XPost: news.groups, rec.arts.comics.dc.universe, rec.arts.sf.tv   
   XPost: rec.arts.tv   
   From: kalelfan@yanospamhoo.com   
      
   [crossposts restored]   
      
   For those on the other four groups, subthreads have emerged on   
   news.groups only when posters there have stripped crossposts.   
   I've been reading all those news.groups-only posts and in most   
   cases they're so specific or obscure in their focus that I agree it's   
   better limited to news.groups.   
      
   However, there are bigger picture issues sometimes, which have   
   a legitimate place in the context of this wider META+ topic   
   that's being discussed.  This is one of those and there'll be at   
   least one or two others I have in draft.   
      
   "Doug Freyburger"  wrote in message   
   news:ifks1e$1q3$1@news.eternal-september.org...   
      
   > Charles wrote:   
   >   
   >> The Google interface has been improved a lot since it first came out.   
   >> The problem is not with the Google interface per se which causes many   
   >> not to like Google Groups. It is because Google has not blocked spam   
   >> from being injected from Google Groups.   
   >   
   > Which introduces a cognative fault - Someone else did X poorly therefore   
   > X is a bad idea anywhere by anyone.  And/or any effort to improve X is   
   > bad because someone else did X poorly.   
      
   You may right, but I think it may also lend too much credence to the   
   implication that the underlying assertion had merit in the first place,   
   i.e. that Google has done poorly in not blocking spam from being injected.   
   I strongly suspect Google policy on that is based on responding to what   
   it feels it *must*, legally or otherwise, respond to.  Especially when it   
   comes to Usenet, I think the bar or threshold for "must respond" is   
   quite high.   
      
   There are countless people on Usenet who use the word "spam" as a   
   weapon, just like they use "troll" and the like that way.  If they were   
   only using it in such ways because they had no clue that'd be one thing,   
   and perhaps a few fit that category.  But most aren't clueless, they just   
   want to lash out and "Spammer!" and "Troll!" serves that purpose.   
   They know they're abusing the definition.   
      
   Should Google march to the tune of such two-faced whiners?  To the   
   point where they start precluding posts at the front end?  Hell no!   
   If they ever do I suggest they filter the two-faced whiners first.   
      
   The "passive conduit" is I think the Elephant in the Cyberverse here.   
   When you think about it, anyone touching the conduit with any kind   
   of moderation or filtering at purely injection points is arguably on the   
   hook in multiple ways for the judgment they're making.  If they just   
   sit back at a safe distance from the passive conduit, not make any   
   judgments until a complaint is received, and even then ignore it if   
   it doesn't meet a high standard of truth in name-calling and/or isn't   
   supported by any legal action, then they're on more solid ground.   
      
   At the receiving end as opposed to the injection point, it's completely   
   different.  The cesspool stuff is out there and everywhere.  Purveyors   
   of it have had their Freedom.  But Google and other well-run servers   
   have no obligation to leave their users to suffer it, in fact arguably   
   quite the opposite.  I don't know any user who subscribes to a text   
   group and wants to see massive spam or binaries/attachments.   
      
   Same on the email side though there I get the impression you can   
   look at your spam if you want to.  The legal distinction may be that   
   in the email case it was specifically addressed to you whereas in the   
   newsgroup case it's effectively addressed to the server that an ISP or   
   NSP owns.  As the owner of the server in receipt of the spam, binaries   
   and/or related attachments, there's presumably nothing in their TOS   
   with their users, or in law or civil law or any other precedent, that will   
   dissuade them from applying filters to that junk on arrival, as a matter   
   of their own policy at that point.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)