[HN Gopher] RIP Google Groups Dejanews.com Archive? ___________________________________________________________________ RIP Google Groups Dejanews.com Archive? Author : doener Score : 168 points Date : 2023-11-12 09:43 UTC (13 hours ago) (HTM) web link (dejanews.com) (TXT) w3m dump (dejanews.com) | fifticon wrote: | and google continues their efforts to convince me to never rely | on one of their products :-/ | rjgonza wrote: | How come, is dejanews.com being gone due to some failure of/at | Google groups? | tonyedgecombe wrote: | Google owned dejanews.com | atomicfiredoll wrote: | In the last year or so they sold Domains from underneath | without warning. They also apparently changed the settings on | two older Gmail accounts to make them inaccessible. | | I kept those accounts around because they had a maiden name and | other services tied to them, I know for a fact at least one of | them has an alternative contact email. There's no information | on recovery and no way to contact anybody. | | Maybe it's just timing, but, it feels like in the last year or | so, things have especially been going downhill with them and | there have been more Google related fires to fight. | | As a result, I've moved my team off Workspaces and I'm winding | down that Google org. And no, Google, I'm not signing up for | YouTube Premium. I previously thought things were decoupled | decently from Google and enough fallbacks were in place, but | now I see the company as a clear risk and am doing everything I | can to avoid it. | yetanotherloss wrote: | Out of curiosity what are you moving to? Ended up moving to | gsuite because it was relatively stable some years ago until | the domains thing but hasn't boiled over into a problem I | needed to deal with imminently. | jsnell wrote: | _Were_ you actually affected by this somehow? | | Because, you know, this page had been nothing but a redirect to | Google Groups for 22 years. That seems plenty of time for | people to update their bookmarks. | | If you weren't affected, this doesn't really sound like an | argument made in good faith. | ketchupdog wrote: | Fortunately, the person you were responding to wasn't making | a bad faith argument, or even arguing at all, but was rather | expressing a common opinion based on anticipating entirely | predictable behavior. | jsnell wrote: | Why would that be any better? You still seem to be saying | that comment had nothing to do with the submission, and is | something commonly on HN. In fact so often that one can | easily predict that it'll be spammed to any post about | Google. Something predictable and boring is not the good | kind of HN comment. | | It's an even worse comment _when nothing was killed in this | instance_ as far as I can tell. The headline is just a | total fabrication. Nothing had been hosted on that URL for | 22 years except a 302 redirect. The archive is just as | functional (or non-functional) as it had been for the last | two decades. But maybe I 'm wrong about that. Maybe | something did use to work for the OP and was broken | recently. | squarefoot wrote: | Regarding Usenet, I was convinced to never trust Google anymore | the day they removed the discussion search filter from the | search engine, which happened roughly 10 years ago. Before that | date one could search for people discussing products or | services, while after that day one would be inundated by a pile | of pages _selling_ those products or services. They first | removed the filter from the main page, but kept it reachable | through the search URL, then completely removed the | functionality, although people were already complaining. It | wouldn 't cost them a dime to keep it; that was a deliberate | move to direct users searches from community forums to | commercial pages. | | https://www.seroundtable.com/google-search-filters-gone-1799... | thevagrant wrote: | Is there any alternative archive? | layer8 wrote: | https://www.usenetarchives.com/ | golem14 wrote: | Yeah, but it's really slow, and you can't actually download a | copy of the data. | bobsmooth wrote: | I can't imagine being a historian in 100 trying to piece together | history from a largely forgotten internet. Whole forums that | shaped me as a person have been lost to time. Archive.org helps, | and there are individuals with site rips on aging hard drives, | but I'd bet more information has been lost in the past 10 years | than all of human history has created before it. | mcherm wrote: | _Every_ single conversation before 1859 between _any_ 2 | individuals who were not literate has been lost. | | While I decry the unnecessary loss of this record (which Google | maliciously chose not to offer to archivists, knowing full well | that archivists would choose to preserve them if given the | opportunity), we are actually living in the BEST recorded era | of history, because only now have certain kinds of preservation | become possible. | tekchip wrote: | Could you expand some more on this? Short of active curation | of small segments of online, deemed important, snapshots kept | alive by constant maintenance (I wonder what the internet | archives drive failure rates look like), there