounds like too much work - and I could understand if
you thought it was - there is another solution recommended by Claude,
namely Discourse, a free existing package that is apparently quite
similar to Usenet in many ways but better. Claude said you could install that and have it up and running in a few hours.
I'm just posting this here and now so that I don't forget and so that
you have a starting point if we ever get to the point where Usenet
actually looks like it is about to die OR if we get sick of the
limitations of Usenet and opt to try a different way to get together to
talk about our favourite TV shows (and all the other stuff we get into to).
On Apr 30, 2026 at 11:33:46 AM PDT, "Nyssa"
<Nyssa@logicalinsight.net> wrote:
Rhino wrote:
I've been worrying about how much longer Usenet is
going to be around given how so many newsgroups are
dead and/or absolutely drenched in spam for a while.
The disappearance of Google Groups really struck me as
the proverbial writing on the wall.
I had a chat with Claude.AI about the possibility of
writing some kind of replacement for Usenet that would
still let groups like rec.arts.tv function but with
improvements, like being able to have more control over
the formatting of posts, imbed pictures or videos
directly in posts, block cross-posting, etc. and was
told we could custom-code something like that
relatively easily.
Basically, the process would look like "Hey Claude, I
want to build a web-based alternative to Usenet so that
any existing Usenet groups that want to carry on could
do so outside of Usenet on pretty much the same basis.
Make some improvements though: we want to be able to
add attachments of photos or videos to our posts rather
than having to point to them elsewhere via links. We
want to keep spam and cross-posts out. We want to be
able to have more control over the formatting of posts,
like colours and fonts. Use any programming language
you like. Use only free services so it doesn't cost
anyone anything. Go!" In other words, you wouldn't have
to have coding skills to drive the process and Claude
would write all of the code and deploy what you've
written to somewhere so that you could test the result,
then direct it to make changes for anything that you
didn't like. For example: "the font used for the
Subject of the post is too small, make it a little
bigger and darker". Again, just standard English, no
need to know a programming language.
And if all that sounds like too much work - and I could
understand if you thought it was - there is another
solution recommended by Claude, namely Discourse, a
free existing package that is apparently quite similar
to Usenet in many ways but better. Claude said you
could install that and have it up and running in a few
hours.
I'm just posting this here and now so that I don't
forget and so that you have a starting point if we ever
get to the point where Usenet actually looks like it is
about to die OR if we get sick of the limitations of
Usenet and opt to try a different way to get together
to talk about our favourite TV shows (and all the other
stuff we get into to).
So what you'd end up with is Yet Another Web Forum.
Who registers the domain name for this creature? Pays
for the web hosting service? Would there be moderators
for it?
That's the real question. Any and all web forums engage in
censorship. Even if the folks running it have an anything
goes philosophy, there are more and more laws that
*require* moderation and censorship. Even if American
authorities don't come after you, the European Union
certainly will since it apparently believes it has the
right to police the internet for no-no words worldwide.
Usenet is unique in its decentralization which allows it
to be the last bastion where people can speak their minds
without having a moderator ban them or a government come
arrest them.
I've been on Usenet since the mid-1980s. I have always
liked that it *doesn't* have all the overhead and glitz
of embedded images, videos, and other distractions.
Ditto for any fancy fonts, colored text, and other
content-null add-ons.
Agreed. Make any forum more than text-only and you'll end
up with nothing but post after post of dancing emojis and
the same old reaction memes posted over and over again. We
have an entire generation developing that can't type a
coherent sentence and speaks in little pictures. We're
de-evolving back to hieroglyphics.
Nyssa, who knows a gaggle of programming languages, but
has no interest in reinventing a wheel that already
works
The wheel works but it's pointless if no one uses it,
which sadly, seems to be the case with Usenet these days.
I've been on Usenet since the mid-1980s. I have always
liked that it *doesn't* have all the overhead and glitz
of embedded images, videos, and other distractions.
Ditto for any fancy fonts, colored text, and other
content-null add-ons.
The wheel works but it's pointless if no one uses it, which sadly, seems to be
the case with Usenet these days.
If Usenet ever does go down the tubes, I hope someone will take the initiative to keep the group together by one or another of the various alternatives. Maybe we could do some kind of encryption so we're still
free to speak frankly?
Verily, in article <10t07af$smmd$1@dont-email.me>, did Nyssa@logicalinsight.net deliver unto us this message:
I've been on Usenet since the mid-1980s. I have always
liked that it *doesn't* have all the overhead and glitz
of embedded images, videos, and other distractions.
Ditto for any fancy fonts, colored text, and other
content-null add-ons.
Just today, I was wishing Reddit had an option not to load images.
Verily, in article <10t09iv$o1ml$2@dont-email.me>, did no_offline_contact@example.com deliver unto us this message:
If Usenet ever does go down the tubes, I hope someone will take the
initiative to keep the group together by one or another of the various
alternatives. Maybe we could do some kind of encryption so we're still
free to speak frankly?
How about a mailing list? It's simple, and encrypted email is hard to monitor.
On 2026-04-30 6:21 p.m., The True Melissa wrote:
[quoted text muted]
content-null add-ons.
Just today, I was wishing Reddit had an option not to load images.
