OT: Mutual blocking = Kinder gentler Internet...

[server]

John Dope <always.look@message.header> wrote in news:t6ei7q$tb0$5@dont-
email.me:

A simple implementation of mutual blocking for USENET...

You are an idiot. \"blocking\" as you define it is censorship.

That is why Usenet uses filters at the READER level. No imposition
on a person posting.

The onus is on you, John Dope. But you are not alone. Usenet is
fully fool of idiots like you wanting others to be blocked from using
the forum.

S e d does not have a more stupid poster than John Dope.

 

[John Doe]

Gibberish, as usual...


whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sunday, May 22, 2022 at 4:50:24 PM UTC-7, John Doe wrote:
A simple implementation of mutual blocking for USENET...

No one who is blocked can reply to your post, or in a new thread you
start, or in a thread branch you start....

So, not USENET unmoderated, but an ownership model for each thread or
subthread? Not really workable, unless you have a server at each node
that can become a subthread owner. Basically, it\'s a fantasy that you
can enter a public forum and tell the public, in detail, who can
participate. The word that matters here, is \'public\'.

 

[John Doe]

Bill \"Bozo\" Sloman is scared to death that people might be able to decide for
themselves who they associate with on the Internet.

A simple implementation of mutual blocking for USENET...

No one who is blocked can reply to your post, or in a new thread you
start, or in a thread branch you start. The same goes for you with respect
to their posts. Therefore, there is nothing unfair about it.

Mutual blocking does not prevent you from saying anything. You can always
start a new thread. You can always post alongside of someone who has
blocked you, unless you are mutually blocked by the person they replied
to, too.

In fact, mutual blocking would allow people who enjoy talking about vulgar
things like urine to say anything they feel like saying. There would be no
censors to stop them. None at all. As long as they don\'t get in trouble
with law enforcement, they can say any the fuck thing they want. Why not?

Mutual blocking would allow for the most civilized, or at least organized,
conversations imaginable. No biased censors choosing for us what we can
say and who we associate with. It would be done by intelligent people
choosing for themselves who they want to associate with.

 

[John Doe]

Mutual blocking would give everybody the exact same opportunity to express
themselves. Readers can decide for themselves who they want to read and
who they don\'t want to read. It\'s nothing to do with censorship. It\'s more
like self-defense.

The cannibal left strongly object to self-defense, therefore they object
to mutual blocking.

Always Wrong threatens to kill people who disagree with it, and here it\'s
pretending to be against \"censorship\"...

DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

John Dope <always.look@message.header> wrote in news:t6ei7q$tb0$5@dont-
email.me:

A simple implementation of mutual blocking for USENET...


You are an idiot. \"blocking\" as you define it is censorship.

That is why Usenet uses filters at the READER level. No imposition
on a person posting.

The onus is on you, John Dope. But you are not alone. Usenet is
fully fool of idiots like you wanting others to be blocked from using
the forum.

S e d does not have a more stupid poster than John Dope.

 

[whit3rd]

On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:11:18 AM UTC-7, John Doe wrote:

whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sunday, May 22, 2022 at 4:50:24 PM UTC-7, John Doe wrote:
A simple implementation of mutual blocking for USENET...

No one who is blocked can reply to your post, or in a new thread you
start, or in a thread branch you start....

So, not USENET unmoderated, but an ownership model for each thread or
subthread? Not really workable, unless you have a server at each node
that can become a subthread owner.

Gibberish, as usual...

Not gibberish, English. An owner\'s block list has to be served to any and all
subsequent nodes which might add blocklists... and the subsequent
blocklists also have to be served out. The technical details are
impractical in a large-scale public forum.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 2:18:00 AM UTC+10, John Doe wrote:
> Bill Sloman is scared to death that people might be able to decide for themselves who they associate with on the Internet.

John Doe is deluding himself. He hasn\'t got any kind of practicable scheme, and is too dim to realise it. Who is going to be \"scared to death\" of one of his fatuous fantasies.

A simple implementation of mutual blocking for USENET...

No one who is blocked can reply to your post, or in a new thread you
start, or in a thread branch you start. The same goes for you with respect
to their posts. Therefore, there is nothing unfair about it.

So how does the mechanism controlling which replies get posted know who they need to block?

If it is simple, you should be able to tell us how.

Mutual blocking does not prevent you from saying anything. You can always
start a new thread. You can always post alongside of someone who has
blocked you, unless you are mutually blocked by the person they replied
to, too.

\"Mutual blocking\" is a John Doe fantasy. He can tell us how he\'d like it to work, but he has no idea how anybody could make it work.

He seems to want to re-invent the moderated user group - which already exists, but he doesn\'t fancy posting to.

<snip>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[server]

John Dope <always.look@message.header> wrote in
news:t6j8eo$61v$1@dont-email.me:

Of course there are at least a few useful USENET servers. But the
number of USENET servers is irrelevant. I posted an EXAMPLE.