isn't a | digital medium readily available (to the masses) yet that can | survive 100+ years while also storing a meaningful amount of | information. There are research efforts like Microsofts | crystal thing. But so far no real winners. | Kye wrote: | Not the person you replied to, but: Documents rarely | survive just by being physically durable. They survive | first by people making an effort to preserve them. Deja | News might be the most complete archive, but it's not the | only effort to preserve Usenet. | | For example: https://archive.org/details/archiveteam- | googlegroups | | It's a roundabout way to do it, but probably includes | enough context on what's missing for a historian to dig | into other archives to find it. History is like RAID: given | enough parity information, you can reconstruct much of | what's missing. That's how we know so many lost texts | exist, and occasionally find them: stuff we _do_ have | references them and sometimes offers clues on where to find | it. | | Digital information in particular benefits from getting | smaller relative to available storage size. Running a | Usenet server used to be a huge financial burden. Now I | could hold most of it on a keychain. This makes replicating | it across the planet to resist the chaos of human nature | easier. It might die in one place, but it's also somewhere | else. It would take a world-ending event to wipe out | anything you might find in /r/DataHoarder. | doubloon wrote: | this is why i disagree with mcherm. we live in an anti- | intellectual age where people seek to destroy | information. Aaron Swartz and Alexandra Elbakyan are | treated like criminals, while billionaires who abuse the | legal system to silence critics are treated like | intellectual heroes. | mcherm wrote: | Active curation IS an excellent way to maintain | information. Drive failure rates are the kind of thing that | archivists can easily measure (and appropriate amounts of | redundant storage can nearly eliminate data loss). | prepend wrote: | And isn't present day so much better? | | I don't understand your comment. Should we not mourn death of | 1,000 because many others died, routinely, in the past? | | This material is easy to maintain, and presents a new wealth | of noise and communication the world has never known. | | Dejanews was pretty stable until google bought them and them | destroyed them. Not cool, but it's a free world. | mcherm wrote: | > I don't understand your comment. | | It was in response to the parent comment stating this: | | > I'd bet more information has been lost in the past 10 | years than all of human history has created before it | | I believe that more information is being preserved for | historians now than ever before, and yet even so we should | decry senseless destruction of early internet history. | hotnfresh wrote: | Imagine trying to figure out whether the 2047-earliest- | reliably-attested-timestamp-date gigabytes-of-text-large | newsgroup backup you have is genuine, or has been subtly AI- | altered to change history to be more favorable to [some group] | mynameishere wrote: | _trying to piece together history from a largely forgotten | internet_ | | "Eureka! Here's what some nerd thought about Star Trek!" | qingcharles wrote: | The entirety of the largest social network of its time was lost | when the single last MySpace hard drive was erased o_O | oofoe wrote: | Was there not a huge archeological effort by people all over the | place to resurrect old backups and older servers so that the news | archive could be complete? Lovingly retrieved, curated and | donated because DejaNews was going to be "forever". | | I realize that breathless reviews of "Small Wonder" and 40 line | Boba Fett .sigs may not be the wisdom of the ages, but it's still | an important part of the history of the Internet. | dn3500 wrote: | Yes, the UTZOO Wiseman Usenet Archive. It was on IA for a while | but has been forced underground for legal reasons. You can | still find copies pretty easily. | | https://archive.org/details/utzoo-wiseman-usenet-archive | rwmj wrote: | Is there a Torrent of that somewhere so we can keep it alive? | logifail wrote: | There's a .torrent file listed under | | https://archive.org/download/utzoo-wiseman-usenet-archive/ | | but I've not [yet] looked at it... | IAmNotACellist wrote: | Unfortunately that only contains the index | ('listing.txt') and not the content | golem14 wrote: | """ In 2020 after sustained legal demands requesting a | set of messages within the Usenet Archive be redacted, | and to avoid further costs and accusations of | manipulation should those demands be met, the archive has | been removed from this URL and is not currently | accessible to the public. | | Included in this item is a file listing and the md5 sums | of the removed files, for the use of others in verifying | they have original materials. """ | qingcharles wrote: | Magnet link here.. I just tested it and downloaded the | whole 1.6GB in about 2 seconds: | | https://www.