I had a look at Reddit last year and thought it might be a good place to
ask coding questions. I didn't get their model at all. I joined up,
found a suitable area to ask a question but had no way to ask. Their
model seems to call for you to hang around for a while until people can
form an impression of you and only if you pass scrutiny they might let
you ask a question. Did I misunderstand the process?
On 2026-04-30 6:25 p.m., The True Melissa wrote:
Verily, in article <10t09iv$o1ml$2@dont-email.me>, did no_offline_contact@example.com deliver unto us this message:
If Usenet ever does go down the tubes, I hope someone will take the
initiative to keep the group together by one or another of the various
alternatives. Maybe we could do some kind of encryption so we're still
free to speak frankly?
How about a mailing list? It's simple, and encrypted email is hard to monitor.
Would every post go to everyone on the mailing list then? That would
feel like forcing conversations on people. At least with Usenet I can
choose which post to engage with based on the title and/or poster.
Not trying to be negative, it would have some positive aspects too like better privacy through encryption. (Then again, isn't it law that you
can't use encryption schemes unless the government has a backdoor into
that scheme? If that's true, they can read your words - and presumably
track them back to you - if they really want to. I don't imagine they
would use the back door unless they had reason to think you were part of
a terrorist plot or something but maybe I'm too optimistic.)
Verily, in article <10t0mot$uhpf$2@dont-email.me>, did no_offline_contact@example.com deliver unto us this message:
On 2026-04-30 6:21 p.m., The True Melissa wrote:
[quoted text muted]I had a look at Reddit last year and thought it might be a good place to
content-null add-ons.
Just today, I was wishing Reddit had an option not to load images.
ask coding questions. I didn't get their model at all. I joined up,
found a suitable area to ask a question but had no way to ask. Their
model seems to call for you to hang around for a while until people can
form an impression of you and only if you pass scrutiny they might let
you ask a question. Did I misunderstand the process?
That particular sub may have had a karma requirement. Many do, now that
there are so many bots. Karma is the accumulated result of people
upvoting and downvoting what you post, so subs require a minimum before they'll allow you. The easiest way to get karma is to participate in
some free-for-all subs which have no karma requirement and go along with
the thread consensus.
Some subs have a lower karma threshold for commenting than for posting (starting a thread). That may be what you encountered.
Is Stack Exchange still in good health?
On 2026-04-30 6:21 p.m., The True Melissa wrote:
Verily, in article <10t07af$smmd$1@dont-email.me>, didI had a look at Reddit last year and thought it might be a good place to
Nyssa@logicalinsight.net deliver unto us this message:
I've been on Usenet since the mid-1980s. I have always
liked that it *doesn't* have all the overhead and glitz
of embedded images, videos, and other distractions.
Ditto for any fancy fonts, colored text, and other
content-null add-ons.
Just today, I was wishing Reddit had an option not to load images.
ask coding questions. I didn't get their model at all. I joined up,
found a suitable area to ask a question but had no way to ask. Their
model seems to call for you to hang around for a while until people can
form an impression of you and only if you pass scrutiny they might let
you ask a question. Did I misunderstand the process?
On Apr 30, 2026 at 3:57:32 PM PDT, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On 2026-04-30 6:21 p.m., The True Melissa wrote:
Verily, in article <10t07af$smmd$1@dont-email.me>, didI had a look at Reddit last year and thought it might be a good place to
Nyssa@logicalinsight.net deliver unto us this message:
I've been on Usenet since the mid-1980s. I have always
liked that it *doesn't* have all the overhead and glitz
of embedded images, videos, and other distractions.
Ditto for any fancy fonts, colored text, and other
content-null add-ons.
Just today, I was wishing Reddit had an option not to load images.
ask coding questions. I didn't get their model at all. I joined up,
found a suitable area to ask a question but had no way to ask. Their
model seems to call for you to hang around for a while until people can
form an impression of you and only if you pass scrutiny they might let
you ask a question. Did I misunderstand the process?
No, I did the same thing. It let me make a comment but as soon as I did, I got
an email telling me my comment had been deleted because I hadn't built up enough 'karma' to be worthy of speaking, whatever the hell that means.
On 2026-04-30 10:16 p.m., BTR1701 wrote:
On Apr 30, 2026 at 3:57:32 PM PDT, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com> >> wrote:It beats me why they don't explain how that works to new users. I can't
On 2026-04-30 6:21 p.m., The True Melissa wrote:
Verily, in article <10t07af$smmd$1@dont-email.me>, didI had a look at Reddit last year and thought it might be a good place to >>> ask coding questions. I didn't get their model at all. I joined up,
Nyssa@logicalinsight.net deliver unto us this message:
I've been on Usenet since the mid-1980s. I have always
liked that it *doesn't* have all the overhead and glitz
of embedded images, videos, and other distractions.
Ditto for any fancy fonts, colored text, and other
content-null add-ons.
Just today, I was wishing Reddit had an option not to load images.
found a suitable area to ask a question but had no way to ask. Their
model seems to call for you to hang around for a while until people can >>> form an impression of you and only if you pass scrutiny they might let
you ask a question. Did I misunderstand the process?
No, I did the same thing. It let me make a comment but as soon as I did, I >> got
an email telling me my comment had been deleted because I hadn't built up >> enough 'karma' to be worthy of speaking, whatever the hell that means.
be the only person who was pissed off and left because of that....
Rhino
I've been worrying about how much longer Usenet is going to be around
given how so many newsgroups are dead and/or absolutely drenched in spam
for a while. The disappearance of Google Groups really struck me as the proverbial writing on the wall.
