OT: Mutual blocking = Kinder gentler Internet

Bill "Bozo" Sloman is scared to death that people might be able to decide for 
themselves who they associate with on the Internet.

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. 

Mutual blocking would give everybody the exact same opportunity to express
themselves. Readers can decide for themselves who they want to read and
who they don't want to read. It's nothing to do with censorship. It's more
like self-defense. 

The cannibal left strongly object to self-defense, therefore they object
to mutual blocking. 

Always Wrong threatens to kill people who disagree with it, and here it's 
pretending to be against "censorship"... 

DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

> 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.

On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:11:18 AM UTC-7, John Doe wrote:

> whit3rd <whi...@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. 

> Gibberish, as usual...

Not gibberish, English.   An owner's block list  has to be served to any and all
subsequent nodes which might add blocklists... and the subsequent
blocklists also have to be served out.   The technical details are
impractical  in a  large-scale public forum.

On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 2:18:00 AM UTC+10, John Doe wrote:
> Bill Sloman is scared to death that people might be able to decide for  themselves who they associate with on the Internet.

John Doe is deluding himself. He hasn't got any kind of practicable scheme, and is too dim to realise it. Who is going to be "scared to death" of one of his fatuous fantasies.

> 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.

So how does the mechanism controlling which replies get posted know who they need to block?

If it is simple,  you should be able to tell us how.

> 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.

"Mutual blocking" is a John Doe fantasy. He can tell us how he'd like it to work, but he has no idea how anybody could make it work.

He seems to want to re-invent the moderated user group  - which already exists, but he doesn't fancy posting to.

<snip>

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On 2022-05-23, John Doe <always.look@message.header> wrote:
> Mutual blocking would give everybody the exact same opportunity to express
> themselves. Readers can decide for themselves who they want to read and
> who they don't want to read. It's nothing to do with censorship. It's more
> like self-defense. 

So I set up two!!! anonymous accounts "silent reader"  and "dope reposter"

Silent reader reads your posts and forwards them to "dope reposter"
dope reposter has blocked you. it reposts your posts so the voices you
dislike can read them.  They can then respond to your silly ideas
and you can't prevent them, or post your zero content responses..

If you're worried that dope resposter is violting your copyright, thats
easily fixed too, just augment the reader software so that it can use
a different account to read than it uses to post. Then every uses can
have their own silent reader account to see your posts, and their
responses will almost certainly be considrerd "fair use".


You're going to have to try harder if you want to turn usenet into a 
safe space for youe idiocies, snowflake.

-- 
  Jasen.

Problem is, cannibal leftists object to self-defense.
Just like this cannibal leftist objects to defending our own border.
That is not coincidence.


whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:11:18 AM UTC-7, John Doe wrote:
> 
>> whit3rd <whi...@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. 
> 
>> Gibberish, as usual...
> 
> Not gibberish, English.   An owner's block list  has to be served to any and all
> subsequent nodes which might add blocklists... and the subsequent
> blocklists also have to be served out.   The technical details are
> impractical  in a  large-scale public forum.

On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 3:17:59 PM UTC+10, John Doe wrote:
> whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote: 
> > On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:11:18 AM UTC-7, John Doe wrote: 
> >> whit3rd <whi...@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. 
> > 
> >> Gibberish, as usual... 
> > 
> > Not gibberish, English. An owner's block list has to be served to any and all 
> > subsequent nodes which might add blocklists... and the subsequent 
> > blocklists also have to be served out. The technical details are 
> > impractical in a large-scale public forum.
>
> Problem is, cannibal leftists object to self-defense.

Anybody who points out that John Doe is an idiot is labelled a "cannibal leftist". 

> Just like this "cannibal leftist" objects to defending our own border. That is not coincidence.

John Doe doesn't like anybody who has pointed how stupid any of his posts are. That's not a coincidence, but a predictable - if stupid - form of "self-defense".

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Whether someone is anonymous is irrelevant, unless they are trying to sell 
something. Being anonymous and having multiple personas are two different 
things. Protection against multiple accounts, that is nym-shifting, is 
important. How that's done is another issue. I have been flushing out 
nym-shifters here on USENET for decades. Maybe if Twitter/others provided
header information, those users could do that too. 

