3 ms·

Reddit is not an alternative as it is heavily censored (same as HN really) and centralized. Usenet still exists and discussions still take place there. Being a

Reddit is not an alternative as it is heavily censored (same as HN really) and centralized. Usenet still exists and discussions still take place there. Being a decentralized protocol, censoring (or scoring, killfiling) someone is left up to you. And this is the major advantage of Usenet. You can’t be silenced by a mob, which leads to freedom of expression and disparate views. Sure there is spam and flames, but one gets all the tools one needs to deal with that. There is no committee deciding what posts should be kept or deleted. We are a lot worse off today than we used to be, largely because of the centralization of discourse.

Supermancho 4y ago
> Sure there is spam and flames, but one gets all the tools one needs to deal with that. Asking the user to implement measures and keep them up-to-date is detrimental to adoption from users that are aware of curated sources. Pretending this is net-neutral is misleading. > We are a lot worse off today than we used to be, largely because of the centralization of discourse. Usenet was centralized in practice, so I think you mean something else. It's not clear how much the curation of content stifles discourse when creating new forums is essentially free. Either way, I would tend to disagree that curated is worse. Everyone curates to some degree, even when they are free and open discussions.
- midislack 4y ago
  Usenet is just better in this respect. Nobody says anybody has to use it.
cbm-vic-20 4y ago
Usenet was not driven by advertising, so it wasn't constantly pushing "click bait" and other unsolicited nefarious content onto its users. You could spew all the dumb misinformation you wanted to in your newsgroup, and it wouldn't leak into the more sane newsgroups (unless someone crossposted).
- NoGravitas 4y ago
  Unless you mentioned Turkey, in which case your group would suddenly see massive cross-posting by Serdar Argic.

Supermancho 4y ago

> Sure there is spam and flames, but one gets all the tools one needs to deal with that. Asking the user to implement measures and keep them up-to-date is detrimental to adoption from users that are aware of curated sources. Pretending this is net-neutral is misleading. > We are a lot worse off today than we used to be, largely because of the centralization of discourse. Usenet was centralized in practice, so I think you mean something else. It's not clear how much the curation of content stifles discourse when creating new forums is essentially free. Either way, I would tend to disagree that curated is worse. Everyone curates to some degree, even when they are free and open discussions.

midislack 4y ago
Usenet is just better in this respect. Nobody says anybody has to use it.

cbm-vic-20 4y ago

Usenet was not driven by advertising, so it wasn't constantly pushing "click bait" and other unsolicited nefarious content onto its users. You could spew all the dumb misinformation you wanted to in your newsgroup, and it wouldn't leak into the more sane newsgroups (unless someone crossposted).

NoGravitas 4y ago
Unless you mentioned Turkey, in which case your group would suddenly see massive cross-posting by Serdar Argic.