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/comments/i2btuu/utzoo_ | a... | qingcharles wrote: | Here's a search engine for the archive: | | https://altavista.superglobalmegacorp.com/altavista | generationP wrote: | Do we know what messages were the bone of contention? Don't | tell me this isn't common knowledge among dozens of people at | least... | qingcharles wrote: | https://old.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/comments/i2btuu/utzoo_ | a... | generationP wrote: | Yep, but that's begging the question :) | Shorel wrote: | Which legal reasons? | | Is there a monopoly over Usenet archives, or is it someone | arguing about their own posts only? | | I would believe it is wrong for someone to have copyright | over what's basically distributed public forums. | qingcharles wrote: | https://old.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/comments/i2btuu/utzoo_ | a... | Shorel wrote: | This is sad. | | Also, that's how the law works :/ | qingcharles wrote: | Reason for removal in case anyone was wondering: | | https://old.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/comments/i2btuu/utzoo_a. | .. | crazygringo wrote: | I'm fascinated by the idea that you could try to take down | your own Usenet posts based on the idea that you have | copyright over them. | | Surely there must be some law or legal precedent that in | the act of posting to a public forum, you inherently | "license" that content to be freely reproduced, at a | minimum for non-commercial purposes as part of distribution | in the context of the forum? (But nobody can correct your | posts and sell them as a book though.) | | I'm wondering if IA gave up because they thought they would | lose, or it would be too expensive to go to court in the | first place. | londons_explore wrote: | Most interpretations of the GDPR in Europe allow anyone | to remove/anonymize anything they have written and | published online. | rikroots wrote: | > I'm fascinated by the idea that you could try to take | down your own Usenet posts based on the idea that you | have copyright over them. | | One does not simply walk into the Poetry newsgroups. | Their strophes are guarded by more than just X-No-Archive | message headers. There is evil there that does not sleep, | and the grey-locked troll hunters are ever watchful ... | qingcharles wrote: | I actually gave this advice to a woman recently who was | trying to get her images removed from Reddit. They | weren't sexual enough for Reddit to remove the images her | ex was posting, so I told her to just DMCA them all. Not | ideal, but there you have it. | altdataseller wrote: | I remember the good ole days when I discovered I could actually | talk with like minded fans about anime in alt.fan.dragonball | (AFD). | | monkeigh, tazer, Naa, MiraiMatt, JimboChiu, MattBlue. I still | remember all their screen names | OfSanguineFire wrote: | What I miss from those early days is the complete lack of | profiles. People really were just screen names, there were no | user profiles. Often one didn't learn more about one's fellows | unless one arranged to meet up in real life (which was a thing | back then). When people could not insist on a particular | demographic identity or political wing, no one was looking for | personal validation and discussion remained limited to the | subject of the fora. Consequently, ideological battle was | limited, and while flame wars were common, they usually | involved nerd minutiae instead of society-wide polemics. | | Compare this to later social media, where it has been taken to | extremes: I've seen Mastodon users whose profiles are a long | list of their gender identity, sexual preference, furriness, | autism or mental afflictions (officially diagnosed or self- | diagnosed), favored political party, and COVID masking status, | and in discussion of any topic we are supposed to consider all | this. | aaomidi wrote: | > When people could not insist on a particular demographic | identity or political wing | | I'm not sure if your memory is playing tricks on you or what, | but politics has basically always been a part of these forums | once the internet shed its "nerd" status. | | Heck, extremist politics found a safe place for itself in | many of internets early forums. | OfSanguineFire wrote: | The politics I remember from the early internet was | idealism about alternative approaches, like libertarianism | or communism of whatever stripe. Such internet-nerd | politics were usually divorced from what was actually going | on in mainstream politics, and therefore there wasn't the | exhausting, unescapable partisan squabble as found on | social media today. | aaomidi wrote: | Those circles still exist. | OfSanguineFire wrote: | Yes and no. Yes in the sense that such fora are out | there. But a person becoming fascinated by computers and | getting on the internet, will no longer encounter those | fora as the default experience, unlike in the days of | Usenet or BBSs. Moreover, post-2005, the software running | phpBB-type fora usually borrowed features from social | media. | | (And "No" in the sense that, as one still reading various | fora offering pre-social-media interfaces, there is no | escaping that the participants are dwindling and graying. | Moreover, the very thing driving people to hang around on | unfashionable fora is an eccentricity that is often full- | blown mental illness. Once forum activity has become | dominated by a few outright cranks, you can't expect | quality discussion.) | trackflak wrote: | If I open a forum and see it is Discourse, I immediately | close it. What was wrong with distinct boards and clear | categories? | | And you can leave your endless scrolling on facesbook | where it belongs. | 0xDEAFBEAD wrote: | Where? | 0xDEAFBEAD wrote: | I think you could argue that mainstream politics has | borrowed more from internet politics than vice versa. I | don't see Trump or Bernie getting nearly as much traction | without the internet. | | I'm very idealistic about alternative approaches, but in | a "let's experiment on a small scale" sense as opposed to | a "burn it all down" sense. I do wonder if widespread | discussion of radical alternatives contributed to a "burn | it all down" attitude. Yes, most real modern political | systems are a mess of historical contingencies, but maybe | democracy functions better if we ignore that and | encourage everyone to buy into the system anyways. I miss | the "Don't ask what your country can do for you, ask what | you can do for your country" attitude. | gregw2 wrote: | The heaviest posted (non-binary) newsgroups with the in | the late 90s were political, if I remember some analysis | I did back then correctly. Something.politics, | alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, etc | OfSanguineFire wrote: | Yes, by the late 1990s there was partisan American | political battle, but only if you went looking for it, on | the dedicated newsgroups you mention. If you did not | expressly subscribe to them, you generally did not see | those politics on sci.whatever, comp.lang.whatever, or | alt.music.yourfavoriteband. And you had no way of knowing | if your interlocutors held strident views about politics | or posted elsewhere on Usenet about politics. | gopher_space wrote: | The permanence of forum account names was important. You | developed an identity and a reputation that stuck with you. | The long profiles you mention could be seen as an attempt to | build identity in a more ephemeral environment. | WillPostForFood wrote: | People always were looking for some sort of profile to signal | who they were. With Usenet it was the signature block. | Intended as short contact blocks, they were often repurposed | into oversized sword wielding manifestos. | | https://www.lysator.liu.se/(v1)/etexts/iguide/chap4.bigsig.h. | .. | | Also .plan files! | shagie wrote: | Many of us had geek code ( | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geek_Code ) attached to our sig | files. -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- | Version: 3.12 GCS d- s+:+ a++ C++ U? P++ L+ E--- N M++ 5++ | e++ h+ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ | | And it can go on from there to some rather elaborate ones ( | https://www.joereiss.net/geek/geek.html ) - depends on how | much you're interested in putting in there. | wolfendin wrote: | I was just thinking about Jim a few weeks ago, for the obvious | reason. | altdataseller wrote: | You were thinking about JimboChiu? Why? | m0d0nne11 wrote: | USENET did, obviously, have a lot of garbage but it was | manageable, contained boggling amounts of valuable info and | nobody (yet) "owned" it. Now, with The Great Enshittification of | the Internet nearly complete, USENET's loss is just that much | more painful because it could have been prevented. | LightBug1 wrote: | The End of History? ... | raxi wrote: | It is down for many years already and no one spotted. | jl6 wrote: | Did something get announced? The search interface at | groups.google.com still seems to work. | | (Well, it works as well as its modern incarnation ever did. It's | been some time since there was a way to cleanly browse a | newsgroup using Google Groups). | layer8 wrote: | I'm a bit confused. According to the Wayback Machine, | dejanews.com already redirected to groups.google.com for many | years, similar to how www.dejanews.com still does. So they just | dropped the redirect from the plain domain without "www."? | grepfru_it wrote: | The domain apex has always been a problem for hosting | companies. Since the apex domain is usually overloaded (TXT SPF | MX records etc) it's very easy for the A record to be modified | or lost unintentionally. It's almost a breath of fresh air to | see such an old solved problem (you do run a cmdb right?) | appear again even if temporarily | jvolkman wrote: | Seems like the content is still there? Here's me getting smacked | down as a kid for asking for warez: | https://groups.google.com/g/alt.games.doom/c/RrzQBjHIa6k/m/Q... | godber wrote: | Haha, thanks for sharing! | sandyarmstrong wrote: | You are a brave soul. I can't bring myself to share my pathetic | early teenage exploits on Usenet. Hexen was awesome though. :-) | kstrauser wrote: | You should have replied that their sig was unnecessarily huge | and was clogging the servers more than you did. | | Most of what I know about online knife-fight arguing came from | Usenet. | jvolkman wrote: | If only I knew then what I know