Prev: Multiple default routes
Next: Belkin and wireless modem
From: Unruh on 12 Apr 2008 11:50
David Schwartz <davids(a)webmaster.com> writes:

>On Apr 11, 3:47 pm, Bit Twister <BitTwis...(a)mouse-potato.com> wrote:

>> You can take my word that Moe is pretty honest.

>I tend not to agree, at least not based on this comment:

>"NOTE: Posting from groups.google.com (or some web-forums)
>dramatically
>reduces the chance of your post being seen. Find a real news server."

And this is dishonest how? Many people have a news filter on google groups
since so much spam originates there, as he said. If your post is filtered
out, it is not seen. If it is not seen it is not answered.


>> For *me*, it would be a server who's abuse admin would terminate the
>> offender upon complaints and provide the ip of the poster in the
>> post header. That would allow me to also send abuse complaints
>> to poster's ISP to see if I could get his account terminated. :-)

>There are huge trade-offs between privacy, abuse handling, and the
>availability of human labor. I've seen google strike the balance wrong
>in each possible direction more than once.

>I've seen no credible evidence that there's this mass of intelligent
>people who killfile posts through google. I've been posting through
>google and other news servers for many, many years and have seen
>google's reach be precisely the same as everyone else's.

And anyone who sees the world differently than you do is dishonest?



>I'm not as quick to give up on the value of anonymous speech as you
>are, and if you make the administrative overhead of allowing anonymous
>speech too high, it will cease to exist. It's very hard for non-free
>services to offer anonymous speech because a lot of people have no
>anonymous way to pay.

But for some reason you do not believe that anonymous speech could be
misused to throw out garbage into newsgroups? Note the non-anonymity in
payment does not necessarily mean non-annonymity in posting.


>DS
From: Chris Davies on 12 Apr 2008 15:31
David Schwartz <davids(a)webmaster.com> wrote:
> I've been posting [...] for many, many years

I had a feeling your name was familiar.

Regards,
Chris
From: David Schwartz on 12 Apr 2008 16:37
On Apr 12, 8:50 am, Unruh <unruh-s...(a)physics.ubc.ca> wrote:

> David Schwartz <dav...(a)webmaster.com> writes:

> >On Apr 11, 3:47 pm, Bit Twister <BitTwis...(a)mouse-potato.com> wrote:

> >> You can take my word that Moe is pretty honest.

> >I tend not to agree, at least not based on this comment:

> >"NOTE: Posting from groups.google.com (or some web-forums)
> >dramatically
> >reduces the chance of your post being seen. Find a real news server."

> And this is dishonest how?

In that he was unable to back it up with *any* evidence at all. All he
did was repeat it, and that's all you've done.

> Many people have a news filter on google groups
> since so much spam originates there, as he said.

And there, you repeated it. How many is "many"?

> If your post is filtered
> out, it is not seen. If it is not seen it is not answered.

I have been posting from google for many years. I have never had a
post not answered. Never, ever. Perhaps my posts were seen by fewer
people, owing to the people who killfile google. But perhaps they were
seen by more, due to google's excellent propagation. I don't know. But
I don't pretend I do.

> >> For *me*, it would be a server who's abuse admin would terminate the
> >> offender upon complaints and provide the ip of the poster in the
> >> post header. That would allow me to also send abuse complaints
> >> to poster's ISP to see if I could get his account terminated. :-)

> >There are huge trade-offs between privacy, abuse handling, and the
> >availability of human labor. I've seen google strike the balance wrong
> >in each possible direction more than once.
> >I've seen no credible evidence that there's this mass of intelligent
> >people who killfile posts through google. I've been posting through
> >google and other news servers for many, many years and have seen
> >google's reach be precisely the same as everyone else's.

> And anyone who sees the world differently than you do is dishonest?

No, anyone who pretends that their own prejudices are fact, and when
called upon to defend it *repeats* the prejudices is dihonest. If Moe
has any evidence, let's see it. If not, his pretending that what he is
saying is an obvious, well-known fact is dishonest.

> >I'm not as quick to give up on the value of anonymous speech as you
> >are, and if you make the administrative overhead of allowing anonymous
> >speech too high, it will cease to exist. It's very hard for non-free
> >services to offer anonymous speech because a lot of people have no
> >anonymous way to pay.