The disappearance of Google Groups really struck me as the
proverbial writing on the wall.
On 2026-04-30 7:26 p.m., The True Melissa wrote:
Verily, in article <10t0mot$uhpf$2@dont-email.me>, didExplanations for how to be allowed to post were distinctly lacking. I
no_offline_contact@example.com deliver unto us this message:
On 2026-04-30 6:21 p.m., The True Melissa wrote:
[quoted text muted]I had a look at Reddit last year and thought it might be a good place to >>> ask coding questions. I didn't get their model at all. I joined up,
content-null add-ons.
Just today, I was wishing Reddit had an option not to load images.
found a suitable area to ask a question but had no way to ask. Their
model seems to call for you to hang around for a while until people can
form an impression of you and only if you pass scrutiny they might let
you ask a question. Did I misunderstand the process?
That particular sub may have had a karma requirement. Many do, now that
there are so many bots. Karma is the accumulated result of people
upvoting and downvoting what you post, so subs require a minimum before
they'll allow you. The easiest way to get karma is to participate in
some free-for-all subs which have no karma requirement and go along with
the thread consensus.
Some subs have a lower karma threshold for commenting than for posting
(starting a thread). That may be what you encountered.
think I asked in the reddit where I wanted to post how I could be
allowed to ask a question and someone said I would have to wait until
they decided I was worthy. He may have mentioned karma points; I don't recall. Perhaps that's what he meant. He didn't explain it further, particularly how long this vetting might take, and I decided I could
not be bothered. The whole thing just felt like some kind of exclusive social club that had a process to see if you were the right kind of
person for their club. That offended by egalitarian nature and I left. You're the first person who mentioned being a Reddit user so I thought
I'd ask you what was going on.
Is Stack Exchange still in good health?
I used it once recently and got a very big surprise. I asked a question about DateTimeFormatters as applied to the new Temporal objects in Javascript and found my question answered by someone from the TC39
committee who'd written the code. It was a little bit like phoning
Microsoft on some minor manner and having Bill Gates pick up! Not that
I'd ever heard of the guy who helped me but he seemed higher up the
food chain than I'd usually expect to meet.
Aside from that though, I find myself asking Claude pretty much
everything I want to know more about. :-)
On 2026-05-01 00:52:31 +0000, Rhino said:
On 2026-04-30 7:26 p.m., The True Melissa wrote:
Verily, in article <10t0mot$uhpf$2@dont-email.me>, didExplanations for how to be allowed to post were distinctly lacking. I
no_offline_contact@example.com deliver unto us this message:
On 2026-04-30 6:21 p.m., The True Melissa wrote:
[quoted text muted]I had a look at Reddit last year and thought it might be a good
content-null add-ons.
Just today, I was wishing Reddit had an option not to load images.
place to
ask coding questions. I didn't get their model at all. I joined up,
found a suitable area to ask a question but had no way to ask. Their
model seems to call for you to hang around for a while until people can >>>> form an impression of you and only if you pass scrutiny they might let >>>> you ask a question. Did I misunderstand the process?
That particular sub may have had a karma requirement. Many do, now that
there are so many bots. Karma is the accumulated result of people
upvoting and downvoting what you post, so subs require a minimum before
they'll allow you. The easiest way to get karma is to participate in
some free-for-all subs which have no karma requirement and go along with >>> the thread consensus.
Some subs have a lower karma threshold for commenting than for posting
(starting a thread). That may be what you encountered.
think I asked in the reddit where I wanted to post how I could be
allowed to ask a question and someone said I would have to wait until
they decided I was worthy. He may have mentioned karma points; I don't
recall. Perhaps that's what he meant. He didn't explain it further,
particularly how long this vetting might take, and I decided I could
not be bothered. The whole thing just felt like some kind of exclusive
social club that had a process to see if you were the right kind of
person for their club. That offended by egalitarian nature and I left.
You're the first person who mentioned being a Reddit user so I thought
I'd ask you what was going on.
Is Stack Exchange still in good health?
I used it once recently and got a very big surprise. I asked a
question about DateTimeFormatters as applied to the new Temporal
objects in Javascript and found my question answered by someone from
the TC39 committee who'd written the code. It was a little bit like
phoning Microsoft on some minor manner and having Bill Gates pick up!
Not that I'd ever heard of the guy who helped me but he seemed higher
up the food chain than I'd usually expect to meet.
Aside from that though, I find myself asking Claude pretty much
everything I want to know more about. :-)
I'm on a Mac so any tech questions I have I just ask in the Usenet group comp.sys.mac.system, there's always some very knowledgeble Mac users in there who can help you with just about anything. StackExchange will come
up in google results sometimes and I'll lurk on it for my question but I don't really like to post there -- it's too much like the "exclusive
social club" you mention above that's too intimidating.
I'm not a programmer like you but I have run a '70s music site for 30
years now and sometimes have an occasional HTML question, the usenet
group comp.sys.programming.html (or whatever the hell it's called, I
post so seldom in there I can't even remember exactly) and a few other similar groups will have someone who can help you -- to a lesser extent
than the Mac group.
They've definitely got more like that lately.
It's like they're trying to find some excuse NOT to answer your
question. For instance, if you ask for a recommendation for a program to
do X or a course to learn Y, they insist that it's against the rules to recommend something as it would be an endorsement and hence unfair to competitors of whatever they might have recommended.
