Google Groups may be breaking USENET

[Bruce Salem]

The process of replying to a post using Google Groups appears to be unnecessarily complex. The "reply" button in the interface lets you respond only to the first post in the thread and not to any post in the thread. I would assume that one must have a valid e-mail account or even a G-Mail account to use Google Groups, so what is the problem with just replying to a post? Why does Google Groups distinguish between the first post and any replies? If the social media model is in play, such as in a blog, where the blog owner is a moderator, that totally defeats the free speech mission of USENET. If the fear is flame wars, I would point out that USENET reply is much superior in dealing with arguments and abuse than a blog is.

Bruce Salewm

[John F. Morse]

Post by Bruce Salem
The process of replying to a post using Google Groups appears to be unnecessarily complex. The "reply" button in the interface lets you respond only to the first post in the thread and not to any post in the thread. I would assume that one must have a valid e-mail account or even a G-Mail account to use Google Groups, so what is the problem with just replying to a post? Why does Google Groups distinguish between the first post and any replies? If the social media model is in play, such as in a blog, where the blog owner is a moderator, that totally defeats the free speech mission of USENET. If the fear is flame wars, I would point out that USENET reply is much superior in dealing with arguments and abuse than a blog is.
Bruce Salewm

Bruce, may I suggest you just drop GG and use a real newsreader?

I think you are basically wasting your time discussing GG, as many have gone
down that road to ruin in the past.

There are many good newsreaders, some even work on multiple platforms.

I use Thunderbird (a.k.a. Icedove on Debian Linux) because it does just about
anything I want, and because I have some 15 years' of archived messages (news
and e-mail). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Thunderbird

Many others hate Thunderbird for various reasons.

There is one better IMHO, Claws Mail. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claws_Mail

Then there is another good one, Pan.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_%28newsreader%29

KNode is good as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kontact#Usenet_News_Client

There are several that are text-only, like Slrn and Tin. Both are great, and I
slightly prefer Tin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slrn

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin_%28newsreader%29

For Windows, if that's your OS, most of those are multi-platform (Linux/Unix,
Mac, Windows), or you can choose from a few good ones like Forté Agent, It is
commercial so it co$t$.

Another popular Windows newsreader is 40tude Dialog, Dialog has long ago been
discontinued, and most documentation removed, even from Wikipedia. But the
German Wiki still has a page for it: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/40tude_Dialog

MicroPlanet Gravity is a good Windows newsreader, but it appears to be slowly
disappearing like Dialog. http://mpgravity.sourceforge.net

Better get your copies before the lights go out!

Newsreader: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsreader_%28Usenet%29

List of newsreaders: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Usenet_newsreaders

Comparison of newsreaders:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Usenet_newsreaders

Whichever you choose, if on Windows, do not use Windows Live Mail. It has been
reported to be buggy and cannot properly quote.

None of the current newsreaders are "excellent." Only the one you design and
program will fit that label!

Good luck.

BTW, you will get better (more) information in the news.software.readers group
than in news.misc group.

[Bruce Salem]

Post by Bruce Salem
The process of replying to a post using Google Groups appears to be unnecessarily complex. The "reply" button in the interface lets you respond only to the first post in the thread and not to any post in the thread. I would assume that one must have a valid e-mail account or even a G-Mail account to use Google Groups, so what is the problem with just replying to a post? Why does Google Groups distinguish between the first post and any replies? If the social media model is in play, such as in a blog, where the blog owner is a moderator, that totally defeats the free speech mission of USENET. If the fear is flame wars, I would point out that USENET reply is much superior in dealing with arguments and abuse than a blog is.
Bruce Salem

First, I can only reply to the first topic post using google groups, not to any of the replies.

I know about all of the other newsreaders out there, but they seem to require that you find an NNTP server and most of the time you have to pay some small amount to use them. That kind of free speech isn't free.

Can I talk to google groups using another newsreader, as newsgroup and newsraders are separate things?

I think that Google should be forced by court order to provide a scaled NNTP server and access to people with Gmail accounts for free. I think that Google should not crippple the newsreader specs and if it does it should face legal sanction and pay penalties for violating free speech and the open standards in RFCs which require that USENET messages have certain content.

It may be that Google Groups reader is intentionally broken. I think that Google should be sued to not do that. I would also go after facebook.com on the same basis, that the social media degradation of forcing people to use a blog to communicate which also drives its marketing promotion of posts is a violation of principals of free speech.

Social media companies who use resources in the commonwealth, public communication channels, should be threatened with termination of access if they deliberately try to suppress free speech, in this case access to text-only USENET with reasonable tools. If Google Groups is deliberately broken google.com should be enjoined to either run NNTP servers to scale or to not use its interface. The management and the engineers who made the decision to degrade the readnews interface at google should face criminal sanction for violating the civil rights of its customers or the public trust expected in using public portals to its sites.

Bruce Salem

[Bill Evans]

Post by Bruce Salem
I know about all of the other newsreaders out there, but
they seem to require that you find an NNTP server and most
of the time you have to pay some small amount to use them.
That kind of free speech isn't free.

What do you mean by "most of the time"? They all require
you to find an NNTP server, true. If by "most of the time
you have to pay some small amount", you mean "most of the
servers charge", that's true but irrelevant. All you need
to do is find one. And here it is:

http://www.eternal-september.org

I think there are also others out there.

Google isn't forcing you to do anything. They're providing
a service for those who wish to use it, and are not the only
free access to Usenet. You can participate in all manner of
free speech activity by using an NNTP client, as mentioned
by John F. Morse in a prior post in this thread, and
eternal-september or something else as a server.

Dragging the courts into this? De minimus non curat lex:
the law does not deal with trifles.

Just walk away from Google. You'll be glad you did.

[Bill Evans]

Post by Bill Evans
http://www.eternal-september.org

What I neglected to spell out is that these guys are
absolutely free.

[Bruce Salem]

Post by Bill Evans

Post by Bill Evans
http://www.eternal-september.org

What I neglected to spell out is that these guys are
absolutely free.

Thnk You, Bill, I will investigate that. I know that NNTP admins have wide latitude
in which groups they carry, and I recognize that in order the restore the reputation
of USENET generally that getting text-only groups may be a good first step. It may be
that something like the alt.sex.stories hierarchy or any binary group might be something
not to include, and as I said elsewhere I would like other social media companies like
Facebook to make USENET available to their users, even if it is text only and even if
the newsgroups are entirely local to that domain. Imagine facebook.talk.politics or
facebook.talk.donald-trump :-)

[Bill Evans]

Post by Bruce Salem
getting text-only groups may be a good first step.

I agree.

Post by Bruce Salem
It may be that something like the alt.sex.stories
hierarchy or any binary group might be something not to
include

I agree on the binary newsgroups because (a) they consume
much bandwidth and disk storage, compared to the text-only
ones, and (b) copyright issues get sticky here. But
alt.sex.*? Leave 'em in. You don't have to see them if you
don't want.

Post by Bruce Salem
Imagine facebook.talk.politics or facebook.talk.donald-trump :-)

Not everyone's on facebook. Many of the younger set aren't.
Why have a balkanization of Usenet? Why not just
talk.politics and talk.donald-trump?

Incidentally, the only newsgroup names that I'm aware of
that contain the string "trump" contain it as "trumpet".
The most amusing, to my mind, is alt.music.butt-trumpet.

[Bruce Salem]

Post by Bill Evans

Post by Bruce Salem
I know about all of the other newsreaders out there, but
they seem to require that you find an NNTP server and most
of the time you have to pay some small amount to use them.
That kind of free speech isn't free.

All you need
You can participate in all manner of
free speech activity by using an NNTP client, as mentioned
the law does not deal with trifles.
Just walk away from Google. You'll be glad you did.

I did just find that the reply-any feature I wanted is available in the Google Groups
Interface. Instead of pressing the red reply button you press the arrow icon on the
right side of the screen. Why the functions are separated that way baffles me. As far as
I can tell that and the ability to edit the subject line meets the core functionality I had
using newsreaders like rn or pan, or the others mentioned. So, I wonder if the oft-
quoted claim that Google'd USENET interface is totally broken is really true.

You advise me to find and pay for NNTP access and to just walk away from Google
Groups. You make fun of my threat to sue Google over a seemingly trivial matter, but I
did not find the reply-any hook on my own and I got very quick help on finding it. So,
now I don't fully understand your advice.

As for NNTP servers and USENET, I have said on Facebook that they should provide scaled NNTP servers free of charge to their users in liu of their primary interface not supporting the features of USENET communication. This is quite important given the
political decay of America. I would like to see large Internet corporations and service providers provide free NNTP servers as a public service to promote discussion and debate
and to retrain users who think that the blog is the only form of communication. The Google Groups Interface is a good step in that direction.

It may still be that Google Groups has only a very tiny subset of newsgroups available, and that may be more of a complaint against them. Free NNTP servers should probably be restricted to text-only newsgroups. If there is a concern about spamming and about access to stolen or illegal content, the NNTP doesn't have to get newsgroups from outside a domain. It doesn't have to allow URLs from outside a domain.

