From: snuhwolf@yahoo.com   
      
   Coyo wrote:   
   > On 1/8/2015 8:31 AM, §ñühwö£f wrote:   
   >> Facebook and twitter killed usenet.   
   >   
   > I refuse to let this be.   
   >   
   > Facebook and Twitter are, like, the complete opposite of Usenet in terms   
   > of freedom and liberty.   
   >   
   Ok, sure, theres an argument I didnt make. But do go on :)   
      
   > Facebook and Twitter both are notorious and proven beyond a reasonable   
   > doubt to abuse their users, censor vitally important information,   
   > manipulate their userbase, and violate privacy.   
   >   
   But but! Pictures & media!!!! Plus no pesky Usenet clients to configure.   
      
   > With a few enhancements, Usenet could be one of the most vitally   
   > important fora to discuss matters of great import, such as policy, civil   
   > matters, diplomacy, things citizens are supposed to discuss.   
      
   It already is. Check out 'us.politics'.   
      
   >   
   > In a (true) republic or (true, direct) democracy, people are supposed to   
   > engage in discourse as citizens, and collectively decide policy.   
   >   
   Uhmurikuh isnt a true republic then. Its an oligarchy where the landed   
   gentry get to decide whats "best" :)   
      
      
   > Granted, most people are very uneducated, but that can change if people   
   > give them a bloody chance.   
   >   
   Its easier to manipulate a stupid public, so no incentive on the part of   
   the oligarchs to educate the masses.   
      
   > Public discourse on policy, proposals, and current events is vitally   
   > critically important for a healthy modern society.   
   >   
   Nicely re-iterated.   
      
      
   > The who reason for things like freedom of speech and freedom of the   
   > press to exist is to involve the citizenry in policymaking.   
   >   
   > Does any of this make sense?   
   >   
   Yer preaching to the choir here mate.   
      
      
   > At least in my opinion, Usenet (derived from "User's Network") is the   
   > ideal system and network for public discourse.   
   >   
   Its pretty good.   
      
   > Some enhancements I'd personally suggest would be a switch from NNTP to   
   > a binary protocol that permitted inband binary file transmission, a more   
   > database-friendly serialization format, blockchain-based decentralized   
   > moderation, layers of NaCl, OTR, GPG and NNS cryptography in binary form   
   > (no ASCII armour or binary-to-text conversion) so that discourse can be   
   > conducted only with groups of individuals in which you share common   
   > interests or trust.   
   >   
      
      
   Whuh...   
      
      
   > Granulated trust is important. Some things are questionable either   
   > legally or socially, but MUST be openly discussed with others of your   
   > kind, to determine the best course of action, given the circumstances. A   
   > decentralized and/or distributed system of discourse can give a viable   
   > alternative to a highly bloody and violent revolution.   
   >   
   The sheeple have their tea & circuses so theres little chance of a V for   
   Vendetta scenario.   
      
   > Reforming and changing the system from the inside SHOULD be an option.   
   > Without a nuanced and capable censorship-resistant and   
   > privacy-protecting platform of discourse, such reform will not be possible.   
   >   
   Self censorship due to the "pantopticon effect" & the NSA, "war on   
   whistleblowers" etc.   
      
   > Facebook and Twitter are NOT that platform. Usenet is our best bet.   
      
   I remember when I had hope for the future...   
   Heh.   
      
   --   
   http://wolfwatcher.org/   
   www.snuhwolf.9f.com|www.savewolves.org   
       _____  ____  ____ __ /\_/\ __      _ ______   _____   
      / __/ |/ / / / / // // . . \\ \ |\ | / __ \ \  \  __\   
     _\ \/    / /_/ / _  / \     / \ \| \| \ \_\ \ \__\  _\   
   /___/_/|_/\____/_//_/   \_@_/   \__|\__|\____/\____\_\   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)