Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid>
Newsgroups: news.software.nntp
Subject: Re: Young people peering
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2024 16:30:08 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: the-candyden-of-code
Lines: 48
Message-ID: <v08nmg$1njn1$1@dont-email.me>
References: <uvgh5a$1d8l$10@gallifrey.nk.ca> <uvu0mb$325p1$1@dont-email.me>
 <uvu2kk$4e0$1@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net>
 <c433b7d454b6df388df6d6028084ac9b@www.novabbs.org>
 <v00uqn$325p1$6@dont-email.me> <v0134a$3q1fd$2@dont-email.me>
 <875xwbn9ec.fsf@hope.eyrie.org>
Injection-Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2024 18:30:08 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5e2a5cbffd9d77717898ac1f44c4bf45";
	logging-data="1822433"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/PHtVmvq/XUJ0DowRfxtfBwNSynbMAzxEyQ4ZR7yQQEA=="
User-Agent: slrn/pre1.0.4-9 (Linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:GgfEoOVzVdVWwGgEREcnjrJCzrs=
X-Face: b{dPmN&%4|lEo,wUO\"KLEOu5N_br(N2Yuc5/qcR5i>9-!^e\.Tw9?/m0}/~:UOM:Zf]%
 b+ V4R8q|QiU/R8\|G\WpC`-s?=)\fbtNc&=/a3a)r7xbRI]Vl)r<%PTriJ3pGpl_/B6!8pe\btzx
 `~R! r3.0#lHRE+^Gro0[cjsban'vZ#j7,?I/tHk{s=TFJ:H?~=]`O*~3ZX`qik`b:.gVIc-[$t/e
 ZrQsWJ >|l^I_[pbsIqwoz.WGA]<D
Bytes: 3958

Russ Allbery <eagle@eyrie.org> wrote at 19:04 this Saturday (GMT):
> Marco Moock <mm+usenet-es@dorfdsl.de> writes:
>> On 20.04.2024 um 17:42 Uhr The Bjornsdottirs - Lightning wrote:
>
>>> When I come across Usenet admins, they cannot clearly say that they
>>> will ban and filter anyone they come across committing harassment,
>>> nor that they will institute a code of conduct which is actively
>>> antifascist, because the values of the network are not actively
>>> antifascist and in fact tend towards calling antifascists whiners.
>
>> This is something every newsmaster can decide himself.
>
> Sort of.  The NNTP and netnews protocols have exceptionally poor support
> for moderation compared to just about any other message board software,
> since essentially everything else was designed after NNTP and netnews and
> learned from its shortcomings.
>
> You can insert an extremely heavy moderation step in front of all traffic
> (but only for private groups or if you can reach an agreement with your
> transitive peers), but the protocol is completely insecure, and while
> there are patchwork solutions to that, you have to implement them
> yourself.  Or you have to rely on filtering, which is a very poor
> moderation strategy that requires endless arms races with people trying to
> bypass it.
>
> And all of the more advanced tools available in newer protocols simply
> aren't there (for better or worse; Usenet people usually don't like most
> of these, but people running other types of message board systems use them
> heavily): migrating messages to different threads, closing threads, user
> authentication and all the things that come with that such as poster bans
> or pre-moderation for new users but not established users, etc.  About the
> only thing you can do is delete the message off your server after the
> fact, and the tools for doing that are very primitive.  You can simulate
> some of this by writing a whole pile of custom software that sits in the
> pre-moderation path, but now you've signed on for the project of writing a
> moderation system from scratch.  The protocol and existing software base
> are doing essentially nothing for you.
>
> A lot of people prefer the Usenet model for various reasons, and that's
> fine, that's something people can argue about.  But Usenet's moderation
> and filtering facilities are staggeringly primitive, and if those are a
> priority for you, Usenet is a bad technology choice and you should use
> something else.


Well said.
-- 
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom