On 3/21/18 5:25 PM, Richard Owlett wrote:
On 03/21/2018 03:38 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
On 3/21/18 12:32 PM, Richard Owlett wrote:
On 03/21/2018 11:05 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
On 3/21/18 11:48 AM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
On 21/03/18 01:00 AM, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
My problem with "social networks" is that they're monopolies.
Imagine popping down to the local pub for a pint and a bit of
conversation, only to find that it's part of a huge chain run by a
transnational conglomerate. I much prefer the Usenet model,
although web sites that let you leave messages come pretty close.
What I don't like are those web sites that make you log in through
Facebook in order to post. Since I don't have a Facebook account
and never will, such sites will have to do without my pearls of
wisdom. :-)
Maybe we should move back to USENET. It worked pretty well, and
it's still going strong in some quarters.
*YES!* I use email and USENET only.
I attempted Facebook years ago. I set it up two have some family and
one friend set up as "friends". I was careful to *NOT* to specify
anything about where I lived. I was immediately spammed by
advertising geographically associated with my "friends". The current
fiasco with data mining private information says I was right.
Add some global identity & reputation management, and the ability
to set up lots of small newsgroups - and we'd have one hell of a
Facebook killer.
Free market does a pretty good job. I'm currently subscribed to >20
tech oriented mailing lists with few problems.
I was thinking of STANDARDS for identity management across USENET
sites, coupled with some access controls. Right now, one key limit
of USENET (well, NNTP) is that there are lots of ways of spoofing
identity on posts, and no way to really limit access on a per-group
basis. Email lists provide a lot more control. So does FaceBook.
(FYI: I currently HOST 20+ email lists - mostly community groups.
I'd love to run them as USENET groups, but - can't control membership.)
I'm a consumer not a provider, but I understood that "control
membership" was part of structure for a "moderated group".
Education cheerfully accepted ;}
Not really. Moderated meant that posts were filtered through one or
more moderators for approval. Now that provided (provides) some degree
of control over who can post, it says nothing about who can read
messages (account on a machine that subscribes to the newsgroup). It's
possible to rigidly control the machines that receive messages, and
potentially control accounts on those machines - but that's a
hard-to-implement approach. Now, if traffic were encrypted, and there
was an out-of-band key management system (e.g., something like Kerberos
or OAuth) - one could then apply global restrictions on who could
actually read traffic sent to a particular newsgroup.
Miles Fidelman
--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