I've been worrying about how much longer Usenet is going to be around
given how so many newsgroups are dead and/or absolutely drenched in spam
for a while. The disappearance of Google Groups really struck me as the proverbial writing on the wall.
On 4/30/26 7:10 AM, Rhino wrote:
I've been worrying about how much longer Usenet is going to be around given how so many newsgroups are dead and/or absolutely drenched in spam for a while. The disappearance of Google Groups really struck me as the proverbial writing on the wall.
The answer is Reddit, IMO. I just have never had the time to figure out
how to set up a (new) Reddit,
because r/television absolutely sucks. You
want to set up a kind of smallish general television Reddit (call it
r/RATV or something...) and let everyone here know about it.
What would be different, of course, is that it would have moderator(s). That's a double-edged sword, of course. But I think with Reddit's model, it's unavoidable.
Verily, in article <10t55ma$28g6l$1@dont-email.me>, did
ijball@mac.invalid deliver unto us this message:
On 4/30/26 7:10 AM, Rhino wrote:
I've been worrying about how much longer Usenet is going to be around
given how so many newsgroups are dead and/or absolutely drenched in spam >> > for a while. The disappearance of Google Groups really struck me as the >> > proverbial writing on the wall.
The answer is Reddit, IMO. I just have never had the time to figure out
how to set up a (new) Reddit,
That is utterly trivial. People have done it by accident. :-) Just go to
the URL it would be at if it existed, and you'll be offered the option
to create it.
because r/television absolutely sucks. You
want to set up a kind of smallish general television Reddit (call it
r/RATV or something...) and let everyone here know about it.
What would be different, of course, is that it would have moderator(s).
That's a double-edged sword, of course. But I think with Reddit's model, >> it's unavoidable.
Yes, it is. Groups with no active moderators are locked until someone volunteers.
Verily, in article <10t55ma$28g6l$1@dont-email.me>, did
ijball@mac.invalid deliver unto us this message:
On 4/30/26 7:10 AM, Rhino wrote:
I've been worrying about how much longer Usenet is going to be around
given how so many newsgroups are dead and/or absolutely drenched in spam >>> for a while. The disappearance of Google Groups really struck me as the
proverbial writing on the wall.
The answer is Reddit, IMO. I just have never had the time to figure out
how to set up a (new) Reddit,
That is utterly trivial. People have done it by accident. :-) Just go to
the URL it would be at if it existed, and you'll be offered the option
to create it.
because r/television absolutely sucks. You
want to set up a kind of smallish general television Reddit (call it
r/RATV or something...) and let everyone here know about it.
What would be different, of course, is that it would have moderator(s).
That's a double-edged sword, of course. But I think with Reddit's model,
it's unavoidable.
Yes, it is. Groups with no active moderators are locked until someone volunteers.
. . .
If you volunteer, but don't actually do any meaningful moderation, do they >fire you?
That's what I did on NextDoor. I got recommended to be a moderator and then, >pursuant to my free expression philosophy, just let people talk about whatever >they wanted, even if someone claimed to be offended by it. After about six >months, I ended up getting fired as a moderator by NextDoor corporate because >I wasn't censoring people enough. They literally told me that they keep >metrics on how many complaints are upheld, how many warnings and suspensions >are given out, etc., and said that I was an utter failure as a censor so they >were revoking my status as a moderator. I then went on to receive a string of >30-day suspensions myself for posting-while-conservative. I haven't bothered >to log back on after my last suspension ran out back before Christmas.
If you volunteer, but don't actually do any meaningful moderation, do they fire you?
That's what I did on NextDoor. I got recommended to be a moderator and then, pursuant to my free expression philosophy, just let people talk about whatever
they wanted, even if someone claimed to be offended by it. After about six months, I ended up getting fired as a moderator by NextDoor corporate because I wasn't censoring people enough. They literally told me that they keep metrics on how many complaints are upheld, how many warnings and suspensions are given out, etc., and said that I was an utter failure as a censor so they were revoking my status as a moderator. I then went on to receive a string of 30-day suspensions myself for posting-while-conservative. I haven't bothered to log back on after my last suspension ran out back before Christmas.
On 2026-05-02 3:09 p.m., The True Melissa wrote:
Verily, in article <10t55ma$28g6l$1@dont-email.me>, did
ijball@mac.invalid deliver unto us this message:
On 4/30/26 7:10 AM, Rhino wrote:
I've been worrying about how much longer Usenet is going to be around
given how so many newsgroups are dead and/or absolutely drenched in spam >>> for a while. The disappearance of Google Groups really struck me as the >>> proverbial writing on the wall.
The answer is Reddit, IMO. I just have never had the time to figure out
how to set up a (new) Reddit,
That is utterly trivial. People have done it by accident. :-) Just go to the URL it would be at if it existed, and you'll be offered the option
to create it.
because r/television absolutely sucks. You
want to set up a kind of smallish general television Reddit (call it
r/RATV or something...) and let everyone here know about it.
What would be different, of course, is that it would have moderator(s).
That's a double-edged sword, of course. But I think with Reddit's model, >> it's unavoidable.
Yes, it is. Groups with no active moderators are locked until someone volunteers.