now... | okr wrote: | I would say it is not any different today. Just today you can | be blocked anytime and no one will notice. :) | d11z wrote: | Sometimes, not even you yourself notice. | epcoa wrote: | It might not be too late | 0xDEAFBEAD wrote: | I'd be curious to know how internet culture has changed, and | what has stayed the same, relative to the early usenet days | | I remember seeing this guide decades ago, but I can't say I | participated in the social scene it documents: | https://www.flamewarriorsguide.com/ | qingcharles wrote: | It was fine when forums were still a big thing, that wasn't | a bad transition. | | What I find now is that there is less community. Even | "social networks" like TikTok aren't really social, in that | nobody is doing much socializing. We're all just throwing | out witty little comments and leaving. | 0xDEAFBEAD wrote: | Yeah that sounds right to me. Even though use of the | internet has expanded a lot since I was a kid, I remember | making more genuine friends in the earlier days. | | My theory is that it has to do with the ubiquity of | feedback mechanisms. Likes, followers, upvotes, etc. It's | a never-ending popularity contest. We're now living this | Onion satire from 14 years ago: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFpK_r-jEXg | | The ubiquity of the "news feed" concept could also play a | role -- long-running discussions are now fairly | impossible. People who disagree just take potshots at | each other, instead of getting to the root of the | disagreement. | | It's a shame there's so much homogeneity across different | social sites. Wish people would experiment more. | qingcharles wrote: | That Onion was great, thank you. | | I love the Reddit format, I think for the most part it | works well in terms of commenting (same as HN), but the | problem is the "news feed" concept, like you say. A | Reddit post is only alive for a few hours before it drops | away never to return. | | At least on forums whenever there is a reply it bounces | back to the top and keeps topics alive. | pests wrote: | > I remember making more genuine friends in the earlier | days. | | I used to have friends I would meet in a random video | game or chat room and then communicate with them for | _years_ over AIM or IRQ or mIRC. In a lot of cases not | even knowing their real names. | | Reminds me of this old 1997 MMO released by Sony Online | Entertainment (and later reimplemented by KaZaA and Skype | co-author Priit Kasesalu) named Subspace (renamed | Continuum) I grew up playing. So anyways... | | 10 years ago or so everyone got added to a FB group and | suddenly everyone knew each others real names and faces. | It was a very strange feeling. | | Just some reminiscing. | jcpham2 wrote: | I still do but most of our interests shifted to finance | 0xDEAFBEAD wrote: | Another way to think about it is that "social" media may | call itself social, but it's actually more like broadcast | media in most ways. | trackflak wrote: | Bizarrely I find a certain notorious imageboard to be | much more sociable than anything that calls itself | 'social media'. Even though everyone is anonymous, I come | away feeling like it was more like a conversation with | randomers in a pub, only with more success than I'd have | in the namesake situation. | | I think the lack of any 'news feed' or forced revealing | of your identity makes it a much more social experience. | We're behind a screen talking nonsense and sometimes | saying horrible things to each other, but it is fun. | nurple wrote: | Heartily agree. I don't visit much anymore as I have a | tendency to overuse, but some of the most interesting, | real, and oddly respectful, conversations I've had in a | long time were on said board. | Stratoscope wrote: | Along similar lines, Season 1 Episode 7 of _The Orville_ | , "Majority Rule", had a similar theme. Summarized here | by ChatGPT who helped me remember which show this was: | | "In this episode, the crew visits a society where social | media influence and approval ratings dictate every aspect | of people's lives. Citizens can upvote or downvote each | other, and if someone's approval rating falls too low, | they face severe consequences. The episode explores | themes of social media, public opinion, and the potential | dangers of a society driven by constant judgment." | | Miss Chatty, as I affectionately call her, also mentioned | _Black Mirror_ Season 3 Episode 1, "Nosedive": | | "People in a society rate each other on a social media | platform, and these ratings have significant consequences | on their social status and privileges. The protagonist's | life unravels as her ratings start to plummet." | | And _Community_ Season 3 Episode 1 (a common theme | here?), "Biology 101": | | "The characters participate in a social experiment called | the 'MeowMeowBeenz' system. In this system, people can | rate each other from 1 to 5 'MeowMeowBeenz,' affecting | their social standing and privileges within the | community." | | https://chat.openai.com/share/d2ac7651-4ab3-4504-9369-7ea | 4db... | dylan604 wrote: | social media consumers is the a better description. | influencers peddle shite, and