I was in an AI conference yesterday, and there was a bunch of discussion in the chat about Slack channels, Discord servers, etc. So I was literally just lamenting the state of shared discussion forums, and commented that we all need to go back to Usenet and drop all these lame "walled garden" proprietary forums.
I'd like to tell people "install Thunderbird, sign up for a free Usenet provider, and join comp.ai, comp.misc, etc and have fun." But I'm a bit leery of encouraging people to do that since I'm not sure what the state of spam being sent to the various Usenet groups is, or how providers are handling spam filtering (if at all).
That said, there's definitely a place for NNTP / Usenet. It might take some work to fix up some issues, but it would be great to see vibrant / fruitful discussions via Usenet again.
The spam is the biggest issue. We never solved it there, and it's only being controlled on usenet's imitators through tight control, which is not a feature of usenet.
One setup I could see working is a pubkey setup where anyone who posts, always encrypts with their private key, and anyone you want to hear from, you add their public key to your list of keys you decrypt to read.
Aggregators can occupy public keys as their "address" and any aggregator that gets obnoxious, you just trim it from your list, which only contains things you've either let in or accepted via slates or whitelists.
Then the spammers can do whatever they like, really.
I believe the main reason usenet faded so thoroughly was that it became a piracy distribution platform very early on (not sure which came first, the pirate booty or the porn booty, but I'm guessing porn), and very quickly there came a kind of unspoken "don't talk about usenet" code among those who already knew about it. At the time, Napster and bittorrent were the main targets of the authorities and IP trolls and usenet was just doing a Jim-From-The-Office-smirking-through-the-blinds.
I believe it was due to AOL and CompuServe forums, which were most importantly, new, novel, friendly and easy. Technical people were "above" AOL and so those Usenet communities survived a few more years, but ultimately succumbed to web forums which were superior to Usenet in almost every way.
Unfortunately, web forums were mostly hollowed out due to social media, and now that people are sick and tired of that, the simplicity and "innocence" of early 2000's forums, and even 90s Usenet, seems appealing (although tinted by rose-colored nostalgic glasses).
Discoverability? A novice could type something into Web Crawler and get a forum back as a search result. Then they could click the link and begin reading and participating immediately. Was Usenet ever that easy?
Even easier, no web search needed. All you needed to do was search the group list for relevant terms. All the Usenet clients supported searching the group list. Then you just tick the checkbox and the articles were downloaded.
Much much easier than using a search engine, scrolling through the results which were half ads even in those days, and trying out the 12 different forums you finally found which were even active...
It never died, it reach a low point of participation about a decade ago, and has slowly been gaining steam again ever since. Some portions of Usenet have always stayed active even through the tough times. As social media dies due to various reasons, people are coming back. Have been for years.
GP of the reply chain was referring to how at a point in the past Usenet was allegedly more difficult to access. That's why some of my responses were in the past tense - I was disagreeing about how, back then, it was more difficult to access. Hence the use of the past tense. All in perfectly proper English.
bla bla bla, Usenet died because the "high IQ" (according to you) snobs on it were (are?) annoying as fuck posting these twisted explanations instead of accepting they were wrong about something
Exactly. When I got access for the first time in the early 90s it took me a few days to wrap my mind around it but after that I never had trouble finding groups of interest. Tools like search, built in group name searches, etc made it easy
...and about 2% of the population thinks Linux is an awesome OS, easy to use, loves the command line, prefers "grep" to clicking on a search box. Fortunately using an OS doesn't really depend on the participation of others, but a discussion forum that is widely viewed as inferior to some other option quickly succumbs to Metcalfe's law and empties out.
> One setup I could see working is a pubkey setup where anyone who posts, always encrypts with their private key, and anyone you want to hear from, you add their public key to your list of keys you decrypt to read.
The most important thing that web forums like this one enable is interaction between people who don't know each other.
People could auto-trust those who have been trusted by those they trust; this could have a user setting deciding how many degrees of separation they are willing to trust. Everybody's public key (ie. the ability to read their signed posts) is public, it's a question of which ones you choose to read.
There are many ways to skin this cat, but every one that's gonna work involves cooperation, rather than adversarial control.
Didn't a lot of servers just stop carrying the binaries newsgroups, or never bothered carrying them in the first place? Even without considering piracy, binaries tended to place a burden on the server provider since the messages tended to be much larger. (Even a small image/program in the 10's of kB would be larger than a heavily quoted message.
