Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Rich <rich@example.invalid>
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Note - ISP Screwed Up - Can WRITE But Not SEE
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2025 04:24:20 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <vn1p1k$2l472$3@dont-email.me>
References: <bNOdnaADoYK2HQ36nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@earthlink.com> <20250122210010.2353d60f@ryz.dorfdsl.de> <c96dnWLIkv08Fwz6nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@earthlink.com> <74ac8126-3732-0c2d-ef7e-87766df419ac@example.net> <vmtrde$1ll9u$23@dont-email.me> <aae6a8dd-fe2b-68ec-8627-c45b5da6959e@example.net> <8Yicnf7eGZv5rg76nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@earthlink.com> <93bf3323-a026-44f5-d841-4ce5a2a6c22b@example.net> <vn0sgi$2cs3n$2@dont-email.me> <023c6e24-b6bb-8d27-b4a2-47fc3c07affc@example.net>
Injection-Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2025 05:24:20 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c193d54e1ec2d9f9d63f4858590cfbf6";
	logging-data="2789602"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/omQGiRVOBmMvU7LqxQJY5"
User-Agent: tin/2.6.1-20211226 ("Convalmore") (Linux/5.15.139 (x86_64))
Cancel-Lock: sha1:suVN8+y4F8ElGZySXdFudMasqW4=
Bytes: 3077

D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> On Fri, 24 Jan 2025, Rich wrote:
> 
>> D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 24 Jan 2025, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>>>  Again though the "liability" issue for un-PC content.  It's sort of
>>>>  a prob in the USA but a much bigger prob in the EU and beyond.  As
>>>>  said, such a system needs to be located in a
>>>>  who-knows/cares-country where it's hard to get at legally.
>>>
>>> In europe I would not worry about it at all.
>>
>> Europe is, sadly, one place where if you are in the wrong locality, you
>> *very much* have to worry about it.
> 
> In which locality in europe would you have to worry about posts on usenet?

There are several for which I've seen recent articles on HN about their 
pushing the "big social platforms" [1] for ever varing amounts of 
censorship (notably, censoring "things they don't like").  I only 
tangentially read much of the linked articles (being in the US myself 
it did not impact me in any way) and did not bother to even commit to 
any short term memory the specific localities.  But it is not a far 
reach to go from "thou shal censor what I say to censor" to 
"thou shal do said censoring under penalty X in my new statute Y" (esp.  
if "big social platform" fail to bend over and take it).

The fact that Usenet is all but unknown today, save for us few 
die-hards, provides a large form of "protection" (that which is unknown 
to the enforcers goes unpunished).  At the same time, should a locality 
have a "site owner responsible for content X" statute, obscurity is not 
a blanket protection, it just reduces the risk of being noticed.  But, 
if noticed, then the punishment would show up.



[1] the meta/facebook's and twitter/x's and the like