I'll get back to everyone who posted in my previous thread, but I need
to know if you all think Usenet is social media?
Or Social Media? Which?
And would you answer the same for Reddit?
They're social because they involve people, but people don't make
friends on any of them, normally. And people don't talk about little
or even big things that happen in their personal lives much, and when
once in a while I do, most people are bored and ignore them in any
replies they make.
To me that means it's not social.
But if some webpage that matters to me asks how I heard about it, and I
say "internet" but NOT through social media, they will likely think its
a page with good or bad informative text but no way for readers to
reply. That Usenet and Reddit do allow replies, depend on replies, sort
of makes them *social* media.
So all in all, in your opinion, are Usenet and Reddit social media?
On 12/16/2024 1:46 PM, micky wrote:
Why do you insist on posting off-topic junk to otherwise usable groups
and cross post them to the rat nest of alt.home.repair?
I'll answer your question. No. Usenet is usenet, and who gives two
shit about reddit!
I'll get back to everyone who posted in my previous thread, but I needCoPilot say:
to know if you all think Usenet is social media?
Or Social Media? Which?
And would you answer the same for Reddit?
They're social because they involve people, but people don't make
friends on any of them, normally. And people don't talk about little
or even big things that happen in their personal lives much, and when
once in a while I do, most people are bored and ignore them in any
replies they make.
To me that means it's not social.
But if some webpage that matters to me asks how I heard about it, and I
say "internet" but NOT through social media, they will likely think its
a page with good or bad informative text but no way for readers to
reply. That Usenet and Reddit do allow replies, depend on replies, sort
of makes them *social* media.
So all in all, in your opinion, are Usenet and Reddit social media?
In alt.comp.software.firefox, on Mon, 16 Dec 2024 14:22:28 -0600, sticks <wolverine01@charter.net> wrote:
On 12/16/2024 1:46 PM, micky wrote:
Why do you insist on posting off-topic junk to otherwise usable groups
It's not off-topic. The topic was usenet.
In alt.comp.software.firefox, on Mon, 16 Dec 2024 14:22:28 -0600, sticks <wolverine01@charter.net> wrote:
On 12/16/2024 1:46 PM, micky wrote:
Why do you insist on posting off-topic junk to otherwise usable groups
It's not off-topic. The topic was usenet.
Usenet is not considered traditional social media, but it does share
some characteristics with it. Usenet is a worldwide distributed
discussion system that dates back to the early days of the internet.
It's more like a collection of newsgroups where users can post messages
and read others' posts on various topics.
Anonymity: Usenet users can post messages without revealing their real identities, while social media platforms often encourage users to create profiles with personal information.
I'll get back to everyone who posted in my previous thread, but I need
to know if you all think Usenet is social media?
Or Social Media? Which?
And would you answer the same for Reddit?
They're social because they involve people, but people don't make
friends on any of them, normally. And people don't talk about little
or even big things that happen in their personal lives much, and when
once in a while I do, most people are bored and ignore them in any
replies they make.
To me that means it's not social.
But if some webpage that matters to me asks how I heard about it, and I
say "internet" but NOT through social media, they will likely think its
a page with good or bad informative text but no way for readers to
reply. That Usenet and Reddit do allow replies, depend on replies, sort
of makes them *social* media.
So all in all, in your opinion, are Usenet and Reddit social media?
In alt.comp.software.firefox, on Mon, 16 Dec 2024 14:22:28 -0600, sticks ><wolverine01@charter.net> wrote:
On 12/16/2024 1:46 PM, micky wrote:
Why do you insist on posting off-topic junk to otherwise usable groups
It's not off-topic. The topic was usenet.
I'll get back to everyone who posted in my previous thread, but I need
to know if you all think Usenet is social media?
Or Social Media? Which?
And would you answer the same for Reddit?
They're social because they involve people, but people don't make
friends on any of them, normally. And people don't talk about little
or even big things that happen in their personal lives much, and when
once in a while I do, most people are bored and ignore them in any
replies they make.
To me that means it's not social.