As a believer in democracy, I think there should be an election to
choose a moderator (or moderator team if we feel the need to complicate matters). I know who I'd nominate but I don't relish the prospect of
setting the rules for what's to be allowed and what's to be forbidden
and I don't know if my nominee would even *want* the job. I feel sure
the moderator would get criticism from some and that might not be worth
the grief for the person I have in mind. But I'm not sure my nominee
would forbid *anything* so that might be a moot point. ;-)
Verily, in article <10t5nej$26o15$1@dont-email.me>, did no_offline_contact@example.com deliver unto us this message:
On 2026-05-02 3:09 p.m., The True Melissa wrote:
Verily, in article <10t55ma$28g6l$1@dont-email.me>, didAs a believer in democracy, I think there should be an election to
ijball@mac.invalid deliver unto us this message:
On 4/30/26 7:10 AM, Rhino wrote:
I've been worrying about how much longer Usenet is going to be around >>>>> given how so many newsgroups are dead and/or absolutely drenched in spam >>>>> for a while. The disappearance of Google Groups really struck me as the >>>>> proverbial writing on the wall.
The answer is Reddit, IMO. I just have never had the time to figure out >>>> how to set up a (new) Reddit,
That is utterly trivial. People have done it by accident. :-) Just go to >>> the URL it would be at if it existed, and you'll be offered the option
to create it.
because r/television absolutely sucks. You
want to set up a kind of smallish general television Reddit (call it
r/RATV or something...) and let everyone here know about it.
What would be different, of course, is that it would have moderator(s). >>>> That's a double-edged sword, of course. But I think with Reddit's model, >>>> it's unavoidable.
Yes, it is. Groups with no active moderators are locked until someone
volunteers.
choose a moderator (or moderator team if we feel the need to complicate
matters). I know who I'd nominate but I don't relish the prospect of
setting the rules for what's to be allowed and what's to be forbidden
and I don't know if my nominee would even *want* the job. I feel sure
the moderator would get criticism from some and that might not be worth
the grief for the person I have in mind. But I'm not sure my nominee
would forbid *anything* so that might be a moot point. ;-)
For backup and balance, you'd want a team of at least three mods.
There's always one head mod, though. Mods have power in order of
seniority according to when they became mods.
On 2026-05-02 5:01 p.m., The True Melissa wrote:
Verily, in article <10t5nej$26o15$1@dont-email.me>, didThen there'd probably be disputes between moderators if one moderator's ruling got challenged by the victim. You'd probably need the ability to appeal to the whole group of moderators in case one moderator ruled in
no_offline_contact@example.com deliver unto us this message:
On 2026-05-02 3:09 p.m., The True Melissa wrote:
Verily, in article <10t55ma$28g6l$1@dont-email.me>, didAs a believer in democracy, I think there should be an election to
ijball@mac.invalid deliver unto us this message:
On 4/30/26 7:10 AM, Rhino wrote:
I've been worrying about how much longer Usenet is going to be around >>>>>> given how so many newsgroups are dead and/or absolutely drenched in spam >>>>>> for a while. The disappearance of Google Groups really struck me as the >>>>>> proverbial writing on the wall.
The answer is Reddit, IMO. I just have never had the time to figure out >>>>> how to set up a (new) Reddit,
That is utterly trivial. People have done it by accident. :-) Just go to >>>> the URL it would be at if it existed, and you'll be offered the option >>>> to create it.
because r/television absolutely sucks. You
want to set up a kind of smallish general television Reddit (call it >>>>> r/RATV or something...) and let everyone here know about it.
What would be different, of course, is that it would have moderator(s). >>>>> That's a double-edged sword, of course. But I think with Reddit's model, >>>>> it's unavoidable.
Yes, it is. Groups with no active moderators are locked until someone
volunteers.
choose a moderator (or moderator team if we feel the need to complicate
matters). I know who I'd nominate but I don't relish the prospect of
setting the rules for what's to be allowed and what's to be forbidden
and I don't know if my nominee would even *want* the job. I feel sure
the moderator would get criticism from some and that might not be worth
the grief for the person I have in mind. But I'm not sure my nominee
would forbid *anything* so that might be a moot point. ;-)
For backup and balance, you'd want a team of at least three mods.
There's always one head mod, though. Mods have power in order of
seniority according to when they became mods.
a way you didn't like. Then something akin to political parties would
emerge with specific moderators being on one side of particular issues
and the other(s) being on the other side. And so on down the slippery
slope. It wouldn't happen overnight but I'd be surprised if it didn't
happen eventually.
I'm beginning to regret even raising the question of what to do if
Usenet every dies. The options all seem to have the potential to be
worse than what we have now.
It also occurs to me that Usenet may be unkillable by its very nature.
What would have to happen for Usenet to die? No particular person or
company owns it so it's not like there's an owner that can pull the
plug.
On 2026-05-02 5:01 p.m., The True Melissa wrote:[re Reddit as a backup for RATV]
For backup and balance, you'd want a team of at least three mods.
There's always one head mod, though. Mods have power in order of
seniority according to when they became mods.
Then there'd probably be disputes between moderators if one moderator's ruling got challenged by the victim. You'd probably need the ability to appeal to the whole group of moderators in case one moderator ruled in a
way you didn't like.
I'm beginning to regret even raising the question of what to do if
Usenet every dies. The options all seem to have the potential to be
worse than what we have now.
It also occurs to me that Usenet may be unkillable by its very nature.
