Re: Fediverse newsgroup

Kyonshi <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 4/5/2024 7:19 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>Blue-Maned_Hawk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>Kyonshi wrote:
>>>>On 4/4/2024 12:13 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>>Kyonshi <[email protected]> wrote:

>>>>>>I was thinking it might be good to have a group for discussions of the
>>>>>>fediverse (mastodon, pixelfed, et. al.) that is not on the fediverse
>>>>>>itself.

>>>>>>I was thinking about alt.comp.infosystems.fediverse

>>>>>If other people agree that the discussion should take place on Usenet,
>>>>>then you'll be able to find the discussion already taking place on
>>>>>Usenet. Discussion first, then decide if there's a need for a group. A
>>>>>dedicated group for discussion no one wants will fail.

>>>>That's why I'm asking here you know?

>>>What i understand Mr. Kerman to be saying is that newsgroups are only
>>>created if people are already discussing the topic of the newsgroup _in
>>>existing newsgroups_.

>>No. You misunderstood entirely. What I said is quoted above and doesn't
>>require reinterpretation.

>I dunno, it seemed to cover what you were saying.
>Maybe it's not a problem with other people misunderstanding you, maybe 
>it's more about you not expressing yourself in a way that can be 
>understood.

Listen to me. I've been observing new newsgroups for decades in alt.*,
the Big 8, and certain regional hierarchies. Every proponent thinks his
idea for a newsgroup is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Let me
assure you that it is not. I always tell proponents what they need to
know, not what they want to hear.

Your proposed newsgroup will fail due to the difficulty of overcoming
ignorance and apathy.

Any idiot can send a control message, which is exactly the position I
took with llp several months ago when he was complaining about cancel
messages in the fr.* hierarchy. I've always taken this position in alt.*
with respect to newgroup messages. Just because you can doesn't mean you
should. Newgroup messages are archived FOREVER. It's your name and
reputation, and the initial newgroup message controls, so don't royally
fuck up the syntax.

Even though a newgroup message is a type of control message, it doesn't
control shit. It does not create a newsgroup. That is done one server at
a time. alt.* and free.* are unadministered hierarchies. That means the
proponent posts the newgroup message as there is no hierarchy
administrator and no checkgroups for a canonical list of newsgroups.

But that's just an initial step. Your newgroup message hasn't created a
newsgroup because newsgroups in unadministered hierarchies on any
well-used server are not created without user request. Then you have the
problem of syntax. You might get the Control header correct but screw up
the Newsgroups file line wrong or leave it out entirely. That means the
test newsgroups and active files at ftp.isc.org won't get updated and
the newgroup message won't get processed at News sites that require a
Newsgroups file line.

But say you don't fuck up syntax.

Who the hell wants this newsgroup aside from you? No one on Usenet.
Newsgroups aren't for people in the real world who don't use Usenet.
They are for Usenet users to better organize discussion.

There can be exceptions, like an institution shutting down its News
server for customer support and its users deciding to use Usenet
instead. That's an exceptional circumstance.

In the absense of discussion on Usenet, a newsgroup in and of itself
doesn't create discussion. Won't happen. Never has.

"But there's no place to post!" Of course there is. Usenet is filled
with empty newsgroups, in the thousands. Thousands and thousands and
thousands of proponents have gone before you whose new groups have
failed. There are failures in administered hierarchies too.

The worst proponents are the ones with an idea for a newsgroup but who
themselves are not well known for discussing the topic on Usenet.

If you are truly serious about getting discussion of Fediverse going on
Usenet, then it's up to YOU to start some. Post in the newsgroup that's
closest to the topic. Find what other discussion on Usenet that there is
and encourage people to discuss it in the newsgroup you found. Using an
existing newsgroup has the advantage that it's already created on many
News servers.

If you don't have SUSTAINABLE discussion of a topic over a recent 90 day
period of 10 articles a day (that would be 900 articles), then there is
no need for the newsgroup you propose and it will fail. SUSTAINABLE
discussion IS NOT CROSSPOSTED. It IS NOT articles reposted from the Web.
It means articles ON TOPIC written by Usenet users using their own
words. It means a root article together with on topic followups.

If a thread doesn't develop, then that article wasn't discussed.

What I've said will not make you happy but it's what you need to know.

But if you don't care about starting a newsgroup that won't fail, if you
don't care about your own reputation, and you somehow believe that
getting that newgroup message archived at ftp.isc.org has given you a
taste of immortality, sure, go ahead. No one will prevent you from
sending a newgroup message.

It would sure be nice if you were one of those rare proponents who cared
about making sure the topic was being well discussed on Usenet first.

Don't join the tens of thousands of idiot proponents who have gone
before you.