But if some webpage that matters to me asks how I heard about it, and I
say "internet" but NOT through social media, they will likely think its
a page with good or bad informative text but no way for readers to
reply. That Usenet and Reddit do allow replies, depend on replies, sort
of makes them *social* media.
So all in all, in your opinion, are Usenet and Reddit social media?
On Mon, 16 Dec 2024 16:12:08 -0500, micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com>
wrote:
In alt.comp.software.firefox, on Mon, 16 Dec 2024 14:22:28 -0600, sticks >><wolverine01@charter.net> wrote:
On 12/16/2024 1:46 PM, micky wrote:
Why do you insist on posting off-topic junk to otherwise usable groups
It's not off-topic. The topic was usenet.
But Windows 10 is not Usenet.
Try news.groups
and news.groups.questions
I was going to set more appropriate follow-ups, but want' allowed to,
so sorry to all the inappropriate groups.
On Mon, 16 Dec 2024 14:46:26 -0500, micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com>
wrote:
I'll get back to everyone who posted in my previous thread, but I need
to know if you all think Usenet is social media?
Or Social Media? Which?
Usenet is indeed a social medium, and more social than most other
social media, because one's communication is not controlled and
manipulated by algorithms.
And would you answer the same for Reddit?
I know nothing about Reddit
They're social because they involve people, but people don't make
friends on any of them, normally. And people don't talk about little
or even big things that happen in their personal lives much, and when
once in a while I do, most people are bored and ignore them in any
replies they make.
To me that means it's not social.
There was a time when Usenet was primarily academic rather than
social, but that time is long past. And there always was a social
element. Interactions between people vary depending on the nature of >particular newsgroups, but it is the same with other social media
platforms like Facebook.
But if some webpage that matters to me asks how I heard about it, and I
say "internet" but NOT through social media, they will likely think its
a page with good or bad informative text but no way for readers to
reply. That Usenet and Reddit do allow replies, depend on replies, sort
of makes them *social* media.
So all in all, in your opinion, are Usenet and Reddit social media?
I'll get back to everyone who posted in my previous thread, but I need
to know if you all think Usenet is social media?
Or Social Media? Which?
And would you answer the same for Reddit?
In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Tue, 17 Dec 2024 10:20:45 +0200, Steve
Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Dec 2024 16:12:08 -0500, micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com>
wrote:
It's not off-topic. The topic was usenet.
But Windows 10 is not Usenet.
Try news.groups
and news.groups.questions
Thanks, not a bad suggestion and clearly an attempt to be helpful, but I don't read those groups and don't want to start for one question. I
don't know the people in them and don't know whose judgment to respect.
I was going to set more appropriate follow-ups, but want' allowed to,
so sorry to all the inappropriate groups.
This subthread reminds of when there was a newly formed moderated forum
on, say, Of Mice and Men, and the new moderators were ridiculously over- strict, and people tried to post polite questions and complaints and the
mods rejected them all saying moderation was off-topic. We all thought
it was, say, an on-topic meta-topic, by definition. I think the same
thing here.
On 12/16/2024 2:46 PM, micky wrote:
I'll get back to everyone who posted in my previous thread, but I need
to know if you all think Usenet is social media?
Or Social Media? Which?
And would you answer the same for Reddit?
To my mind, usenet is not really social. Socializing is
"off topic". It happens around the edges, in the form of lonely
old men asking frivolous questions or bickering.... or even just
adding provocative "signatures" without ever taking responsibility
for their outbursts. (See John Hall's post, scorning those who
don't work out as wastrels. :)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.home.repair,comp.mobile.android,alt.comp.software.firefox
On 12/16/2024 2:46 PM, micky wrote:
I'll get back to everyone who posted in my previous thread, but I need
to know if you all think Usenet is social media?
Or Social Media? Which?
And would you answer the same for Reddit?
To my mind, usenet is not really social. Socializing is
"off topic". It happens around the edges, in the form of lonely
old men asking frivolous questions or bickering.... or even just
adding provocative "signatures" without ever taking responsibility
for their outbursts. (See John Hall's post, scorning those who
don't work out as wastrels. :)
I don't use any of the mainstream social media. TikTok,
Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, NextDoor.... How social are they?
