From: nospam@example.net   
      
   On Fri, 8 Nov 2024, Scott Dorsey wrote:   
      
   > D   wrote:   
   >> On Wed, 6 Nov 2024, Rich wrote:   
   >>> One did have to do both, and even so, the volume was impossible to keep   
   >>> up with if the group was at all active.   
   >   
   > On Usenet, I often had very aggressive killfiles, not because I had anything   
   > against the postings but just because I wasn't interested in another thread   
   > about digital audio workstations again.  Some groups I would go into to find   
   > that 90% of the traffic was taken out by the killfile.  But there was still   
   > plenty, plenty to read.   
   >   
   >> This is an interesting problem. How is it solved in modern social media?   
   >   
   > Very poorly.  Most of those systems are just firehoses and they will   
   > prioritize postings based upon their own (profit-oriented) notions of what   
   > is most important, not the user's.   
   > --scott   
   >   
      
   Yes, it does seem like the killfile is the "state of the art". ;) The only   
   addition on top of the killfile I could imagine, would be the "communal   
   killfile" where you add accounts to a common list and then use that list   
   together.   
      
   The weakness is of course that it can be abused, so I think a communal   
   killfile would most likely only work for a smaller group of individuals   
   with similar taste and ideology when it comes to politics and free speech.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)