The number is not irrelevant. Your retarded block data would have to
propagate through ALL Usenet servers worldwide. The block data would be
larger than the posted texts, you retarded twerp.

So, your PATHETIC \"example\" is an example of just how syupid you are
about it.

 

[John Doe]

Always Wrong being wrong as always...

DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

John Dope <always.look@message.header> wrote in
news:t6j8eo$61v$1@dont-email.me:

Of course there are at least a few useful USENET servers. But the
number of USENET servers is irrelevant. I posted an EXAMPLE.


The number is not irrelevant. Your retarded block data would have to
propagate through ALL Usenet servers worldwide. The block data would be
larger than the posted texts, you retarded twerp.

So, your PATHETIC \"example\" is an example of just how syupid you are
about it.

 

[whit3rd]

On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 12:16:35 AM UTC-7, John Doe wrote:

Bill \"Bozo\" Sloman is a textbook cannibal leftist...

.... this, in a thread about a kinder, gentler internet?

I detect hypocrisy.

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2022-05-24, John Doe <always.look@message.header> wrote:
> No point in discussing anything with Bill \"Bozo\" Sloman,

He made some good points and you have no answer to them, I see why
you want this fantasy, but desire can\'t make the impossible practical.
Usenet just doesn\'t swing that way. Pick a closed infrastructure
like parler or something.

--
Jasen.

 

[John Doe]

When in Rome...


whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 12:16:35 AM UTC-7, John Doe wrote:
Bill \"Bozo\" Sloman is a textbook cannibal leftist...


... this, in a thread about a kinder, gentler internet?

I detect hypocrisy.

 

[John Doe]

Jasen Betts <usenet@revmaps.no-ip.org> wrote:

> He made some good points

It\'s called \"feigning\".

> and you have no answer to them,

Actually I do, and have.

I see why you want this fantasy, but desire can\'t make the impossible
practical.

All it would require is sharing logged-in users\' block requests. Highly
unlikely, but anything is possible.

Usenet just doesn\'t swing that way. Pick a closed infrastructure like
parler or something.

I and maybe others have tried. One forum was receptive, another forum
wasn\'t (with an illogical justification). Don\'t know whether it was
implemented, haven\'t been back to that forum, doubt it.

I was simply providing an example of how it would FUNCTION. Since USENET
posts are propagated around the Internet, group members are not the only
people who see these posts. A Google search sometimes finds USENET posts.

It might be wishful thinking. Anyone in control is unlikely to give up their
power of censorship. But you never know.

 

[server]

John Dope <always.look@message.header> wrote in news:t6maua$1r5$2@dont-
email.me:

I and maybe others have tried. One forum was receptive, another forum
wasn\'t (with an illogical justification).

Go to reddit, you fucking retard.

Top rated, high technology, even post suspension penalties and bans
by group founders if they don\'t like you or your mouth.

Even there, however, it is individual filter based. The onus is on
you to filter those you wish to not see.

Group founders and reddit managers, however can shitcan your ass in
various ways and for various reasons, including an asshole complaining
instead of using his or her or it\'s filter.

John Dope is a Usenet Dip Shit.

 

[server]

John Dope <always.look@message.header> wrote in news:t6maua$1r5$2@dont-
email.me:

> A Google search sometimes finds USENET posts.

You really are an idiot... you know... always wrong.

Google IS a Usenet service provider, dumbass. They have some of the
biggest severs in the network. HUGE banks of hard drives in racks.

It is called Google Groups, and sed is one of them, but so are 40,000
others.

John Dope showing us that the moniker he always uses on me, fits him
far batter.

 

[John Doe]

Always Wrong seems very upset about recent developments...

 

[John Doe]

Mutual blocking is not about \"filter[ing] those you wish to not see\".

Always Wrong, the reactionary foulmouthed group idiot, has no idea what
mutual blocking is about, but as usual the ignorant poster pretends to be
an expert...


DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

John Dope <always.look@message.header> wrote in news:t6maua$1r5$2@dont-
email.me:

I and maybe others have tried. One forum was receptive, another forum
wasn\'t (with an illogical justification).

Go to reddit, you fucking retard.

Top rated, high technology, even post suspension penalties and bans
by group founders if they don\'t like you or your mouth.

Even there, however, it is individual filter based. The onus is on
you to filter those you wish to not see.

Group founders and reddit managers, however can shitcan your ass in
various ways and for various reasons, including an asshole complaining
instead of using his or her or it\'s filter.

John Dope is a Usenet Dip Shit.

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2022-05-23, John Doe <always.look@message.header> wrote:

Mutual blocking would give everybody the exact same opportunity to express
themselves. Readers can decide for themselves who they want to read and
who they don\'t want to read. It\'s nothing to do with censorship. It\'s more
like self-defense.

