OT: Mutual blocking = Kinder gentler Internet...

[John Doe]

Elon Musk taking over Twitter will be just another brand of censorship.
BTW... About a week ago, for some strange reason YouTube went ballistic with
shadow banning. Apparently they are trying to cut down on replies to
original posts (similar to what Amazon did with product reviews), in the
most unusual way.

As long as there are censors, there will be corruption. Letting people
decide for themselves who they communicate/associate with on the Internet is
the only way around it. That\'s what mutual blocking does.

Mutual blocking just means preventing the other person from interacting with
your content (posts/uploads), and vice versa.

The timing could be done programmatically... Perhaps a subsequent block
would be for a much greater time (1st time = 1 week, 2nd time = 1 month,
etc).

For threaded forums resembling USENET, the block could be implemented for
all replies.

Whether the block means the blocked person (and you) cannot see
posts/uploads is another question. Unless the forum is closed to people who
are only signed in (maybe that doesn\'t work), a person can see another
person\'s content when they are signed out. But maybe there is no reason to
prevent them from seeing content even when they are signed in, just prevent
them from interacting with it.

Perhaps mutual blocking causes a greater load on the server. It also means
freedom of speech. But I wouldn\'t hold my breath for the overlords to give
up their power of censorship. Not talking about law enforcement.

 

[bitrex]

On 4/26/2022 3:36 AM, John Doe wrote:

Elon Musk taking over Twitter will be just another brand of censorship.
BTW... About a week ago, for some strange reason YouTube went ballistic with
shadow banning. Apparently they are trying to cut down on replies to
original posts (similar to what Amazon did with product reviews), in the
most unusual way.

As long as there are censors, there will be corruption. Letting people
decide for themselves who they communicate/associate with on the Internet is
the only way around it. That\'s what mutual blocking does.

Mutual blocking just means preventing the other person from interacting with
your content (posts/uploads), and vice versa.

The timing could be done programmatically... Perhaps a subsequent block
would be for a much greater time (1st time = 1 week, 2nd time = 1 month,
etc).

For threaded forums resembling USENET, the block could be implemented for
all replies.

Whether the block means the blocked person (and you) cannot see
posts/uploads is another question. Unless the forum is closed to people who
are only signed in (maybe that doesn\'t work), a person can see another
person\'s content when they are signed out. But maybe there is no reason to
prevent them from seeing content even when they are signed in, just prevent
them from interacting with it.

Perhaps mutual blocking causes a greater load on the server. It also means
freedom of speech. But I wouldn\'t hold my breath for the overlords to give
up their power of censorship. Not talking about law enforcement.

You need to get a life besides harassing people in YouTube comment
sections, lol

 

[server]

On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 08:57:11 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 4/26/2022 3:36 AM, John Doe wrote:
Elon Musk taking over Twitter will be just another brand of censorship.
BTW... About a week ago, for some strange reason YouTube went ballistic with
shadow banning. Apparently they are trying to cut down on replies to
original posts (similar to what Amazon did with product reviews), in the
most unusual way.

As long as there are censors, there will be corruption. Letting people
decide for themselves who they communicate/associate with on the Internet is
the only way around it. That\'s what mutual blocking does.

Mutual blocking just means preventing the other person from interacting with
your content (posts/uploads), and vice versa.

The timing could be done programmatically... Perhaps a subsequent block
would be for a much greater time (1st time = 1 week, 2nd time = 1 month,
etc).

For threaded forums resembling USENET, the block could be implemented for
all replies.

Whether the block means the blocked person (and you) cannot see
posts/uploads is another question. Unless the forum is closed to people who
are only signed in (maybe that doesn\'t work), a person can see another
person\'s content when they are signed out. But maybe there is no reason to
prevent them from seeing content even when they are signed in, just prevent
them from interacting with it.

Perhaps mutual blocking causes a greater load on the server. It also means
freedom of speech. But I wouldn\'t hold my breath for the overlords to give
up their power of censorship. Not talking about law enforcement.

You need to get a life besides harassing people in YouTube comment
sections, lol

Why would anyone use twitter?

And why do people still say lol ? If your post isn\'t inherently
funny, it\'s like the old comedy shows where a sign told the studio
audience to laugh.



