In alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent, on 17 Dec 2023 18:51:07 GMT,
Post by Frank SlootwegPost by mickyIn comp.mobile.android, on 16 Dec 2023 18:47:49 GMT, Frank Slootweg
Post by Frank SlootwegPost by Jörg LorenzPost by Stan BrownPost by mickyIt's not google's faulth that Usenet use
declined.
That's a matter of opinion.
It seems to me that Google did everything it could to destroy Usenet.
It dumped spam into many groups to the point that they became
unusable, and ignored complaints over a period of years. I may be
misremembering this part, but I _think_ they used nonstandard headers
that made problems for existing Usenet clients.
Wrong and all conspiracy theory. Just a lack of support and maintenance
of an economically uninspiring service.
Nope, Stan is correct on all points, no conspiracy theory at all.
A basic problem here.
You are using 'conspiracy theory' to mean something that does not exist,
at the same time saying that google planned to destroy the usenet part
of groups.google. That is, by most lights, a conspiracy.
You're 'reading' things which were never written.
I didn't say Google 'planned' anything. I just agreed with what Stan
said and Stan also didn't say anything about 'planning'. Google's
My point really had nothing to do with Google or Stan or you, only with
the way people deride some conspiracy stories as conspiracy theories,
while the same people believe in and talk about, complain about other
conspiracies*** which they do not label as theories, because they
believe in them. At the same time, some people label as conspiracy
theories things that really happened.
***Whether they use the word conspiracy or not.
In this case, Stan believes in what he said and Jorg derides it by
calling it a conspiracy theory, and you deny it's a conspiracy theory,
but given the way "conspiracy theory" is used, for things that did not
happen, I think not being a conspiracy theory still leaves open the
possibility it was a conspiracy.
As you say, you just agreed with Stan but Stan said "It seems to me that
Google did everything it could to destroy Usenet. It dumped spam into
many groups to the point that they became unusable, and ignored
complaints over a period of years...." Doing everthing it could, *it
could*, is a plan and plainly several people were involved if what Stan
described happened. If there were two or more people from Google
involved, it's a conspiracy.
Post by Frank Slootwegactions are easily explained by incompetence, carelessness, etc., not a
'plan',
You're right, no plan needed, but I think it's clear Stan thinks it was
planned. But my words were not personal wrt any of you. It was just
about the use of language. I don't care if you think Google planned it
or not.
Post by Frank Slootwegbut yes, Google did those things, which is what Stan said.
[Rather offensive stuff deleted.]
Curious who it was offensive to? Almost every American** who reads the
news thinks there was an effort by one side or the other to steal the
last presidentail election. I purposely phrased it to not say which side
I thought was doing that. So did I offend everyone, or no one?
**If trump won, then the Democrats must have stolen it and if Biden won,
the Republicans must have been trying to steal it.
The actions that have been charged on both sides cannot be accounted for
by incompetence, carelessnes, laziness, etc.
(Not all the Democrats or all the Republicans but whichever it was, it
would have to be a significant number of them.)
Post by Frank SlootwegPost by mickyPost by Frank SlootwegThe spam issue is obvious and they indeed broke headers, mainly
References and Message-ID, by not honouring the NetNews mantra of "Don't
break old clients!".
Post by Jörg LorenzPost by Stan BrownAnd of course they made the archives unavailable, then available if
you were lucky in your searching, then unavailable again, then
available but you had to use effing Javascript, then unavailable, the
available but not all groups were included, then ...
As I said: Lack of proper maintenance.
Nope again. As Stan says, they changed/broke the search facility for
searching Usenet posts and the facility for referencing Usenet articles
by message-id several times. That they *also* maintained the service/
servers badly does not negate the points he made.