So I set up two!!! anonymous accounts \"silent reader\" and \"dope reposter\"

Silent reader reads your posts and forwards them to \"dope reposter\"
dope reposter has blocked you. it reposts your posts so the voices you
dislike can read them. They can then respond to your silly ideas
and you can\'t prevent them, or post your zero content responses..

If you\'re worried that dope resposter is violting your copyright, thats
easily fixed too, just augment the reader software so that it can use
a different account to read than it uses to post. Then every uses can
have their own silent reader account to see your posts, and their
responses will almost certainly be considrerd \"fair use\".


You\'re going to have to try harder if you want to turn usenet into a
safe space for youe idiocies, snowflake.

--
Jasen.

 

[John Doe]

Problem is, cannibal leftists object to self-defense.
Just like this cannibal leftist objects to defending our own border.
That is not coincidence.


whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:11:18 AM UTC-7, John Doe wrote:

whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sunday, May 22, 2022 at 4:50:24 PM UTC-7, John Doe wrote:
A simple implementation of mutual blocking for USENET...

No one who is blocked can reply to your post, or in a new thread you
start, or in a thread branch you start....

So, not USENET unmoderated, but an ownership model for each thread or
subthread? Not really workable, unless you have a server at each node
that can become a subthread owner.

Gibberish, as usual...

Not gibberish, English. An owner\'s block list has to be served to any and all
subsequent nodes which might add blocklists... and the subsequent
blocklists also have to be served out. The technical details are
impractical in a large-scale public forum.

 

[John Doe]

Whether someone is anonymous is irrelevant, unless they are trying to sell
something. Being anonymous and having multiple personas are two different
things. Protection against multiple accounts, that is nym-shifting, is
important. How that\'s done is another issue. I have been flushing out
nym-shifters here on USENET for decades. Maybe if Twitter/others provided
header information, those users could do that too.

Mutual blocking is for nuking stalkers and trolls, like Bill \"Bozo\" Sloman
and Edward \"Porn Sucking\" Hernandez.

Mutual blocking has nothing to do with preventing others from
seeing/reading your posts. See the prior description.

Whether posts are seen may as well be up to users since they can be seen
when a user is signed out.

There might be an option like \"hide blocked posts\" with the sub option \"if
blocked posts are not hidden, mark them read\". Most people would at least
want blocked posts marked read. But since blocked post(er)s would not be in
the way, like so much misplaced garbage, they wouldn\'t necessarily need to
be hidden...

--

Jasen Betts <usenet@revmaps.no-ip.org> wrote:

On 2022-05-23, John Doe <always.look@message.header> wrote:
Mutual blocking would give everybody the exact same opportunity to express
themselves. Readers can decide for themselves who they want to read and
who they don\'t want to read. It\'s nothing to do with censorship. It\'s more
like self-defense.

So I set up two!!! anonymous accounts \"silent reader\" and \"dope reposter\"

Silent reader reads your posts and forwards them to \"dope reposter\"
dope reposter has blocked you. it reposts your posts so the voices you
dislike can read them. They can then respond to your silly ideas
and you can\'t prevent them, or post your zero content responses..

If you\'re worried that dope resposter is violting your copyright, thats
easily fixed too, just augment the reader software so that it can use
a different account to read than it uses to post. Then every uses can
have their own silent reader account to see your posts, and their
responses will almost certainly be considrerd \"fair use\".


You\'re going to have to try harder if you want to turn usenet into a
safe space for youe idiocies, snowflake.

 

[John Doe]

It\'s not complex. The server keeps track of who is blocked. If Jack and
Jill are blocked (meaning Jack or Jill has blocked the other), then
neither Jack nor Jill can reply to the other (in the other\'s thread or in
the other\'s thread branch).

Why is \"an echo-chamber of like-minded people\" a problem? There\'s plenty
of room for everybody on the Internet. Since when is like-mindedness a
problem? Isn\'t like-mindedness what groups are about?

Most people don\'t mind a little bit of trolling. It\'s just when somebody
is CONSTANTLY getting in the way.

Mutual blocking is for nuking stalkers and trolls, like Bill \"Bozo\" Sloman
and Edward \"Porn Sucking\" Hernandez.

I like this argument.

It\'s not a coincidence that cannibal leftists object to mutual blocking.
Mutual blocking is a defensive apparatus. Cannibal leftists object to
self-defense.

Mutual blocking has nothing to do with preventing others from
seeing/reading your posts. See the prior description.

Whether posts are seen (not to be confused with the ability to reply) may
as well be up to users since they can be seen when a user is signed out.

There might be an option like \"hide blocked posts\" with the sub option \"if
blocked posts are not hidden, mark them read\". Most people would at least
want blocked posts marked read. But since blocked post(er)s would not be
in the way, like so much misplaced garbage, they wouldn\'t necessarily need
to be hidden.