Is it socializing to post one's 2 cents and try to increase
"followers"? Is it social to post a short paragraph about Kim
Kardashian's ass or Travis Kelce's shirt? I'm afraid that many
young people view that as all of social engagement, but in that
capacity it's really just serving as an artificial peer group, so
that one knows what to think about Kim Kardashian's ass.
Facebook started out as a social medium. What is it now?
Google news on acid that people can't pull away from because
it's still where they hear about parties? Instagram? What is that?
Facebook for illiterate people?
It seems that seeing a reflection of oneself in a cellphone
screen is passing for social relationships in many case. So
what is social media?
Reddit is the only site I use. The voting is childish, and many
of the groups are tightly controlled. On the other hand, many
usenet groups were ruined by lack of control -- taken over by
spam or antisocial cliques.
I don't know of any site other than Reddit where one can
actually take part in discussions. There are a lot of serious
people in those discussions. There are topics where I can be
helpful. And when I need help, I often find it. Just about any topic
is covered.
Some of the groups, like home repair, are run by weird fascist
cabals who tightly control the discussion. That's unfortunate.
And of course the Linux groups are frequented by the usual gangs
of anti-social Linux devotees. But in general I find that it works
and it's useful. The old.reddit.com version is surprisingly well
designed so that one can follow the back and forth of discussion.
On the down side, Reddit recently partnered with Google. It's
become tricky to even log in. They're enforcing tracking. The site
was seemingly invented by teenagers. The up/down voting, the
awards, the "avatars".... It's all childish. But I'm often impressed by
the sincerity of posters.
It would be nice to see something like Craigslist social -- a site
not existing merely as a profit strategy that could serve as a
meeting place. But maybe the very notion of a meeting place
online is faulty. None of it substitutes for actual relationships.
Of course, I haven't made friends or got dates on Reddit. Maybe
I could if I gave up anonymity, but I find it too public for that. So,
is discussion social? Can online ever truly be social when both input
and output are primarily designed to keep people scrolling? When the
young father from Tennessee stormed the pizza parlor to save children
from Hillary's sex slavery ring, he believed that the world he knew
online was the real world. But people are using that world to conduct
group fantasy, and he didn't see the distinction.
I was reading yesterday that Bill Gates, self-appointed genius, finally
said something intelligent. He recommended a book by Jonathan Haidt, who
was co-author of Coddling the American Mind (Atlantic Monthly) and is
one of the few voices speaking for human values in an intelligent way. >Apparently Haidt has a new book analyzing the implications of a
generation of kids raised by screens, who only see the outdoors when
they're being punished for misbehavior by having their screens taken away.
So we have an ongoing laboratory of "social media". It seems to be
producing brittle personalities who find real life to be "unsafe"; young >people who don't want to live without supervision, to make sure that no
one can "gaslight" them or make them feel unsafe. People who need to
consult their psychotherapist before accepting a social date. People, in >short, who only know life in a shopping mall -- a world owned by exploitive >commercial interests that's been curated to keep them coming back.
I guess that leads to the next level of such a question. A more
existential
exploration: What matters in life and what is the role of social
connections?
On 12/17/2024 5:33 AM, micky wrote:
In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Tue, 17 Dec 2024 10:20:45 +0200, Steve
Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Dec 2024 16:12:08 -0500, micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com>
wrote:
It's not off-topic. The topic was usenet.
But Windows 10 is not Usenet.
Try news.groups
and news.groups.questions
Thanks, not a bad suggestion and clearly an attempt to be helpful, but I
don't read those groups and don't want to start for one question. I
don't know the people in them and don't know whose judgment to respect.
What a round about way of saying you're too dumb and lazy to try to do
things properly and you just don't care.
I was going to set more appropriate follow-ups, but want' allowed to,
so sorry to all the inappropriate groups.
This subthread reminds of when there was a newly formed moderated forum
on, say, Of Mice and Men, and the new moderators were ridiculously over-
strict, and people tried to post polite questions and complaints and the
mods rejected them all saying moderation was off-topic. We all thought
it was, say, an on-topic meta-topic, by definition. I think the same
thing here.
no you don't.
you just don't care that you fill these groups with all
your off-topic posts.