What would have to happen for Usenet to die? No particular person or
company owns it so it's not like there's an owner that can pull the plug.
On 2026-05-02 3:09 p.m., The True Melissa wrote:
Verily, in article <10t55ma$28g6l$1@dont-email.me>, did
ijball@mac.invalid deliver unto us this message:
On 4/30/26 7:10 AM, Rhino wrote:
I've been worrying about how much longer Usenet is going to be around
given how so many newsgroups are dead and/or absolutely drenched in
spam
for a while. The disappearance of Google Groups really struck me as the >>>> proverbial writing on the wall.
The answer is Reddit, IMO. I just have never had the time to figure out
how to set up a (new) Reddit,
That is utterly trivial. People have done it by accident. :-) Just go to
the URL it would be at if it existed, and you'll be offered the option
to create it.
because r/television absolutely sucks. You
want to set up a kind of smallish general television Reddit (call it
r/RATV or something...) and let everyone here know about it.
What would be different, of course, is that it would have moderator(s).
That's a double-edged sword, of course. But I think with Reddit's model, >>> it's unavoidable.
Yes, it is. Groups with no active moderators are locked until someone
volunteers.
As a believer in democracy, I think there should be an election to
choose a moderator (or moderator team if we feel the need to complicate matters). I know who I'd nominate but I don't relish the prospect of
setting the rules for what's to be allowed and what's to be forbidden
and I don't know if my nominee would even *want* the job. I feel sure
the moderator would get criticism from some and that might not be worth
the grief for the person I have in mind. But I'm not sure my nominee
would forbid *anything* so that might be a moot point. ;-)
On 2026-05-02 5:01 p.m., The True Melissa wrote:
Verily, in article <10t5nej$26o15$1@dont-email.me>, did
no_offline_contact@example.com deliver unto us this message:
On 2026-05-02 3:09 p.m., The True Melissa wrote:
Verily, in article <10t55ma$28g6l$1@dont-email.me>, did
ijball@mac.invalid deliver unto us this message:
On 4/30/26 7:10 AM, Rhino wrote:
I've been worrying about how much longer Usenet is going to be around >>>>>> given how so many newsgroups are dead and/or absolutely drenched
in spam
for a while. The disappearance of Google Groups really struck me
as the
proverbial writing on the wall.
The answer is Reddit, IMO. I just have never had the time to figure >>>>> out
how to set up a (new) Reddit,
That is utterly trivial. People have done it by accident. :-) Just
go to
the URL it would be at if it existed, and you'll be offered the option >>>> to create it.
because r/television absolutely sucks. You
want to set up a kind of smallish general television Reddit (call it >>>>> r/RATV or something...) and let everyone here know about it.
What would be different, of course, is that it would have
moderator(s).
That's a double-edged sword, of course. But I think with Reddit's
model,
it's unavoidable.
Yes, it is. Groups with no active moderators are locked until someone
volunteers.
As a believer in democracy, I think there should be an election to
choose a moderator (or moderator team if we feel the need to complicate
matters). I know who I'd nominate but I don't relish the prospect of
setting the rules for what's to be allowed and what's to be forbidden
and I don't know if my nominee would even *want* the job. I feel sure
the moderator would get criticism from some and that might not be worth
the grief for the person I have in mind. But I'm not sure my nominee
would forbid *anything* so that might be a moot point. ;-)
For backup and balance, you'd want a team of at least three mods.
There's always one head mod, though. Mods have power in order of
seniority according to when they became mods.
Then there'd probably be disputes between moderators if one moderator's ruling got challenged by the victim. You'd probably need the ability to appeal to the whole group of moderators in case one moderator ruled in a
way you didn't like. Then something akin to political parties would
emerge with specific moderators being on one side of particular issues
and the other(s) being on the other side. And so on down the slippery
slope. It wouldn't happen overnight but I'd be surprised if it didn't
happen eventually.
I'm beginning to regret even raising the question of what to do if
Usenet every dies. The options all seem to have the potential to be
worse than what we have now.
It also occurs to me that Usenet may be unkillable by its very nature.
What would have to happen for Usenet to die? No particular person or
company owns it so it's not like there's an owner that can pull the plug.
The main thing I'd want out of a moderator is to keep stuff on-topic.
(Just this alone would keep people like Trotsky/FPP out.) There's a lot
of "general" discussion here that belongs somewhere else than in a TV
group.
I also don't know how good Reddit is at keeping spam out - that as much
as anything has probably killed Usenet for the general public (as most
don't know about kill-files and probably couldn't figure out how to
operate one). But this gets back to keeping posts on topic.
But I was much more enthusiastic about this prospect maybe 5 years ago.
Now I watch so little TV that while I would probably read a TV-focused Reddit that was better than r/television (which I have totally abandoned now), I am not sure how much I would be contributing.
On 5/2/26 2:12 PM, Rhino wrote:
On 2026-05-02 5:01 p.m., The True Melissa wrote:
Verily, in article <10t5nej$26o15$1@dont-email.me>, did
no_offline_contact@example.com deliver unto us this message:
On 2026-05-02 3:09 p.m., The True Melissa wrote:
Verily, in article <10t55ma$28g6l$1@dont-email.me>, did
ijball@mac.invalid deliver unto us this message:
On 4/30/26 7:10 AM, Rhino wrote:
I've been worrying about how much longer Usenet is going to be around >>>>>> given how so many newsgroups are dead and/or absolutely drenched >>>>>> in spam
for a while. The disappearance of Google Groups really struck me >>>>>> as the
proverbial writing on the wall.