--

Anybody can count to one.

- Robert Widlar

 

[bitrex]

On 4/26/2022 10:15 AM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 08:57:11 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 4/26/2022 3:36 AM, John Doe wrote:
Elon Musk taking over Twitter will be just another brand of censorship.
BTW... About a week ago, for some strange reason YouTube went ballistic with
shadow banning. Apparently they are trying to cut down on replies to
original posts (similar to what Amazon did with product reviews), in the
most unusual way.

As long as there are censors, there will be corruption. Letting people
decide for themselves who they communicate/associate with on the Internet is
the only way around it. That\'s what mutual blocking does.

Mutual blocking just means preventing the other person from interacting with
your content (posts/uploads), and vice versa.

The timing could be done programmatically... Perhaps a subsequent block
would be for a much greater time (1st time = 1 week, 2nd time = 1 month,
etc).

For threaded forums resembling USENET, the block could be implemented for
all replies.

Whether the block means the blocked person (and you) cannot see
posts/uploads is another question. Unless the forum is closed to people who
are only signed in (maybe that doesn\'t work), a person can see another
person\'s content when they are signed out. But maybe there is no reason to
prevent them from seeing content even when they are signed in, just prevent
them from interacting with it.

Perhaps mutual blocking causes a greater load on the server. It also means
freedom of speech. But I wouldn\'t hold my breath for the overlords to give
up their power of censorship. Not talking about law enforcement.

You need to get a life besides harassing people in YouTube comment
sections, lol

Why would anyone use twitter?

And why do people still say lol ? If your post isn\'t inherently
funny, it\'s like the old comedy shows where a sign told the studio
audience to laugh.

My post wasn\'t the funny one.

 

[Phil Hobbs]

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 08:57:11 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 4/26/2022 3:36 AM, John Doe wrote:
Elon Musk taking over Twitter will be just another brand of censorship.
BTW... About a week ago, for some strange reason YouTube went ballistic with
shadow banning. Apparently they are trying to cut down on replies to
original posts (similar to what Amazon did with product reviews), in the
most unusual way.

As long as there are censors, there will be corruption. Letting people
decide for themselves who they communicate/associate with on the Internet is
the only way around it. That\'s what mutual blocking does.

Mutual blocking just means preventing the other person from interacting with
your content (posts/uploads), and vice versa.

The timing could be done programmatically... Perhaps a subsequent block
would be for a much greater time (1st time = 1 week, 2nd time = 1 month,
etc).

For threaded forums resembling USENET, the block could be implemented for
all replies.

Whether the block means the blocked person (and you) cannot see
posts/uploads is another question. Unless the forum is closed to people who
are only signed in (maybe that doesn\'t work), a person can see another
person\'s content when they are signed out. But maybe there is no reason to
prevent them from seeing content even when they are signed in, just prevent
them from interacting with it.

Perhaps mutual blocking causes a greater load on the server. It also means
freedom of speech. But I wouldn\'t hold my breath for the overlords to give
up their power of censorship. Not talking about law enforcement.

You need to get a life besides harassing people in YouTube comment
sections, lol

Why would anyone use twitter?

And why do people still say lol ? If your post isn\'t inherently
funny, it\'s like the old comedy shows where a sign told the studio
audience to laugh.

Don\'t knock it--\'lol\' is a public service announcement, which translates
roughly as \"please ignore me.\"

It\'s a bit like those misogynistic tee-shirts worn by some of the young
male tourist demographic in Miami Beach, Key West, Wildwood NJ, and
especially NOLA.

My elder daughter used to live in the Vieux Carre\', and she said it was
very considerate of those guys, warning the women off like
that--otherwise they might make the mistake of talking with them.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

 

[server]

On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 11:08:44 -0400, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 08:57:11 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 4/26/2022 3:36 AM, John Doe wrote:
Elon Musk taking over Twitter will be just another brand of censorship.
BTW... About a week ago, for some strange reason YouTube went ballistic with
shadow banning. Apparently they are trying to cut down on replies to
original posts (similar to what Amazon did with product reviews), in the
most unusual way.