Yes, and so these days there are paid-subscription NNTP providers that sync the alt.binaries groups. Presumably all the pirates (both the uploaders, and the pure leechers) are using such providers.
Usenet faded because ISPs all conspired to drop it, en masse, in the early 2000's. Used to be every ISP from Comcast down to the mom and pops had Usenet. Now it's not just uncommon, it's nearly impossible to find any ISP that has their own Usenet feed. And yes the excuse given to drop it was piracy.
In Germany basically all ISPs never provided the binary groups, so piracy was never an issue. There also was no conspiracy to shut down the servers because of that.
I was active in the German Usenet back then and still remember that between around 2001 and 2005 the spammers and trolls took over and destoyed one group after another until they were completely unusable. I also mostly quit around maybe 2005.
So I highly doubt that Usenet would have continued to work if ISPs had just continued support it. Usenet only worked as long as everyboy was nice to each other, it would never work today without much better moderation protocols and tools.
It was expensive. I ran an ISP on the mid 90s, and it took up an expensive server and a disproportionate amount of my time to ensure we had good enough feeds for people to be happy, and so the moment demand was dropping it was very high on the list of things to get rid of.
Had peering been more on demand, rather than a firehouse, maybe people would have kept them longer.
I for a while worked on an aggressively caching NNTP server as an option because of the costs involved.
Yeah, people forget just how expensive both bandwidth and storage were in the late 1990s.
YouTube appeared in 2005 and was losing VAST amounts of money before Google bought them out. So, even in 2005, Usenet probably was still too expensive.
Usenet faded because the UX was terrible. It was common in the early 90s because it predates the world wide web, and most people back then were highly technical and could deal with the warts.
Everything moved to the web, and Usenet clients were hit or miss. Neither Windows nor Mac came packaged with a client for it, so it certainly wasn't easily discoverable for people who joined the internet later. They probably never even knew it existed.
ISPs became client-less after broadband became widespread. ISPs didn't want to write or provide software, they just wanted to provide data over basic cable/DSL. Even AOL instant messenger eventually faded, as it never really adapted itself to a non desktop centric web.
Gnus was a joy to use. Never has an application fitted me better.
Spam was the issue – there were extensions and initiatives to combat it, but it was a losing battle. It was a major cultural loss – Reddit can at its best approach it, but not replace what existed in the early nineties.
Usenet faded because it wasn't monetizable, outside of subscription based binary providers (who were in large part turning around and pumping that money into the legal defense funds, because they were primarily servicing the swashbuckling community).
The platforms that are actively used are codependent. They demand you use them. They send you emails when you haven't logged in in awhile. They foment opposition just to keep you engaged, so you'll view their ads.
Usenet, on the other hand, lets you use it, if you feel like it, assuming you know where to look.
The only sort of people who would use Usenet would be those that make decisions for themselves, rather than doing what the marketers tell them. It never stood a chance against this sort of opposition.
I've never had an experience as smooth and easy as usenet on Free Agent as the gui client. Everything else, forums, socials, etc, contain a subset of the features in that setup.
Usenet doesn't have a UX by itself, it's a protocol. The user experience is entirely dictated by the software used to access it. And Outlook supported Usenet all the way from the word go. Macs didn't even come with any email clients back in those times, but popular ones supported Usenet and there were also Usenet-exclusive programs available.
I think it was Outlook Express rather than Outlook that supported NNTP. The early version of OE was even called "Internet Mail and News" or something like that.
I've been using Outlook since 1997 and this is the first time I heard that Outlook supported Usenet. This is what I mean, even if it was theoretically supported, it wasn't discoverable. If you knew what to connect to and how to wire up Outlook, sure, you could get it going.
But let's take something else from the same era and provide a comparison for the average user: yahoo.com. You typed it into the browser, and you were instantly presented with several hundred interesting links. No config necessary, just click and go. The UX needed to be that simple.
Actually discovering good channels on Usenet took time and investment. As opposed to Reddit, for example, which used upvotes and decay based algorithms (also, see HN) to make fresh subreddits discoverable on the main feed.
Outlook express supported Usenet, but Outlook did not.
That’s why I had to retire my company’s internal NNTP setup - because at some point, too many users were just using it through the web and email gateway that it was cumbersome and made no senses to keep it running.
Today, we could all run our own NNTP servers. The traffic on most newsgroups (excluding binaries) would be a trickle compared to the average broadband connection.