Finally one last point. newsgroup names represent a relatively static topic hierarchy, one that is not directly socially promoted. The flood of headlines one sees on Reddit and Slashdot is more complex, even with subreddits, than a USENET newsgroup hierarchy, so that even if a major site decides to invent its own local hierarchy, it can still have a non social media hierarchy of topics and should.

[Bill Evans]

Post by Bruce Salem
I did just find that the reply-any feature I wanted is
available in the Google Groups Interface.

Excellent.

Post by Bruce Salem
Why the functions are separated that way baffles me.

You know what they say: the only intuitively obvious
interface is the nipple.

Post by Bruce Salem
I wonder if the oft-quoted claim that Google'd USENET
interface is totally broken is really true.

I don't claim that. I wonder what they mean.

Post by Bruce Salem
You advise me to find and pay for NNTP access and to just
walk away from Google Groups.

Since google groups does want you want, there's no need to
walk away.

And I didn't advise you to pay for anything;
eternal-september is completely free.

Post by Bruce Salem
You make fun of my threat to sue Google over a seemingly
trivial matter,

If I was that clumsy, I am embarrassed. It was not my
intent to make fun. When I said "De minimis non curat lex"
(the law does not deal with trifles), I wasn't saying that
the idea was inherently laughable; I was predicting what the
reaction of the court or jury would be to any such action.

And, of course, I could be wrong. Testing that is what
lawyers and money are for. Knock yourself out.

Post by Bruce Salem
I would like to see large Internet corporations and
service providers provide free NNTP servers as a public
service to promote discussion and debate

You don't need many corporations to provide free NNTP
servers. You need only one. And I'm not sure, but I think
eternal-september is not your only free source.

Post by Bruce Salem
The Google Groups Interface is a good step in that direction.

I agree. I'm not an expert on google groups, but the only
awkward aspect of it that I'm aware of is that when a user
deletes a post, he deletes it only for other users of google
groups. People using other NNTP servers still see that
post. So be careful.

Post by Bruce Salem
The NNTP doesn't have to get newsgroups from outside a domain.

Individual servers can have local newsgroups, but that is
usually for local-only chat. It is generally not allowed to
crosspost between a local newsgroup and a non-local one.

If you're suggesting a confederation of major players which
share their local newsgroups with each other but don't allow
receiving or posting to the non-local newsgroups, that would
be interesting, but I don't see it as a draw for too many
people. People are used to the non-local, unrestricted
newsgroups.

Post by Bruce Salem
even if a major site decides to invent its own local
hierarchy, it can still have a non social media hierarchy
of topics and should.

An interesting idea. I don't see individual NNTP providers
building a completely local newsgroup heirarchy to fulfill
all their users' Usenet needs. Their customers are going to
want to go outside and play.

So what's wrong with Usenet as it exists today, where
everybody gets to go outside (outside the local newsgroups,
that is) and play?

[Bruce Salem]

Post by Bruce Salem
The process of replying to a post using Google Groups appears to be unnecessarily complex. The "reply" button in the interface lets you respond only to the first post in the thread and not to any post in the thread. I would assume that one must have a valid e-mail account or even a G-Mail account to use Google Groups, so what is the problem with just replying to a post? Why does Google Groups distinguish between the first post and any replies? If the social media model is in play, such as in a blog, where the blog owner is a moderator, that totally defeats the free speech mission of USENET. If the fear is flame wars, I would point out that USENET reply is much superior in dealing with arguments and abuse than a blog is.
Bruce Salem

In my last post I meant to refer to "Marketing Channel", the idea being that a blog stream and most of what happens on Google, especially Google+, and Facebook is a mostly one-way channel for the story author to set the agenda for a conversation. The users have little power to interact directly with one another in the way that they can on USENET, quoting from each other's posts and replying to parts of another's quoted remarks.

The issue with Google Groups is that one can only reply-top and not reply-any, the latter is the true heart and soul of USENET and is the free speech Google Groups violates. I would like to see a human rights lawyer and a free-speech advocate sue Google over this.

Yes, I would like to hear that other newsreaders can be used, but I don't want to pay for decent access to USENET, and at the same time Social Media companies have an obligation to provide access to complex communication not controlled by the marketing channel approach of Google+ and Facebook e.g. I think that as a price for using public airways for their business that they should provide NNTP service for their customers. I am willing to go to my representatives in Congress to push this agenda.

Bruce Salem