As long as there are censors, there will be corruption. Letting people
decide for themselves who they communicate/associate with on the Internet is
the only way around it. That\'s what mutual blocking does.

Mutual blocking just means preventing the other person from interacting with
your content (posts/uploads), and vice versa.

The timing could be done programmatically... Perhaps a subsequent block
would be for a much greater time (1st time = 1 week, 2nd time = 1 month,
etc).

For threaded forums resembling USENET, the block could be implemented for
all replies.

Whether the block means the blocked person (and you) cannot see
posts/uploads is another question. Unless the forum is closed to people who
are only signed in (maybe that doesn\'t work), a person can see another
person\'s content when they are signed out. But maybe there is no reason to
prevent them from seeing content even when they are signed in, just prevent
them from interacting with it.

Perhaps mutual blocking causes a greater load on the server. It also means
freedom of speech. But I wouldn\'t hold my breath for the overlords to give
up their power of censorship. Not talking about law enforcement.

You need to get a life besides harassing people in YouTube comment
sections, lol

Why would anyone use twitter?

And why do people still say lol ? If your post isn\'t inherently
funny, it\'s like the old comedy shows where a sign told the studio
audience to laugh.

Don\'t knock it--\'lol\' is a public service announcement, which translates
roughly as \"please ignore me.\"

Oh. Thanks.

It\'s a bit like those misogynistic tee-shirts worn by some of the young
male tourist demographic in Miami Beach, Key West, Wildwood NJ, and
especially NOLA.

My elder daughter used to live in the Vieux Carre\', and she said it was
very considerate of those guys, warning the women off like
that--otherwise they might make the mistake of talking with them.

NOLA is a magnet for southern yahoos who want to drink and sin. They
usually manage to drink, at least. The locals are far more elegant.



--

Anybody can count to one.

- Robert Widlar

 

[whit3rd]

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 12:36:49 AM UTC-7, John Doe wrote:
> Elon Musk taking over Twitter will be just another brand of censorship.

Yeah, maybe. Thing is, Twitter can\'t be changed and still be viable, it\'ll just
become less interesting if the \'brand of censorship\' so dictates. I\'m uninterested already.

> As long as there are censors, there will be corruption.

Censors were a class of Roman judge. The existence of those
judges was a response to perceived \'corruption\', so the existence
of censors is always associated with corruption: we create such
authority to deal with such a problem. Censors are the
effect, corruption of some sort is the cause.

The idea (I\'m blaming Newt Gingrich for this one) of a post-truth world
creates a well-trod path in some discussion venues, and Twitter deserves
some controversy. A few billion dollars passing from one hand to another
says how much, in a very emphatic manner.

 

[bitrex]

On 4/26/2022 11:08 AM, Phil Hobbs wrote:

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 08:57:11 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 4/26/2022 3:36 AM, John Doe wrote:
Elon Musk taking over Twitter will be just another brand of censorship.
BTW... About a week ago, for some strange reason YouTube went
ballistic with
shadow banning. Apparently they are trying to cut down on replies to
original posts (similar to what Amazon did with product reviews), in
the
most unusual way.

As long as there are censors, there will be corruption. Letting people
decide for themselves who they communicate/associate with on the
Internet is
the only way around it. That\'s what mutual blocking does.

Mutual blocking just means preventing the other person from
interacting with
your content (posts/uploads), and vice versa.

The timing could be done programmatically... Perhaps a subsequent block
would be for a much greater time (1st time = 1 week, 2nd time = 1
month,
etc).

For threaded forums resembling USENET, the block could be
implemented for
all replies.

Whether the block means the blocked person (and you) cannot see
posts/uploads is another question. Unless the forum is closed to
people who
are only signed in (maybe that doesn\'t work), a person can see another
person\'s content when they are signed out. But maybe there is no
reason to
prevent them from seeing content even when they are signed in, just
prevent
them from interacting with it.

Perhaps mutual blocking causes a greater load on the server. It also
means
freedom of speech. But I wouldn\'t hold my breath for the overlords
to give
up their power of censorship. Not talking about law enforcement.

You need to get a life besides harassing people in YouTube comment
sections, lol

Why would anyone use twitter?

And why do people still say   lol  ? If your post isn\'t inherently
funny, it\'s like the old comedy shows where a sign told the studio
audience to laugh.