I ran my own news server in the 90's, receiving about a dozen groups over dialup with a UUCP feed.
I assume they dropped it because they couldn't monetize it, i.e. spam you with personalized ads and the like. Probably the same reason why RSS News feeds were dropped.
The threading and only seeing new messages is a lot better in my Usenet client than any web forum that I use, including this one.
Yep. The Usenet experience is nice. The only thing that really got me out of the habit of participating frequently was a combination of two factors:
1. My ISP quit providing NNTP access by default
2. So many other people moved off, that a lot of the groups became nothing but CfP's, spam, and maybe 1 actual interesting post per year.
But in the spirit of "be the change you want in the world" I guess I'll bit the bullet and sign up for a Usenet account somewhere, or stand up my own server and look into what it would take to get peering setup.
> The threading and only seeing new messages is a lot better in my Usenet client than any web forum that I use, including this one.
Indeed! This is the other less-spoken flaw of walled-garden communication apps. Since they are proprietary, you're stuck with the very limited functionality the company has decided to implement (and it's always very limited).
With open protocols such as SMTP and NNTP, there's no limit to how feature rich the clients (plural, since there can be many clients attuned to different tastes) can be. And you can always pipe things to a shell for an infinitely extensible set of capabilities.
I find all the proprietary communication apps so frustrating, knowing that my email and usenet clients even back in the 80s had tons of more functionality and flexibility.
"Including this one" is a good example, for how the rules of how content is selected for presentation define the medium. Even with exactly the same people, exactly the same dang occasionally nudging people this way or that way, this place would be an entirely different if the effective feed composition wasn't the one it is. So much of the identity of these online communities is an emergent consequence of the mechanisms employed.
Then on the other hand, I know of some off topic situations that I consider very valuable, because any forum set up specifically for the topic in question would draw a very different audience.
Check the alternative hierarchies and connection options while you're at it.
The difference, I suppose, is that Google Groups are run by autopilot with nobody in the cockpit, Eternal September doesn't ask the average user too many questions (it is as accepting as its name suggests), but those small server admins will ask you questions if you start posting crap, and will delete it, and ban the account.
Sorry, but you make it sound like there are many. That allow posting, and free, I think I only know one.
It's been a while since I looked. I could have sworn there were at least a handful, but either A. I might be mis-remembering or B. the landscape might have changed since I checked last.
That said, there seem to be quite few who offer cheap if not actually free access. And by "cheap" I mean, on the order of $10.00 (USD) / month or less.
I don't think 10USD/month for access to a forum is anywhere near cheap or even reasonable, no matter how big it is. I can't imagine anyone paying that for non-warez Usenet access.
In the last few years some Usenet providers are closed their doors. Aioe.org was pretty popular and known, disappeared this year. One of few ISP-s still offering Usenet access for clients, Finnish Elisa, closed their usenet server 2021.
Russian neva.ru was sadly closed (probably forced by goverment) 2021 (I group it with free servers, because it had read-only access open for everyone and some point allowed posting). Albasani.net disappeared 2020.
Some free servers are still around, but don't offer public accounts.
Few places give account, if you ask.
Eternal September is strongest-biggest still running and free service. Mixmin allows anonymous posting, but sometimes restricts it to fight with abuse.
Google still relays groups to Usenet, though they have their own thing going and some servers are blocking posts from google.
The thing you want exists. It's called the Fediverse.
For the most part, when people talk about "The Fediverse" they mean ActivityPub based sites. You could argue the point, since NNTP is "federated" as well, and one could certainly conceive of federating between the NNTP space and the ActivityPub space.
I'm a Fediverse user, fan, and advocate (mindcrime@fosstodon.org), but I specifically mentioned Usenet, because the "thing I want" in this context is, in fact, Usenet. Now if somebody wants to do the work to rebuild the Usenet hierarchy on top of the "wild west" that is the litany of servers on the Fediverse, build client support into Thunderbird, etc., then sure... that could probably turn into something interesting.
You wouldn't have liked Usenet in its heyday
Please don't presume to tell me what I would or wouldn't like. That's incredibly disrespectful. And in point of fact, I did like Usenet in its heyday.
It's been a while but I don't recall a ton of politics on the usenet groups I used to participate in (mostly tech subjects). Of course there were groups for politics, and sometimes a thread would go off on a tangent, but the nice thing about usenet is it was easy to killfile people or threads that you didn't want to read anymore.
