Re: Proposing alt.security.engineering

"Adam H. Kerman" <[email protected]> posted:

> Nuno Silva  <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On 2026-01-02, William Stickers wrote:
> >
> >> Keith wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> Keith <[email protected]> posted:
> >>> 
> >>> > 
> >>> > William Stickers <[email protected]> posted:
> >>> > 
> >>> > > Keith wrote:
> >>> > > > 
> >>> > > > first of all i am an amateur (that doesn't mean i'm
> >>> > > > incompetent quiz me if you
> >>> > > > want), but i feel like security engineering as a field should
> >>> > > > have a sub-hierarchy
> >>> > > > 
> >>> > > > again i have no control group perms, so would be really cool if
> >someone could
> >>> > > > create this :D
> >>> > > 
> >>> > > <https://www.reddit.com/r/securityengineering/>
> >>> > 
> >>> > why can't we have both spaces?
> >>> 
> >>> i'm just going to set this shit up myself thats the best thing about
> >this platform
> >>> no one can censor you because you can just run everything
> >independently, no wonder
> >>> it has been consistently active for like 50+ years
> >>
> >> I don't think you quite get it. The reason there are not half a dozen 
> >> usenetters on here explaining the pros and cons of creating this group is 
> >> because they have moved on. Mostly everyone has, even the spammers have given 
> >> up. You've missed the party.
> >> Good luck with sending the newgroup cmsg. I don't know of any NSPs that allow 
> >> them anymore.
> >
> >Has this changed significantly in the past couple years or so?
> >
> >Just a few years ago at least three alt.* groups were created after
> >Giganews and Mozilla pulled the plug on news.mozilla.org.
> 
> How is that comparable? A small fraction of the users were highly
> motivated to continue communicating, choosing to start three Usenet
> groups. The move to these groups did not retain much of the old
> audience. Please don't bring up irrelevancies.
> 
> Our Dear Proponent, who proposed two newsgroups despite never having
> posted to Usenet, effectively wants vanity froups. He has threatened to
> set up his own News server if he cannot get what he wants, because he
> believes he's being censored. He refuses to understand that if the
> Usenet community is ignorant and apathetic about his froups, which are
> admittedly the greatest thing since sliced bread, that he has been
> censored. He's a would-be dictator who thinks he can force others to
> talk about his topics despite no one having any idea who he is, nor do
> they give a fuck.
> 
> Let's say by some miracle he figures out how to properly configure a
> News server and it doesn't become a major originating source of spam. He
> still won't have an audience for either of the two froups. He'll claim he's
> been censored and will stalk off.
> 
> This is the true nature of Usenet. Audiences must be built. It's real
> work. There are no shortcuts. Just because one doesn't care to put in
> the work to build an audience doesn't make one the victim of censorship.
> It's because one is an uncaring lazy and worthless proponent.

i want to apologize for the threatening language and the personal attacks, you have
much more experience than i do. i just think it's sad that long-term users of 
this platform don't seem to get why so many people want a return to moderation
being the responsibility of users.