Don\'t knock it--\'lol\' is a public service announcement, which translates
roughly as \"please ignore me.\"

It\'s a bit like those misogynistic tee-shirts worn by some of the young
male tourist demographic in Miami Beach, Key West, Wildwood NJ, and
especially NOLA.

My elder daughter used to live in the Vieux Carre\', and she said it was
very considerate of those guys, warning the women off like
that--otherwise they might make the mistake of talking with them.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

Some women believe there are two types of men, misogynists who are
honest about it and misogynists who aren\'t, and tend to date the former
type of man because like when your order lunch at Burger King you know
well enough going in the food isn\'t going to be spectacular, but it\'s
very likely to at least be consistent.

 

[Clifford Heath]

On 27/4/22 5:39 am, whit3rd wrote:

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 12:36:49 AM UTC-7, John Doe wrote:
Elon Musk taking over Twitter will be just another brand of censorship.

Yeah, maybe. Thing is, Twitter can\'t be changed and still be viable, it\'ll just
become less interesting if the \'brand of censorship\' so dictates. I\'m uninterested already.

As long as there are censors, there will be corruption.

Censors were a class of Roman judge. The existence of those
judges was a response to perceived \'corruption\',

Evidence for this please?

The role of censor was established to put power over the census firmly
into the hands of patricians (the ruling class) and prevent plebians
getting control over it. I fail to see how that could prevent
corruption, or be seen as a response to corruption.

so the existence
of censors is always associated with corruption: we create such
authority to deal with such a problem. Censors are the
effect, corruption of some sort is the cause.

Ordinary people could be censored for refusing to marry and breed, or
for an ugly divorce, for neglecting your fields, for spoiling or abusing
your children, for disobeying your parents, for acting in a theatre
(disreputable conduct!) or for spending an extravagant amount of
money... such as Elon just has (this last one happened many times!)

None of those things has much to do with corruption, though they could
disqualify a person from becoming a senator or remove their right to
vote. The role of the censor in selling the right to collect tax seems
rather likely to create corruption, not prevent it.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_censor>

Clifford Heath

 

[John Doe]

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

John Doe wrote:

Elon Musk taking over Twitter will be just another brand of
censorship. BTW... About a week ago, for some strange reason YouTube
went ballistic with shadow banning. Apparently they are trying to cut
down on replies to original posts (similar to what Amazon did with
product reviews), in the most unusual way.

As long as there are censors, there will be corruption. Letting people
decide for themselves who they communicate/associate with on the
Internet is the only way around it. That\'s what mutual blocking does.

Mutual blocking just means preventing the other person from
interacting with your content (posts/uploads), and vice versa.

The timing could be done programmatically... Perhaps a subsequent
block would be for a much greater time (1st time = 1 week, 2nd time =
1 month, etc).

For threaded forums resembling USENET, the block could be implemented
for all replies.

Whether the block means the blocked person (and you) cannot see
posts/uploads is another question. Unless the forum is closed to
people who are only signed in (maybe that doesn\'t work), a person can
see another person\'s content when they are signed out. But maybe there
is no reason to prevent them from seeing content even when they are
signed in, just prevent them from interacting with it.

Perhaps mutual blocking causes a greater load on the server. It also
means freedom of speech. But I wouldn\'t hold my breath for the
overlords to give up their power of censorship. Not talking about law
enforcement.

Why would anyone use twitter?

I don\'t, except to see what others have done on it.

Mutual blocking can be used for almost every forum on the Internet, not
just Twitter. It would be great for USENET. It would eliminate trolling
and stalking, without any need for censors. Grown-ups should be allowed to
determine who they associate with.

 

[John Doe]

bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

John Doe wrote:

Elon Musk taking over Twitter will be just another brand of censorship.
BTW... About a week ago, for some strange reason YouTube went ballistic
with shadow banning. Apparently they are trying to cut down on replies
to original posts (similar to what Amazon did with product reviews), in
the most unusual way.

As long as there are censors, there will be corruption. Letting people
decide for themselves who they communicate/associate with on the
Internet is the only way around it. That\'s what mutual blocking does.