The answer is Reddit, IMO. I just have never had the time to figure >>>>> out
how to set up a (new) Reddit,
That is utterly trivial. People have done it by accident. :-) Just
go to
the URL it would be at if it existed, and you'll be offered the option >>>> to create it.
because r/television absolutely sucks. You
want to set up a kind of smallish general television Reddit (call it >>>>> r/RATV or something...) and let everyone here know about it.
What would be different, of course, is that it would have
moderator(s).
That's a double-edged sword, of course. But I think with Reddit's >>>>> model,
it's unavoidable.
Yes, it is. Groups with no active moderators are locked until someone >>>> volunteers.
As a believer in democracy, I think there should be an election to
choose a moderator (or moderator team if we feel the need to complicate >>> matters). I know who I'd nominate but I don't relish the prospect of
setting the rules for what's to be allowed and what's to be forbidden
and I don't know if my nominee would even *want* the job. I feel sure
the moderator would get criticism from some and that might not be worth >>> the grief for the person I have in mind. But I'm not sure my nominee
would forbid *anything* so that might be a moot point. ;-)
For backup and balance, you'd want a team of at least three mods.
There's always one head mod, though. Mods have power in order of
seniority according to when they became mods.
Then there'd probably be disputes between moderators if one moderator's ruling got challenged by the victim. You'd probably need the ability to appeal to the whole group of moderators in case one moderator ruled in a way you didn't like. Then something akin to political parties would
emerge with specific moderators being on one side of particular issues
and the other(s) being on the other side. And so on down the slippery slope. It wouldn't happen overnight but I'd be surprised if it didn't happen eventually.
I'm beginning to regret even raising the question of what to do if
Usenet every dies. The options all seem to have the potential to be
worse than what we have now.
It also occurs to me that Usenet may be unkillable by its very nature. What would have to happen for Usenet to die? No particular person or company owns it so it's not like there's an owner that can pull the plug.
Usenet dies when there are no servers to propagate message anymore. I
think that will happen eventually. Right now it feels like Usenet
survives through a patchwork of servers kept running by hobbyists (as
the Usenet "providers" all seem to have mostly folded). And those
hobbyists seem to be dying off every few years.
Verily, in article <10t5s1g$2f9ti$2@dont-email.me>, did
ijball@mac.invalid deliver unto us this message:
On 5/2/26 2:12 PM, Rhino wrote:
On 2026-05-02 5:01 p.m., The True Melissa wrote:Usenet dies when there are no servers to propagate message anymore. I
Verily, in article <10t5nej$26o15$1@dont-email.me>, did
no_offline_contact@example.com deliver unto us this message:
On 2026-05-02 3:09 p.m., The True Melissa wrote:
Verily, in article <10t55ma$28g6l$1@dont-email.me>, did
ijball@mac.invalid deliver unto us this message:
On 4/30/26 7:10 AM, Rhino wrote:
I've been worrying about how much longer Usenet is going to be around >>>>>>>> given how so many newsgroups are dead and/or absolutely drenched >>>>>>>> in spam
for a while. The disappearance of Google Groups really struck me >>>>>>>> as the
proverbial writing on the wall.
The answer is Reddit, IMO. I just have never had the time to figure >>>>>>> out
how to set up a (new) Reddit,
That is utterly trivial. People have done it by accident. :-) Just >>>>>> go to
the URL it would be at if it existed, and you'll be offered the option >>>>>> to create it.
because r/television absolutely sucks. You
want to set up a kind of smallish general television Reddit (call it >>>>>>> r/RATV or something...) and let everyone here know about it.
What would be different, of course, is that it would have
moderator(s).
That's a double-edged sword, of course. But I think with Reddit's >>>>>>> model,
it's unavoidable.
Yes, it is. Groups with no active moderators are locked until someone >>>>>> volunteers.
As a believer in democracy, I think there should be an election to
choose a moderator (or moderator team if we feel the need to complicate >>>>> matters). I know who I'd nominate but I don't relish the prospect of >>>>> setting the rules for what's to be allowed and what's to be forbidden >>>>> and I don't know if my nominee would even *want* the job. I feel sure >>>>> the moderator would get criticism from some and that might not be worth >>>>> the grief for the person I have in mind. But I'm not sure my nominee >>>>> would forbid *anything* so that might be a moot point. ;-)
For backup and balance, you'd want a team of at least three mods.
There's always one head mod, though. Mods have power in order of
seniority according to when they became mods.
Then there'd probably be disputes between moderators if one moderator's
ruling got challenged by the victim. You'd probably need the ability to
appeal to the whole group of moderators in case one moderator ruled in a >>> way you didn't like. Then something akin to political parties would
emerge with specific moderators being on one side of particular issues
and the other(s) being on the other side. And so on down the slippery
slope. It wouldn't happen overnight but I'd be surprised if it didn't
happen eventually.
I'm beginning to regret even raising the question of what to do if
Usenet every dies. The options all seem to have the potential to be
worse than what we have now.
It also occurs to me that Usenet may be unkillable by its very nature.