> But for some reason you do not believe that anonymous speech could be
> misused to throw out garbage into newsgroups?

I do. I know it is. As I said, it's a complex trade off. I've seen
google get it wrong in all directions.

> Note the non-anonymity in
> payment does not necessarily mean non-annonymity in posting.

There are plenty of people in jail who would disagree with you. The
United States is not the whole planet.

DS
From: Moe Trin on 13 Apr 2008 00:26
On Sat, 12 Apr 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.os.linux.networking, in
article <a71fa1c9-5026-43c4-85ca-27c3f5074f5c(a)q10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
David Schwartz wrote:

NOTE: Posting from groups.google.com (or some web-forums) dramatically
reduces the chance of your post being seen. Find a real news server.

>No, I just can't leave prejudice like Moe's unanswered. It was Moe's
>choice to throw that in, not mine.

Actually, that NOTE gets automatically included when-ever I reply to
a google-poster.

>It's off-topic and, IMO, inappropriate. He has no evidence, it's his
>personal prejudice.

"I have no evidence" - Tell me - how many people responded to this
thread. How many of them stated that they filter googlegroups.com
in other news groups? How many stated they do not? Sorry David,
it's not a personal prejudice - it's a fact of life. You can deny it
as much as you want, and that makes no difference. Remember also that
those who filter googlegroups.com globally or filter it in this group
haven't see your post, although like me, they may see other people
responding to your posts.

>Again, what is Moe's evidence that this is true?

All right - what is YOUR evidence that it is not true?

>Or that a small number of especially vocal people must mean there's a
>silent majority?

"a small majority of especially vocal people who normally answer
questions. Those of us who do tend not to have time to waste on
spam. If you have plenty of time to read the spam AND answer technical
questions, more power to you. Why have I not seen this?

>I have been posting through google for *years* and have not seen this.

I guess because it's difficult to see what everyone is doing. You have
no evidence how many people are reading googleposts and not answering
them, any more than you have evidence that people are using killfiles
or score files or similar, and not seeing the posts.

>If all he has is anecdotal evidence, then my anecdotal evidence in the
>other direction is just as good as his.

As above - how many people responded to this thread?

>I have *never* seen any post go unanswered in this newsgroup, except
>where the post was so confused that I don't think any intelligent
>answer was possible.

My spool only has 6 days on it, and I'm filtering some spam off the
feed (or did you see someone respond to the googlespam for athletic
wear), and of the 98 articles in the spool (116 were offered, but 18
got killed), it see 17 subjects (16 if you ignore the stats file).
4 of them have no responses.

>How can you terminate the offender if you don't know who the offender
>is?

So you think the spammers are using a different IP address every time
they post their spam? I guess you don't bother to look at the
headers.

>The ability to get the offender terminated is good but anonymity
>is good too. You can't have 100% of both.

Yes, and luckily most of the anonymous posting services have obvious
consistencies in their headers so that people can killfile them. The
problem with such posting services is they are trivial to abuse, and
are often used abusively. Or do you feel that there is someone in a
police state who NEEDS to post to comp.os.linux.* without the
authorities knowing about it? Your argument is ludicrous. By the
way, is it true that all ISPs require a picture ID to get an account?
Yeah, right.

>Google's allowing anonymous speech is one of the reasons they have
>so much spam.

And you feel that everyone must view this spam? You think they don't
filter it off? Gee, that must reduce the chance of legitimate
posters using the spammy provider getting seen.

If google wanted to control the spam coming from their servers, they
could do so TRIVIALLY. Delay the post until it passes a spam filter.
If you think that hard, you haven't been using killfiles.

>And they will lose out on the value of the anonymous speech.

Oh, that's simply terrible.

Old guy
From: Dave Uhring on 13 Apr 2008 02:11
On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 23:26:11 -0500, Moe Trin wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Apr 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.os.linux.networking,
> in article
> <a71fa1c9-5026-43c4-85ca-27c3f5074f5c(a)q10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> David Schwartz wrote:

>>And they will lose out on the value of the anonymous speech.
>
> Oh, that's simply terrible.

The value of scoring googleposts at -9999 has just been proven. (S+N)/N
is really too low.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Multiple default routes
Next: Belkin and wireless modem