Mutual blocking just means preventing the other person from interacting
with your content (posts/uploads), and vice versa.

The timing could be done programmatically... Perhaps a subsequent block
would be for a much greater time (1st time = 1 week, 2nd time = 1
month, etc).

For threaded forums resembling USENET, the block could be implemented
for all replies.

Whether the block means the blocked person (and you) cannot see
posts/uploads is another question. Unless the forum is closed to people
who are only signed in (maybe that doesn\'t work), a person can see
another person\'s content when they are signed out. But maybe there is
no reason to prevent them from seeing content even when they are signed
in, just prevent them from interacting with it.

Perhaps mutual blocking causes a greater load on the server. It also
means freedom of speech. But I wouldn\'t hold my breath for the
overlords to give up their power of censorship. Not talking about law
enforcement.

You need to get a life besides harassing people in YouTube comment
sections, lol

\"There\'s someone in my head, but it\'s not me...\"

 

[Edward Hernandez]

The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:

> The troll doesn\'t even know how to format a USENET post...

And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:

The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
CLUELESS...

And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has itself posted yet another
incorrectly formatted USENET posting on Thu, 28 Apr 2022 06:47:30 -0000
(UTC) in message-id <t4dda1$er5$2@dont-email.me>.

Further, Troll Doe stated the following in message-id
<svsh05$lbh$5@dont-email.me> posted Fri, 4 Mar 2022 08:01:09 -0000
(UTC):

Compared to other regulars, Bozo contributes practically nothing
except insults to this group.

Yet, since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) Troll Doe\'s post ratio
to USENET (**) has been 57.2% of its posts contributing \"nothing except
insults\" to USENET.

** Since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) Troll Doe has posted at
least 1153 articles to USENET. Of which 135 have been pure insults and
524 have been Troll Doe \"troll format\" postings.

This posting is a public service announcement for any google groups
readers who happen by to point out that the John Doe troll does not even
follow the rules it uses to troll other posters.

JRKCCE1OkWc5

 

[John Doe]

Eddie wants so badly to nym-shift. That\'s a no-no here, Eddie!

Eddie has never posted anything NORMAL except when it got a spanking...

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.electronics.repair/c/MesPLcGU4BE

See also...
John Doe <always.look@message.header> (astraweb)
Peter Weiner <dtgamer99@gmail.com>
Edward H. <dtgamer99@gmail.com>
Edward Hernandez <dtgamer99@gmail.com>

Eddie is an example for all newbies. Don\'t get spanked!

Spanked Eddie...

--
Edward Hernandez <dtgamer99@gmail.com> wrote:

Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!paganini.bofh.team!news.nntp4.net!news.uzoreto.com!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed8.news.xs4all.nl!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc2.netnews.com!peer01.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer03.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx01.ams4.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Edward Hernandez <dtgamer99@gmail.com
Subject: Re: OT: Mutual blocking = Kinder gentler Internet
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design,free.spam
References: <t487dv$mdj$3@dont-email.me> <6cd34c31-7a8a-42de-8d1e-aec3c8711e85n@googlegroups.com> <bb1f8769-3475-4161-a5cf-b9e4df48ecd3n@googlegroups.com> <t4dda1$er5$2@dont-email.me
Lines: 37
Message-ID: <wOqaK.2034763$8b1.949129@usenetxs.com
X-Complaints-To: https://www.astraweb.com/aup
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2022 06:50:04 UTC
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2022 06:50:04 GMT
X-Received-Bytes: 2078
Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:667621 free.spam:18060

The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:

The troll doesn\'t even know how to format a USENET post...

And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:

The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
CLUELESS...

And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has itself posted yet another
incorrectly formatted USENET posting on Thu, 28 Apr 2022 06:47:30 -0000
(UTC) in message-id <t4dda1$er5$2@dont-email.me>.

Further, Troll Doe stated the following in message-id
svsh05$lbh$5@dont-email.me> posted Fri, 4 Mar 2022 08:01:09 -0000
(UTC):

Compared to other regulars, Bozo contributes practically nothing
except insults to this group.

Yet, since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) Troll Doe\'s post ratio
to USENET (**) has been 57.2% of its posts contributing \"nothing except
insults\" to USENET.