it is dutifully consumed by | the followers. we've all been co-opted into eating bowls | of shit and enjoying it without asking any questions. i | say all, but there's a few hold outs. | Kye wrote: | I went looking for this so many times, but couldn't | remember the name or enough details to search for or ask | about it. | 0xDEAFBEAD wrote: | Glad I could help. Guess I just lucked into remembering | the right keywords | skrebbel wrote: | Did someone send you Hexen though | jvolkman wrote: | I did get it eventually but I don't recall where. Possibly | the infamous Quake shareware CD. :) | qingcharles wrote: | Here's me arguing with Jez San (Star Fox) about polygons in | 1994. He eventually offered me an interview: | | https://groups.google.com/g/rec.games.programmer/c/j0CqgQSoV... | rosywoozlechan wrote: | > fully-asm coded polyfill (flat shaded) and it uses NO | variables, only registers | | As someone who writes small hobby OpenGL 4 games with zig for | fun and because I'm not using a game engine I think I'm doing | low level stuff, but this really appropriately puts what I'm | doing into perspective. This quote is pretty awesome. I love | how we got to where we are these days. Early game developers | were true pioneers and we owe you so much! | qingcharles wrote: | LOL. I was still in secondary school back then. It'd be | another 3 or 4 years before I became a game dev for real. | The same 3D engine I'm talking about there, I ported it to | DirectX and used its poly-fill for this game: | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2kdKB18c7I&t=332s | WillPostForFood wrote: | Were they really getting 16000 texture-mapped polys on a DX2? | qingcharles wrote: | We will never know. I think I was probably 16 at the time | there. With a lot of hindsight and watching some videos | lately about hacking the Mario 64 3D routines I wonder if | the techniques we thought were fast back then are outdated | now? | | There are better profiling tools available now. I might be | able to do it much better. Plus, not all registers are | equal on the 486. Using FS and GS to hold data might be | slower than pulling it from RAM. How much on chip cache | does a 486 have? I don't know. | jvolkman wrote: | Brian Hook was in there as well. Wasn't he at id at some | point? | | Also, lots of people on Netcom. That was my ISP as well | around that time and I still have their DNS server IPs | memorized. | shortformblog wrote: | This is my new favorite comment. Surfacing something this | cringe is truly magical. | nurple wrote: | I have to ask: were you using your dad's Usenet account? | jvolkman wrote: | Hah, yeah. Although I apparently figured out how to use my | own name a few days later at https://groups.google.com/g/alt. | games.doom/c/2d7DfaMPovU/m/M... | gjvc wrote: | we need usenet back | WillAdams wrote: | Yeah, the closest thing to it is Reddit, and that's nowhere | near egalitarian enough. | OfSanguineFire wrote: | Usenet was all about longform text. People posting to it were | seated comfortably at a chair and typing on a keyboard. | Reddit is today mainly browsed by people on their phones, a | medium that discourages longform text no matter how much | people claim to be just as proficient on a touchscreen | keyboard as a real one. Moreover, Reddit's redesign | discourages substantial discussion, and even if one chooses | to use old.reddit.com, you still suffer from the overall | culture of the site being set by the new interface. | crtasm wrote: | Nothing to stop a subreddit running a bot to enforce | minimum post length and detect obvious attempts at padding | to bypass it, I guess? The effects of the UI are still a | problem though as you say. | | I view reddit less as a site, more a collection of lots of | subs that vary a lot in how they feel. | ok123456 wrote: | How about forum software that enforces that top-level | comments must be at least 500 characters, and replies | need to be at least 140 characters? Also, enforce a max | thread depth of 7. Anything past that is usually | bickering. | OfSanguineFire wrote: | Mods on any decently popular subreddits will tell you | that they feel limited in what rules they can enforce. | Reddit users get used to the sitewide culture, so if they | come onto a subreddit and run up against strange rules, | they hassle the mods. I've seen whole mobs, drawing in | even the sub's regulars, harangue mods as "gatekeepers", | with few or none standing up for the traditional rules. | | Also, I'm not sure if it was true or a conspiracy theory, | but I recall once hearing that mods of the most popular | subs cannot institute any rules that would reduce | "engagement" (and thereby profit), as Reddit would then | replace them. | shagie wrote: | The infrastructure and software of usenet is still there. | | People tend not to be interested in using it in favor of easier | to consume content that provides an upvote dopamine hit with | it. | jbverschoor wrote: | Well, it's a great source to train your LLM. It makes a lot of | sense to hide it from competitors | alberth wrote: | It's been this way for 20+ years. | | > _Google Groups became operational in February 2001, following | Google 's acquisition of Deja's Usenet archive._ | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Groups | dragontamer wrote: | > The requested URL / was not found on this server. That's all | we know. | | This is the part people are talking about. | | This all could just be a weekend glitch that's fixed on Monday | or Tuesday this week. I wouldn't leap to the conclusion of this | title without an announcement from Google. | reidrac wrote: | Only mildly related but I'm using Eternal September to follow a | handful of newsgroups and the spam I see in those come from Gmail | accounts via Google Groups. | | I wonder of it would be better if Google was out of Usenet | completely instead of not completely caring. | shever73 wrote: | I use Eternal September too. I wish that there was another | archive of Usenet. Google's "stewardship" of it has been | predictably disastrous. | StableAlkyne wrote: | My conspiracy theory is that they bought it to kill Usenet. | Search is their business, and users going to Usenet (which | you can't exactly search without an archive) instead of a | forum on the web hurts business. | | So they bought DejaNews and slapped a deliberately bad UI | onto it. And as every ISP dropped Usenet, people were told | "Go to Google Groups to keep talking." | | And because the UX was outright worse than the newsreaders | they had been using (no killfiles, no moderation for spam, | etc), people left for forums. | Projectiboga wrote: | The ISPs all dropped USENET when NY AG Coumo strong armed | several ISPs to drop Usenet Binaries for the made up reason | of Child Porn. The tell was he wanted them to drop all | binaries not just the 'adult' ones. He was running for | Governor, which is why I felt it was a publicity stunt and | a favor to big media, who didn't want to litigate about | Usenet due to the complexity and the existing case law. | StableAlkyne wrote: | The worst part about the whole thing is they could have | just dropped the binary groups and kept the text groups. | By dropping all of Usenet, they killed most of the | discussion and effectively handed it to the binaries | users. In doing so, they created an environment where | most people using Usenet were doing it to pirate stuff, | and those users had already moved to private providers | who could afford the bandwidth. | | Nowadays all you get when you search for Usenet providers | are folks dedicated to binaries. Piracy won and smothered | out discussion in the process. Even the Usenet sub on | Reddit is just discussions that toe the line on Reddit's | piracy rules. | | The only text-only provider I'm still aware of is | Eternal-September. I've heard of SDF offering newsgroups | as well but I haven't looked into it. | floren wrote: | There are lots of small text-only providers, but they're | not widely known because they're small. ES is special | because they allow low-friction signups; others you will | mostly need to know the admin to get an account. | trackflak wrote: | That 'everyone online is a predator' act has been going | on for a while hasn't it? | | Its current snake head is the UK's online safety bill. | floren wrote: | I've configured my news server to just drop everything that | originated from Google Groups. | | It's been a big improvement. | willtemperley wrote: | Marl the Marginal User strikes again. | | https://nothinghuman.substack.com/p/the-tyranny-of-the-margi... | kevin_thibedeau wrote: | Gonna have to call foul on everyone not including an ObHack in | this thread. | brudgers wrote: | Cultural vandalism. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Groups#Google_Groups | WalterBright wrote: | NNTP still survives. The D language forums are based on NNTP. | It's nice to have forums that are text only (no emojis), no | signatures, no ads, no fat borders, etc. I also wrote an archiver | for it that creates static web pages out of the threads. | layer8 wrote: | How does text-only imply no emojis? | WalterBright wrote: | They don't get recognized and replaced with a cartoon image. | yason wrote: | Unicode has code points for emojis. You can just use those | and they will show up as images, given proper encoding such | as utf-8. | qu4z-2 wrote: | I suspect the lack of emoji support is not a technical | issue. | layer8 wrote: | It's not an NNTP limitation, in any case, which supports | arbitrary encodings in news postings. Not sure what WB is | referring to. | wolverine876 wrote: | Also nice for lightning responsiveness and threaded | conversations. It's as if News has everything I want in a forum | and nothing else. | zeruch wrote: | I still recall trying to recruit one of the dejanews SREs to come | work at my then employer (VA Linux) to now avail. A couple of | months later he was a Googler. | gandalfian wrote: | The terrible irony is now nobody reads Usenet because of the | spam. But people continue to endlessly automatically spam because | Usenet is picked up by web indexers like Google who read the spam | links. So Google dejanews has killed the very thing it valued. | The machines have taken over and pushed out the humans. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-11-12 23:00 UTC)