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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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..."

IEEE Bill strikes again - bill....@ieee.org wrote:
====================================
>
> > Elon Musk taking over Twitter will be just another brand of censorship.
>
> One has to wonder why John Doe would think that.

** Does he really have actual thoughts ?

> Musk was talking about freedom of speech, but it probably won't extend to
> giving Trump a platform from which he can encourage people to carry out a
> second Capitol invasion.

** IMO it probably will, cos he had every right to do that.

> Freedom of speech doesn't extend to giving known rabble-rousers any kind of pulpit.

** So why have demented fuckwits like YOU got one ?

>
> There are lots of different ways of exercising a corrupt influence.
> Censorship isn't so much about corruption as it is about some people thinking
> they know what's best for everybody else

** Mainly, it's what seems best for THEM.

Self interest = single greatest human motivator.

> Like John Doe thinking

** See above....

> John Doe doesn't want his posts to get comments from people who
> recognise that he is a malicious moron.
> One can understand why.

** Spoils his moronic fun.

> So if posts lies and slander about somebody, they can't react to it if you don't let them do so?
> Very kind and gentle to the slanderous liars.

** The right of reply to such abuse is universal in any * civilised* community.

Big shame the internet is like the Wild West.

> Happily, John Doe is a complete idiot, so he isn't describing any kind of scheme that could actually be implemented.

** Don't count on it....

....... Phil

Slander is dealt with by law enforcement. Nobody's gonna talk about Bozo anyway.

Any website that publishes anything has no "right of reply". Any comment sections are heavily censored. There is no such "right of reply" anywhere I know of except on lowly USENET where we must cope with trolls and stalkers.

Grown-ups should be allowed to determine who they associate with.

Blocked or not, one can certainly enjoy Phil's conversations. It's entertaining as watching The Fifth Element (1997) alien trying to keep it together in his human skin... :D

https://youtu.be/sFAPW3W2yMk?t=165 (~20 seconds)

--
Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote:

> X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:1807:b0:2f3:65a6:c100 with SMTP id t7-20020a05622a180700b002f365a6c100mr13659349qtc.412.1651122398128; Wed, 27 Apr 2022 22:06:38 -0700 (PDT)
> X-Received: by 2002:a25:7b84:0:b0:648:f212:1baf with SMTP id w126-20020a257b84000000b00648f2121bafmr3047052ybc.578.1651122397910; Wed, 27 Apr 2022 22:06:37 -0700 (PDT)
> Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
> Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
> Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2022 22:06:37 -0700 (PDT)
> In-Reply-To: <6cd34c31-7a8a-42de-8d1e-aec3c8711e85n@googlegroups.com>
> Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=220.240.30.109; posting-account=B_tJMAoAAAAmar-1r2H3x4CMhbFEou3n
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 220.240.30.109
> References: <t487dv$mdj$3@dont-email.me> <6cd34c31-7a8a-42de-8d1e-aec3c8711e85n@googlegroups.com>
> User-Agent: G2/1.0
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Message-ID: <bb1f8769-3475-4161-a5cf-b9e4df48ecd3n@googlegroups.com>
> Subject: Re: OT: Mutual blocking = Kinder gentler Internet
> From: Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com>
> Injection-Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2022 05:06:38 +0000
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> Lines: 53
> Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:667604
>
> IEEE Bill strikes again - bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> ====================================
>>
>> > Elon Musk taking over Twitter will be just another brand of censorship.
>>
>> One has to wonder why John Doe would think that.
>
> ** Does he really have actual thoughts ?
>
>> Musk was talking about freedom of speech, but it probably won't extend to
>> giving Trump a platform from which he can encourage people to carry out a
>> second Capitol invasion.
>
> ** IMO it probably will, cos he had every right to do that.
>
>> Freedom of speech doesn't extend to giving known rabble-rousers any kind of pulpit.
>
> ** So why have demented fuckwits like YOU got one ?
>
>>
>> There are lots of different ways of exercising a corrupt influence.
>> Censorship isn't so much about corruption as it is about some people thinking
>> they know what's best for everybody else
>
> ** Mainly, it's what seems best for THEM.
>
> Self interest = single greatest human motivator.
>
>
> > Like John Doe thinking
>
> ** See above....
>
>
>> John Doe doesn't want his posts to get comments from people who
>> recognise that he is a malicious moron.
>> One can understand why.
>
> ** Spoils his moronic fun.
>
>> So if posts lies and slander about somebody, they can't react to it if you don't let them do so?
>> Very kind and gentle to the slanderous liars.
>
> ** The right of reply to such abuse is universal in any * civilised* community.
>
> Big shame the internet is like the Wild West.
>
>
>> Happily, John Doe is a complete idiot, so he isn't describing any kind of scheme that could actually be implemented.
>
> ** Don't count on it....
>
>
> ...... Phil
>

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

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
>
>
>

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

John Dope = an utter FUCKWIT :
============================
> Slander is dealt with by law enforcement.

** No way, never has been you raving nut case.

>
> Any website that publishes anything has no "right of reply".

** 100% bullshit & drivel.

> There is no such "right of reply" anywhere I know of

** Any civilised newspaper, magazine or broadcast.

Applies only to the individual ( or business) slurred or slandered.

> Grown-ups should be allowed to determine who they associate with.