When I used it it seemed like it was mostly real names (.edu accounts) at least on the groups I read, so maybe that kept people in check a bit. Though that would have been easy to spoof I'm sure.
My department also had some local groups that did not propagate. So it must be possible to stand up your own NNTP server and have groups for your local users that are at least in that sense "private"
Usenet was sorted by topic. Same people stick to the required topic in different forums.In the fediverse, you follow people, and therefore can't control very well what people post about. I follow some people because I am interested in technical topics, but I end muting some of those because some are very political, and I am not interested in some of these topics.
I don't think the Usenet model can be replicated on top of Fediverse. Not everyone sees instances as a topic thing (I host my own instance).
Lemmy is also built on ActivityPub as part of the Fediverse and is arranged into topics (called communities). E.g. you can follow retrocomputing@lemmy.sdf.org (or web interface https://lemmy.sdf.org/c/retrocomputing) and only see retrocomputing posts.
Since it's all ActivityPub, you can follow Lemmy communities from a Mastodon client but the UX in that case is pretty bad (e.g. Mastodon servers won't backfill posts so you won't see any history).
I’ve been very happy on the Fediverse (mastodon) since I took the plunge a few months ago. This is what the “early” internet at its best must have felt like. Real humans, technical discussions, random finds (painting!), sorted by created at desc.
Same. It's a bit "random" though. Maybe because the Mastodon world has generally resisted having good global search. And even though certain instances have broad topics (like sigmoid.social for AI/ML, or fosstodon.org for F/OSS) a feed tends to quickly fill up with plenty of random stuff.
With Usenet, if you join, say, comp.ai, you know that (spam aside) you're just getting AI stuff. Same for comp.linux, comp.lang.c++, or whatever. There's something to be said for the topic hierarchy there.
I see a place for both ActivityPub and Usenet, personally. Although, again, acknowledging that somebody could probably in principle build the Usenet style experience on top of ActivityPub. But as far as I know, that part doesn't exist today. If it does, somebody please let me know.
Interestingly, this seems to be amongst the most controversial aspects; some people _hate_ it.
Personally, I was only quite dimly aware that Twitter had an algorithm now, like a common Facebook; until Musk ruined it I generally only really used Twitter via Tweetbot, so was getting a time-based feed anyway. So Mastodon was just what I was used to anyway. But more people than I expected actually liked the Twitter algorithm, and couldn't cope with Mastodon's lack of magic ML stuff at all.
Literally perplexed at that statement. That was the only place for solid community, damn good information, and endless free file downloads in it's heyday. The barriers that made people drop it actually make it more attractive these days since the masses will never show up.
I think you're coating your memory with a thick blanket of woke. I was also around in its heyday and the trolls were in full effect, and had already learned how to make women's lives hell.
There's a newsgroup still extant which is named after a woman who spoke up about the CSAM problem on our local university's server (I stumbled across it myself once, there was some nasty fucking shit going through there). The users of these groups did not take kindly to people messing with their access to pictures of children being sexually abused. Not naming her or the newsgroup because I'm sure she's long since gotten it in her rear view mirror.
Just a warning: Eternal September's administrator doesn't give a damn about trolls and spammers posting through that server; every single complaint I filed went 100% ignored.
It's worse than that. They won't even take action against harassment of moderators, including their users that repeatedly submit obviously rejectable articles to moderated newsgroups, then reply with verbal abuse and profanity when rejected. The eternal-september admins tell moderation teams that it is their responsibility to deal with these users, not them. Our moderated newsgroup dealt with one of their users (lawfully, of course). No surprise that the individual had an anonymous identity that was a synonym for the devil.
The free "10 GB" trial accounts available from usenet binaries providers can serve as a text only read/posting account for years. Like with usenet.farm
No, see above: it's been a while since I looked at the usenet landscape. TBH, I'm tempted to set up my own, but I'm not sure I have the time/energy/money to deal with the peering stuff. But never say never...
I'd like to tell people "install Thunderbird, sign up for a free Usenet provider, and join comp.ai, comp.misc, etc and have fun." But I'm a bit leery of encouraging people to do that since I'm not sure what the state of spam being sent to the various Usenet groups is, or how providers are handling spam filtering (if at all).
That said, there's definitely a place for NNTP / Usenet. It might take some work to fix up some issues, but it would be great to see vibrant / fruitful discussions via Usenet again.