** Since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) Troll Doe has posted at
least 1153 articles to USENET. Of which 135 have been pure insults and
524 have been Troll Doe \"troll format\" postings.

This posting is a public service announcement for any google groups
readers who happen by to point out that the John Doe troll does not even
follow the rules it uses to troll other posters.

JRKCCE1OkWc5

 

[Edward Hernandez]

The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:

> The troll doesn\'t even know how to format a USENET post...

And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:

The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
CLUELESS...

And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has continued to post incorrectly
formatted USENET articles that are devoid of content (latest example on
Thu, 28 Apr 2022 06:57:38 -0000 (UTC) in message-id
<t4ddt2$er5$3@dont-email.me>).

NOBODY likes the John Doe troll\'s contentless spam.

Further, John Doe stated the following in message-id
<svsh05$lbh$5@dont-email.me> posted Fri, 4 Mar 2022 08:01:09 -0000
(UTC):

Compared to other regulars, Bozo contributes practically nothing
except insults to this group.

Yet, since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) John Doe\'s post ratio to
USENET (**) has been 57.2% of its posts contributing \"nothing except
insults\" to USENET.

** Since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) John Doe has posted at
least 1155 articles to USENET. Of which 135 have been pure insults and
526 have been John Doe \"troll format\" postings.

This posting is a public service announcement for any google groups
readers who happen by to point out that the John Doe troll does not even
follow the rules it uses to troll other posters.

dFKjEftxpPUz

 

[Edward Hernandez]

The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:

> The troll doesn\'t even know how to format a USENET post...

And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:

The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
CLUELESS...

And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has itself posted yet another
incorrectly formatted USENET posting on Fri, 29 Apr 2022 01:02:31 -0000
(UTC) in message-id <t4fdf6$su5$1@dont-email.me>.

Further, Troll Doe stated the following in message-id
<svsh05$lbh$5@dont-email.me> posted Fri, 4 Mar 2022 08:01:09 -0000
(UTC):

Compared to other regulars, Bozo contributes practically nothing
except insults to this group.

Yet, since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) Troll Doe\'s post ratio
to USENET (**) has been 57.4% of its posts contributing \"nothing except
insults\" to USENET.

** Since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) Troll Doe has posted at
least 1157 articles to USENET. Of which 136 have been pure insults and
528 have been Troll Doe \"troll format\" postings.

ou0YM9VpaL8d

 

[John Doe]

Eddie wants so badly to nym-shift. That\'s a no-no here, Eddie!

Eddie has never posted anything NORMAL except when it got a spanking...

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.electronics.repair/c/MesPLcGU4BE

See also...
John Doe <always.look@message.header> (astraweb)
Peter Weiner <dtgamer99@gmail.com>
Edward H. <dtgamer99@gmail.com>
Edward Hernandez <dtgamer99@gmail.com>

Eddie is an example for all newbies. Don\'t get spanked!

Spanked Eddie...

--
Edward Hernandez <dtgamer99@gmail.com> wrote:

Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.mixmin.net!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!peer02.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer02.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx06.ams4.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Edward Hernandez <dtgamer99@gmail.com
Subject: Re: OT: Mutual blocking = Kinder gentler Internet
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design,free.spam
References: <t487dv$mdj$3@dont-email.me> <6cd34c31-7a8a-42de-8d1e-aec3c8711e85n@googlegroups.com> <bb1f8769-3475-4161-a5cf-b9e4df48ecd3n@googlegroups.com> <789c0c43-5460-420e-9936-edbeecd0e699n@googlegroups.com> <t4fdf6$su5$1@dont-email.me
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <mVGaK.2134782$X81.1351930@usenetxs.com
X-Complaints-To: https://www.astraweb.com/aup
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 01:09:38 UTC
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 01:09:38 GMT
X-Received-Bytes: 1941
Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:667683 free.spam:18064

The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:

The troll doesn\'t even know how to format a USENET post...

And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:

The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
CLUELESS...

And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has itself posted yet another
incorrectly formatted USENET posting on Fri, 29 Apr 2022 01:02:31 -0000
(UTC) in message-id <t4fdf6$su5$1@dont-email.me>.