Mutual blocking is for nuking stalkers and trolls, like Bill "Bozo" Sloman
and Edward "Porn Sucking" Hernandez. 

Mutual blocking has nothing to do with preventing others from
seeing/reading your posts. See the prior description. 

Whether posts are seen may as well be up to users since they can be seen
when a user is signed out. 

There might be an option like "hide blocked posts" with the sub option "if
blocked posts are not hidden, mark them read". Most people would at least
want blocked posts marked read. But since blocked post(er)s would not be in
the way, like so much misplaced garbage, they wouldn't necessarily need to
be hidden...

-- 

Jasen Betts <usenet@revmaps.no-ip.org> wrote:

> On 2022-05-23, John Doe <always.look@message.header> wrote:
>> Mutual blocking would give everybody the exact same opportunity to express
>> themselves. Readers can decide for themselves who they want to read and
>> who they don't want to read. It's nothing to do with censorship. It's more
>> like self-defense. 
> 
> So I set up two!!! anonymous accounts "silent reader"  and "dope reposter"
> 
> Silent reader reads your posts and forwards them to "dope reposter"
> dope reposter has blocked you. it reposts your posts so the voices you
> dislike can read them.  They can then respond to your silly ideas
> and you can't prevent them, or post your zero content responses..
> 
> If you're worried that dope resposter is violting your copyright, thats
> easily fixed too, just augment the reader software so that it can use
> a different account to read than it uses to post. Then every uses can
> have their own silent reader account to see your posts, and their
> responses will almost certainly be considrerd "fair use".
> 
> 
> You're going to have to try harder if you want to turn usenet into a 
> safe space for youe idiocies, snowflake.
> 

It's not complex. The server keeps track of who is blocked. If Jack and 
Jill are blocked (meaning Jack or Jill has blocked the other), then 
neither Jack nor Jill can reply to the other (in the other's thread or in 
the other's thread branch). 

Why is "an echo-chamber of like-minded people" a problem? There's plenty 
of room for everybody on the Internet. Since when is like-mindedness a 
problem? Isn't like-mindedness what groups are about? 

Most people don't mind a little bit of trolling. It's just when somebody 
is CONSTANTLY getting in the way. 

Mutual blocking is for nuking stalkers and trolls, like Bill "Bozo" Sloman 
and Edward "Porn Sucking" Hernandez. 

I like this argument. 

It's not a coincidence that cannibal leftists object to mutual blocking. 
Mutual blocking is a defensive apparatus. Cannibal leftists object to 
self-defense. 

Mutual blocking has nothing to do with preventing others from 
seeing/reading your posts. See the prior description. 

Whether posts are seen (not to be confused with the ability to reply) may 
as well be up to users since they can be seen when a user is signed out. 

There might be an option like "hide blocked posts" with the sub option "if 
blocked posts are not hidden, mark them read". Most people would at least 
want blocked posts marked read. But since blocked post(er)s would not be 
in the way, like so much misplaced garbage, they wouldn't necessarily need
to be hidden.

Bill "Bozo" Sloman is a textbook cannibal leftist...

-- 

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

> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 3:17:59 PM UTC+10, John Doe wrote:
>> whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote: 
>> > On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:11:18 AM UTC-7, John Doe wrote: 
>> >> whit3rd <whi...@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. 
>> > 
>> >> Gibberish, as usual... 
>> > 
>> > Not gibberish, English. An owner's block list has to be served to any and all 
>> > subsequent nodes which might add blocklists... and the subsequent 
>> > blocklists also have to be served out. The technical details are 
>> > impractical in a large-scale public forum.
>>
>> Problem is, cannibal leftists object to self-defense.
> 
> Anybody who points out that John Doe is an idiot is labelled a "cannibal leftist". 
> 
>> Just like this "cannibal leftist" objects to defending our own border. That is not coincidence.
> 
> John Doe doesn't like anybody who has pointed how stupid any of his posts are. That's not a coincidence, but a predictable - if stupid - form of "self-defense".
>