What would have to happen for Usenet to die? No particular person or
company owns it so it's not like there's an owner that can pull the plug. >>
think that will happen eventually. Right now it feels like Usenet
survives through a patchwork of servers kept running by hobbyists (as
the Usenet "providers" all seem to have mostly folded). And those
hobbyists seem to be dying off every few years.
What can we do?
Do we need younger people setting up new servers?
Getting the university population back on would bring the right kind of people. I don't know if that could escape corporate interest, though.
Verily, in article <10t5s1g$2f9ti$2@dont-email.me>, did
ijball@mac.invalid deliver unto us this message:
On 5/2/26 2:12 PM, Rhino wrote:
On 2026-05-02 5:01 p.m., The True Melissa wrote:Usenet dies when there are no servers to propagate message anymore. I
Verily, in article <10t5nej$26o15$1@dont-email.me>, did
no_offline_contact@example.com deliver unto us this message:
On 2026-05-02 3:09 p.m., The True Melissa wrote:
Verily, in article <10t55ma$28g6l$1@dont-email.me>, did
ijball@mac.invalid deliver unto us this message:
On 4/30/26 7:10 AM, Rhino wrote:
I've been worrying about how much longer Usenet is going to be around >>>>>>>> given how so many newsgroups are dead and/or absolutely drenched >>>>>>>> in spam
for a while. The disappearance of Google Groups really struck me >>>>>>>> as the
proverbial writing on the wall.
The answer is Reddit, IMO. I just have never had the time to figure >>>>>>> out
how to set up a (new) Reddit,
That is utterly trivial. People have done it by accident. :-) Just >>>>>> go to
the URL it would be at if it existed, and you'll be offered the option >>>>>> to create it.
because r/television absolutely sucks. You
want to set up a kind of smallish general television Reddit (call it >>>>>>> r/RATV or something...) and let everyone here know about it.
What would be different, of course, is that it would have
moderator(s).
That's a double-edged sword, of course. But I think with Reddit's >>>>>>> model,
it's unavoidable.
Yes, it is. Groups with no active moderators are locked until someone >>>>>> volunteers.
As a believer in democracy, I think there should be an election to
choose a moderator (or moderator team if we feel the need to complicate >>>>> matters). I know who I'd nominate but I don't relish the prospect of >>>>> setting the rules for what's to be allowed and what's to be forbidden >>>>> and I don't know if my nominee would even *want* the job. I feel sure >>>>> the moderator would get criticism from some and that might not be worth >>>>> the grief for the person I have in mind. But I'm not sure my nominee >>>>> would forbid *anything* so that might be a moot point. ;-)
For backup and balance, you'd want a team of at least three mods.
There's always one head mod, though. Mods have power in order of
seniority according to when they became mods.
Then there'd probably be disputes between moderators if one moderator's
ruling got challenged by the victim. You'd probably need the ability to
appeal to the whole group of moderators in case one moderator ruled in a >>> way you didn't like. Then something akin to political parties would
emerge with specific moderators being on one side of particular issues
and the other(s) being on the other side. And so on down the slippery
slope. It wouldn't happen overnight but I'd be surprised if it didn't
happen eventually.
I'm beginning to regret even raising the question of what to do if
Usenet every dies. The options all seem to have the potential to be
worse than what we have now.
It also occurs to me that Usenet may be unkillable by its very nature.
What would have to happen for Usenet to die? No particular person or
company owns it so it's not like there's an owner that can pull the plug. >>
think that will happen eventually. Right now it feels like Usenet
survives through a patchwork of servers kept running by hobbyists (as
the Usenet "providers" all seem to have mostly folded). And those
hobbyists seem to be dying off every few years.
What can we do?
Do we need younger people setting up new servers?
Getting the university population back on would bring the right kind of people. I don't know if that could escape corporate interest, though.
. . .
Technically, I don't imagine it would be too hard to set up a Usenet
service like Eternal September but it's got to cost something
significant to store billions of posts, many of which are spam.
. . .
Technically, I don't imagine it would be too hard to set up a Usenet
service like Eternal September but it's got to cost something
significant to store billions of posts, many of which are spam.
Obviously, you could charge people to cover the cost of the storage and
any staff but that's going to drive away a lot of the people who are
used to getting Usenet for free, although some might pay if the
alternative is not having Usenet.
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
Technically, I don't imagine it would be too hard to set up a Usenet >service like Eternal September but it's got to cost something
significant to store billions of posts, many of which are spam.
It's incredibly hard. For one thing, eternal-september uses a two-server model, one that is exposed to Usenet to receive the raw feed, and the
other that's used to read from after the spam countermeasures were
deployed. Usenet is unreadable without spam countermeasures.
Depending
on the type of abuse being addressed, there are different filters. Ray actually had to adapt a filter used for email to Usenet, SpamAssasin, in order to counter many of the attacks that Cleanfeed wasn't designed to address during the massive attack upon Usenet through Google Groups a
few years ago. There was a small group that countered the attack but Ray
took the lead.
You cannot simply be a News administrator without spending significant
time countering bad actors. There are just a handful but they cause a
hell of a lot of trouble, trying to ruin things for everyone else.
Usenet is especially vulnerable.
| Sysop: | Tetrazocine |
|---|---|
| Location: | Melbourne, VIC, Australia |
| Users: | 15 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 166:24:48 |
| Calls: | 216 |
| Files: | 21,502 |
| Messages: | 82,701 |