Further, Troll Doe stated the following in message-id
svsh05$lbh$5@dont-email.me> posted Fri, 4 Mar 2022 08:01:09 -0000
(UTC):

Compared to other regulars, Bozo contributes practically nothing
except insults to this group.

Yet, since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) Troll Doe\'s post ratio
to USENET (**) has been 57.4% of its posts contributing \"nothing except
insults\" to USENET.

** Since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) Troll Doe has posted at
least 1157 articles to USENET. Of which 136 have been pure insults and
528 have been Troll Doe \"troll format\" postings.

ou0YM9VpaL8d

 

[Edward Hernandez]

The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:

> The troll doesn\'t even know how to format a USENET post...

And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:

The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
CLUELESS...

And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has itself posted yet another
incorrectly formatted USENET posting on Fri, 29 Apr 2022 02:07:01 -0000
(UTC) in message-id <t4fh84$p0c$1@dont-email.me>.

Further, Troll Doe stated the following in message-id
<svsh05$lbh$5@dont-email.me> posted Fri, 4 Mar 2022 08:01:09 -0000
(UTC):

Compared to other regulars, Bozo contributes practically nothing
except insults to this group.

Yet, since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) Troll Doe\'s post ratio
to USENET (**) has been 57.5% of its posts contributing \"nothing except
insults\" to USENET.

** Since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) Troll Doe has posted at
least 1159 articles to USENET. Of which 136 have been pure insults and
530 have been Troll Doe \"troll format\" postings.

This posting is a public service announcement for any google groups
readers who happen by to point out that the John Doe troll does not even
follow the rules it uses to troll other posters.

7xNnKoU9olyP

 

[John Doe]

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.




--

Original post:

Elon Musk taking over Twitter will be just another brand of censorship.
BTW... About a week ago, for some strange reason YouTube went ballistic with
shadow banning. Apparently they are trying to cut down on replies to
original posts (similar to what Amazon did with product reviews), in the
most unusual way.

As long as there are censors, there will be corruption. Letting people
decide for themselves who they communicate/associate with on the Internet is
the only way around it. That\'s what mutual blocking does.

Mutual blocking just means preventing the other person from interacting with
your content (posts/uploads), and vice versa.

The timing could be done programmatically... Perhaps a subsequent block
would be for a much greater time (1st time = 1 week, 2nd time = 1 month,
etc).

For threaded forums resembling USENET, the block could be implemented for
all replies.

Whether the block means the blocked person (and you) cannot see
posts/uploads is another question. Unless the forum is closed to people who
are only signed in (maybe that doesn\'t work), a person can see another
person\'s content when they are signed out. But maybe there is no reason to
prevent them from seeing content even when they are signed in, just prevent
them from interacting with it.

Perhaps mutual blocking causes a greater load on the server. It also means
freedom of speech. But I wouldn\'t hold my breath for the overlords to give
up their power of censorship. Not talking about law enforcement.

 

[whit3rd]

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\'.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:50:24 AM UTC+10, 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. The same goes for you with respect
to their posts. Therefore, there is nothing unfair about it.

So you have to set up a list of people who can\'t post replies to a thread you started. That is censorship.

> Mutual blocking does not prevent you from saying anything.

It just stops you from posting your content in thread where it might be relevant.

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.

\"Alongside\" means in a different thread.

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.

There aren\'t any now. If you make a habit to upsetting people your information provider may cancel your internet access but that\'s more dealing with a persistent nuisance than censorship.You aren\'t being censored on what you say, but rather because you upset too many people in the way you habitually say it.

>As long as they don\'t get in trouble with law enforcement, they can say any the fuck thing they want. Why not?

Your performance here is a pretty good example of \"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.

It\'s setting up a echo-chamber of like-minded people who are convinced that they are right, and don\'t want to hear any criticism.

There are loads of moderated groups where John Doe could get what he\'s asking for, so he doesn\'t need mutual blocking, but he wants to keep on posting here, where there is an audience, through not one that always finds his ideas sympathetic, so he fantasies that he could change the rules in way that let him keep the sympathetic part of his audience here - Flyguy and Cursitor Doom - while stopping everybody else from pointing out that he\'s a right-wing idiot.

> Original post..

<snipped>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney