Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Rich <rich@example.invalid>
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: Netnews: The Origin Story
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2024 15:40:17 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 63
Message-ID: <vglbd1$38kb4$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vgdo2q$1l4qm$1@dont-email.me> <0d394330-f861-44f9-c1a9-409d98fde094@example.net> <vgg5h2$26hvt$1@dont-email.me> <6b63eca1-aa26-8156-b1b8-2d42b7b9d245@example.net> <vgjp69$1vl$1@panix2.panix.com> <a15b519e-8072-1983-47e5-199f67a64d6c@example.net>
Injection-Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2024 16:40:18 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ebb17475d16519ba5ec81865b7ae69d5";
	logging-data="3428708"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19lRfJ4Dme/5SwCROsZARkE"
User-Agent: tin/2.6.1-20211226 ("Convalmore") (Linux/5.15.139 (x86_64))
Cancel-Lock: sha1:X63NNmvwDfwdKJ2mKZmWt4eJqlk=
Bytes: 4201

D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Nov 2024, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> D  <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 6 Nov 2024, Rich wrote:
>>>> One did have to do both, and even so, the volume was impossible to keep
>>>> up with if the group was at all active.
>>
>> On Usenet, I often had very aggressive killfiles, not because I had 
>> anything against the postings but just because I wasn't interested 
>> in another thread about digital audio workstations again.  Some 
>> groups I would go into to find that 90% of the traffic was taken out 
>> by the killfile.  But there was still plenty, plenty to read.
>>
>>> This is an interesting problem.  How is it solved in modern social 
>>> media?
>>
>> Very poorly.  Most of those systems are just firehoses and they will 
>> prioritize postings based upon their own (profit-oriented) notions 
>> of what is most important, not the user's.
>> --scott
>>
> 
> Yes, it does seem like the killfile is the "state of the art".  ;) 

It does leave the decision process of what part of "the firehose" to 
either ignore, or boost, up to the individual receiving "the firehose" 
of information.

But it also requires that same user to have to put in the small effort 
to "curate" it as it were.  And that's part of its downfall.  The lazy 
'content consumer' user (i.e, the 90+ percentile of users) does not 
even want to put in that effort.  Plus it has one other item those with 
"fragile sensitivities" dislike.  The user needs to be exposed to at 
least one post on a topic they do not want to see in order to recognize 
a need to add a killfile entry.  For the "snowflakes" of the world (of 
which there are way too many) they think their "sensitivities" are soo 
fragile that they can't even stand to see "one" of something they don't 
like in order to be able to say "no, no more like this".  They want 
"god" (the algorithm) to provide it all to them, prefiltered in just 
they way they want, with no effort on their part, and with never having 
their sensitivities triggered by seeing something they don't want to 
see.

> The only addition on top of the killfile I could imagine, would be 
> the "communal killfile" where you add accounts to a common list and 
> then use that list together.
> 
> The weakness is of course that it can be abused, so I think a communal 
> killfile would most likely only work for a smaller group of individuals 
> with similar taste and ideology when it comes to politics and free speech.

As you say, the 'communal killfile' has the problem of abuse built in 
from the start.

And, for countries that purport to support 'free speech' a communial 
killfile is also very close to a 'free speech suppression' mechanism.

At least with personal kill files there's no 'free speech' erosion 
situation, due to the simple fact that in all 'free speech' regimes, 
the 'freedom' to 'speak' is what is allowed, but there is no 
requirement that "I must listen to you speak".  The personal killfile 
fits that perfectly.  Bob can "speak" all he likes, but I can set it so 
I don't have to listen to what Bob is speaking.