You'll prove me right by continuing to do similar
things soon enough.
What a round about way of saying you're too dumb and lazy to try to do >>things properly and you just don't care.
You don't know me better than I know myself. Those were my real
reasons and don't involve laziness, and you are going by your idea of
what is proper, and I know longer care what you think but I do care
about this ng and all the others. ......
You didn't seem to notice that my question got several good answers,
Very, very intesting post. I don't disagree with any of the parts I know about I don't know about Facebook and Twitter, for example, but you've enhanced my desire to stay away from them. It would take me an hour
just to reply to the important parts, and it's already 11:30. But I
really enjoyed your remarks. (And don't worry, I've forgotten what you
said about John Hall.)
On 12/18/2024 11:35 PM, micky wrote:
Very, very intesting post. I don't disagree with any of the parts I know
about I don't know about Facebook and Twitter, for example, but you've >> enhanced my desire to stay away from them. It would take me an hour
just to reply to the important parts, and it's already 11:30. But I
really enjoyed your remarks. (And don't worry, I've forgotten what you >> said about John Hall.)
It's become a very real threat to democracy. In the last election
Not so long ago, the presidency was decided
With Trump, the electoral college has done just
There's a movie about Brexit, showing how Cambridge Analytica
In the 2016 election, Eric Shmidt tried to sell Hillary on a plan to
So now we have a populace that's almost all informed... in some manner.
I suspect that social media has also had a big role in cancel culture.
On Wed, 12/18/2024 11:23 PM, micky wrote:
You didn't seem to notice that my question got several good answers,
USENET has a history and it has a rule set.
And it is NOT social media.
That's an example of the history of the place.
In comp.mobile.android, on Tue, 17 Dec 2024 10:21:12 -0600, sticks <wolverine01@charter.net> wrote:
On 12/17/2024 5:33 AM, micky wrote:
In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Tue, 17 Dec 2024 10:20:45 +0200, Steve
Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Dec 2024 16:12:08 -0500, micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com>
wrote:
It's not off-topic. The topic was usenet.
But Windows 10 is not Usenet.
Try news.groups
and news.groups.questions
Thanks, not a bad suggestion and clearly an attempt to be helpful, but I >>> don't read those groups and don't want to start for one question. I
don't know the people in them and don't know whose judgment to respect.
What a round about way of saying you're too dumb and lazy to try to do
things properly and you just don't care.
You don't know me better than I know myself. Those were my real
reasons and don't involve laziness, and you are going by your idea of
what is proper, and I know longer care what you think but I do care
about this ng and all the others. ......
I was going to set more appropriate follow-ups, but want' allowed to,
so sorry to all the inappropriate groups.
This subthread reminds of when there was a newly formed moderated forum
on, say, Of Mice and Men, and the new moderators were ridiculously over- >>> strict, and people tried to post polite questions and complaints and the >>> mods rejected them all saying moderation was off-topic. We all thought
it was, say, an on-topic meta-topic, by definition. I think the same
thing here.
no you don't.
You definitely don't know what I think. Why do you imagine you know
what someone else thinks? That's sort of dumb, isn't it?
you just don't care that you fill these groups with all
your off-topic posts.
Once every 2 or 3 months or less, by your standards. That's not filling anything. And you have the opportunity to stop reading after the first
half of the first post, but no, you're still at it. You can even filter
me out. Feel free. I don't remember you ever answering one of my
technical questions, so I have nothing to lose.
You'll prove me right by continuing to do similar
things soon enough.
It won't prove a thing.
You didn't seem to notice that my question got several good answers,
from people who either didn't think it is was off topic, or are not so hide-bound to an on-topic rule, which did not come down from Sinai.
And BTW, the fewest number of replies were in AHR and none were from the intruder/political spammers from other invading groups, probably because
they don't read AHR directly, they only cross-post to it.
On 12/19/2024 2:50 AM, Paul wrote:
On Wed, 12/18/2024 11:23 PM, micky wrote:
You didn't seem to notice that my question got several good answers,
USENET has a history and it has a rule set.
And it is NOT social media.
---snip great stuff---
That's an example of the history of the place.
