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 15:48:13 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 43
Message-ID: <vglbrt$38kb4$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vgdo2q$1l4qm$1@dont-email.me>   <1r2lzfq.b4cuy8v1gu71N%snipeco.2@gmail.com> <e6d433f1-101f-4dd5-f536-ad60999a0243@example.net> <1r2mhj6.tm5fyt1qsdehbN%snipeco.2@gmail.com> <672c0591@news.ausics.net> <1r2mmkj.10ykzcf1nfin2gN%snipeco.2@gmail.com> <7ae3666d-26fb-3a94-9c79-13ca15dc0fb7@example.net> <672d23c2@news.ausics.net> <vgj9uf$2qcb7$1@dont-email.me> <91478226-bb94-bb85-d76e-bef5262212f1@example.net> <vgjgq2$2re8i$1@dont-email.me> <cc965781-8cae-051f-e547-931bc4027339@example.net>
Injection-Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2024 16:48:13 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ebb17475d16519ba5ec81865b7ae69d5";
	logging-data="3428708"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18iXv8L7QnYEeMFmw/3khET"
User-Agent: tin/2.6.1-20211226 ("Convalmore") (Linux/5.15.139 (x86_64))
Cancel-Lock: sha1:bE3HIdqzno53owOaXHatqZIrTOc=
Bytes: 3289

D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Nov 2024, Rich wrote:
>>
>> Which also meant if you posted something that someone took great 
>> offense to, from your @mit.edu account, that the "offended" would 
>> contact the mit.edu sysadmins, and the "offending" user would be 
>> "taken behind the woodshed" as it may be.
>>
>> Granted, "offended" individuals still can contact whatever usenet 
>> host someone uses to access usenet and bitch up a storm (the 
>> necessary headers are in every article).  But that same host, being 
>> in the 'business' of usenet access, is much less likely to care 
>> about "From: Q@nowhere"'s offensive post than the @mit.edu folks 
>> would have been back in the day.
>>
>> And, of course, joe random stalker has a much harder time tracking 
>> down "Q@nowhere"'s real life identity and location than he does in 
>> tracking down the same for john.smith.iii@mit.edu.
> 
> Makes a lot of sense.  I also think that a lot of (well some) amateur 
> usenet providers have a strong sense of freedom of speech, so it 
> would take a lot for them to even bother.

Yes, and a lot of that goes with "usenet" being their primary 
provision.

@mit.edu provided Usenet as but a small extra benefit by being a 
mit.edu student/alum/employee.  Making mit.edu look bad meant they 
could cut you off usenet, and not even notice the change for the rest 
of mit.edu.

But a "usenet" provider, the only thing they provide is "usenet", and 
esp. if it is a paid provider, it is against their business interest to 
cut off user X (meaning less revenue) just because random fool on 
usenet was triggered.

Most of them have very simple rules: no SPAMming, no SWATting, and then 
that's about it.  So unless the offense is directly against their 
simple rules, or just clearly well beyond anything anyone should 
expect, most of the "usenet only" providers will simply tell the 
'sensitive' to go pound sand (and, preferably, to "grow a thicker 
skin").