** That is what WE are currently doing to YOU !!!
ASSHOLE !!

==========================================
>
> > ** Does he really have actual thoughts ?
> >
> >> Musk was talking about freedom of speech, but it probably won't extend to
> >> giving Trump a platform from which he can encourage people to carry out a
> >> second Capitol invasion.
> >
> > ** IMO it probably will, cos he had every right to do that.
> >
> >> Freedom of speech doesn't extend to giving known rabble-rousers any kind of pulpit.
> >
> > ** So why have demented fuckwits like YOU got one ?
> >
> >>
> >> There are lots of different ways of exercising a corrupt influence.
> >> Censorship isn't so much about corruption as it is about some people thinking
> >> they know what's best for everybody else
> >
> > ** Mainly, it's what seems best for THEM.
> >
> > Self interest = single greatest human motivator.
> >
> >
> > > Like John Doe thinking
> >
> > ** See above....
> >
> >
> >> John Doe doesn't want his posts to get comments from people who
> >> recognise that he is a malicious moron.
> >> One can understand why.
> >
> > ** Spoils his moronic fun.
> >
> >> So if posts lies and slander about somebody, they can't react to it if you don't let them do so?
> >> Very kind and gentle to the slanderous liars.
> >
> > ** The right of reply to such abuse is universal in any * civilised* community.
> >
> > Big shame the internet is like the Wild West.
> >
> >
> >> Happily, John Doe is a complete idiot, so he isn't describing any kind of scheme that could actually be implemented.
> >
> > ** Don't count on it....
> >
> >
> > ...... Phil
> >

Would Bozo change its ways, given mutual blocking?

Bozo Bill Sloman, the most frequent troll in this group, is an
attention-craving chronic liar who cannot be reasoned with.

"the user has posted under the same name in other places, so not
nym-shifting" (Bozo sucks at logic)

"the Mueller investigation was about Trump only because Trump made it so"
(Bozo lying)

"the concepts "male" and "female" are essentially social constructions"
(Bozo being weird)

--
Anthony William Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

> X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:1cc4:b0:435:b8a0:1fe9 with SMTP id g4-20020a0562141cc400b00435b8a01fe9mr25076839qvd.54.1651161776692; Thu, 28 Apr 2022 09:02:56 -0700 (PDT)
> X-Received: by 2002:a81:1087:0:b0:2f7:da07:6d89 with SMTP id 129-20020a811087000000b002f7da076d89mr22852680ywq.412.1651161776309; Thu, 28 Apr 2022 09:02:56 -0700 (PDT)
> Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
> Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
> Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2022 09:02:56 -0700 (PDT)
> In-Reply-To: <bb1f8769-3475-4161-a5cf-b9e4df48ecd3n@googlegroups.com>
> Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=118.208.108.19; posting-account=SJ46pgoAAABuUDuHc5uDiXN30ATE-zi-
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 118.208.108.19
> References: <t487dv$mdj$3@dont-email.me> <6cd34c31-7a8a-42de-8d1e-aec3c8711e85n@googlegroups.com> <bb1f8769-3475-4161-a5cf-b9e4df48ecd3n@googlegroups.com>
> User-Agent: G2/1.0
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Message-ID: <789c0c43-5460-420e-9936-edbeecd0e699n@googlegroups.com>
> Subject: Re: OT: Mutual blocking = Kinder gentler Internet
> From: Anthony William Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
> Injection-Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2022 16:02:56 +0000
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> Lines: 60
> Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:667650
>
> On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 3:06:41 PM UTC+10, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
>> IEEE Bill strikes again - bill....@ieee.org wrote:
>> ====================================
>> >
>> > > Elon Musk taking over Twitter will be just another brand of censorship.
>> >
>> > One has to wonder why John Doe would think that.
>> ** Does he really have actual thoughts ?
>> > Musk was talking about freedom of speech, but it probably won't extend to
>> > giving Trump a platform from which he can encourage people to carry out a
>> > second Capitol invasion.
>>
>> ** IMO it probably will, cos he had every right to do that.
>
> Not after he'd sworn his oath of office. He didn't pay any attention to it, but he had solemnly promised not to do things like that.
> What he might imagine his rights to be doesn't really come into it - he labelled himself as an irresponsible idiot, and Musk should have enough sense to have noticed. You clearly don't, but that's a different problem.
>
>> > Freedom of speech doesn't extend to giving known rabble-rousers any kind of pulpit.
>>
>> ** So why have demented fuckwits like YOU got one?
>
> Or demented a fuckwits like you? Some people do get cut off by their information providers, and have to start posting under different pseudonym.
>
> We may be demented, but we haven't roused any kind of rabble that did any actual damage. Five people ended up dead because of the Capitol invasion.
>
>> > There are lots of different ways of exercising a corrupt influence.
>> > Censorship isn't so much about corruption as it is about some people thinking
>> > they know what's best for everybody else.
>>
>> ** Mainly, it's what seems best for THEM.
>>
>> Self interest = single greatest human motivator.
>>
>> > Like John Doe thinking that he knows better than the inhabitants of the Ukraine about the proper reaction to a Russian invasion.
>>
>> ** See above....
>
> You really do need to stop snipping other people posts in mid-sentence, which is to say it might be a good idea to read the whole sentence before you start typing somethig that is supposed to be a response.
>
>> > John Doe doesn't want his posts to get comments from people who recognise that he is a malicious moron. One can understand why.
>>
>> ** Spoils his moronic fun.
>
> Not really. He seems to get off on re-posting his moronic assertions from other threads.
>
>> > So if anybody posts lies and slander about somebody, they can't react to it if you don't let them do so?
>> > Very kind and gentle to the slanderous liars.
>>
>> ** The right of reply to such abuse is universal in any * civilised* community.
>>
>> Big shame the internet is like the Wild West.
>>
>> > Happily, John Doe is a complete idiot, so he isn't describing any kind of scheme that could actually be implemented.
>>
>> ** Don't count on it....
>
> I've had a lot of exposure to schemes that weren't though out in enough detail to work at all. John Doe's ideas aren't even spelled out clearly enough to constitute any kind of scheme.
>
> --
> Bill Sloman, Sydney
>
>
>

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

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
>
>
>

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

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.

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 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.

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'.