What some fail to understand or don't care about, is that if everyone
did what micky and yana2 do these groups would be unusable.
But...they're special.
On 12/18/2024 10:23 PM, micky wrote:
In comp.mobile.android, on Tue, 17 Dec 2024 10:21:12 -0600, sticks
<wolverine01@charter.net> wrote:
On 12/17/2024 5:33 AM, micky wrote:
In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Tue, 17 Dec 2024 10:20:45 +0200, SteveWhat a round about way of saying you're too dumb and lazy to try to do
Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Dec 2024 16:12:08 -0500, micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com>
wrote:
It's not off-topic. The topic was usenet.
But Windows 10 is not Usenet.
Try news.groups
and news.groups.questions
Thanks, not a bad suggestion and clearly an attempt to be helpful, but I >>>> don't read those groups and don't want to start for one question. I
don't know the people in them and don't know whose judgment to respect. >>>
things properly and you just don't care.
You don't know me better than I know myself. Those were my real
reasons and don't involve laziness, and you are going by your idea of
what is proper, and I know longer care what you think but I do care
about this ng and all the others. ......
I was going to set more appropriate follow-ups, but want' allowed to, >>>>> so sorry to all the inappropriate groups.
This subthread reminds of when there was a newly formed moderated forum >>>> on, say, Of Mice and Men, and the new moderators were ridiculously over- >>>> strict, and people tried to post polite questions and complaints and the >>>> mods rejected them all saying moderation was off-topic. We all thought >>>> it was, say, an on-topic meta-topic, by definition. I think the same >>>> thing here.
no you don't.
You definitely don't know what I think. Why do you imagine you know
what someone else thinks? That's sort of dumb, isn't it?
What's dumb is you can't remember what you posted already, even though
you quoted it. You said above, you don't want to post to another group >because you're not currently subscribed to it, and you don't know the
people in it. Then you said you wanted to set more *appropriate*
follow-ups,
thereby acknowledging you at least kind of know this is the
wrong forum.
you just don't care that you fill these groups with all
your off-topic posts.
Once every 2 or 3 months or less, by your standards. That's not filling
anything. And you have the opportunity to stop reading after the first
half of the first post, but no, you're still at it. You can even filter
me out. Feel free. I don't remember you ever answering one of my
technical questions, so I have nothing to lose.
That's not how usenet works.
There is no requirement to answer
"technical questions."
I will probably take your other advice soon
enough, though.
You'll prove me right by continuing to do similar
things soon enough.
It won't prove a thing.
You didn't seem to notice that my question got several good answers,
from people who either didn't think it is was off topic, or are not so
hide-bound to an on-topic rule, which did not come down from Sinai.
Please read Paul's most excellent post in this thread. Maybe coming
from someone you respect a little more might help you with your
comprehension problem.
And BTW, the fewest number of replies were in AHR and none were from the
intruder/political spammers from other invading groups, probably because
they don't read AHR directly, they only cross-post to it.
Who cares? Try posting on-topic things there and maybe you'll get more
of a response.
So stop your whining.
It does have loads of control. I got 6 emails from bots last night
saying that one or another post had been cancelled because I was new and
they said new people often posted spam (even if you read it it clearly
was on topic and not spam) , but I could object I'd only posted 2,
maybe 3, things (one twice with changes, but I still don't know how it
got to six.
I've been reading all these groups for 10 or 20 years, or more. Except
in AHR, how many times have I posted off-topic, even by your or the
strictest standards?. In a windows and firefox groups, I think this is
the only time. In 20 years. In the Android group, a few times
semi-on-topic, once about iphones when I found a lost iphone, and maybe
a couple more.
I'm not an invader whose goal is to fill the group with spam. Once in
20 years. And I'm not the poster a wave of OT posters are waiting for,
to know that it's time for them to start posting OT. So even if you
thought my post was OT, it would have been worth one short reply,
instead of series of 6 replies from you that were even more off-topic
than my OP So stop your whining.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 508 |
| Nodes: | 16 (1 / 15) |
| Uptime: | 238:11:15 |
| Calls: | 9,985 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 13,836 |
| Messages: | 6,358,233 |