Le 29/02/2024 à 15:30, Frank Slootweg a écrit :

>> I totally agree with that, but there can be real abuse in a text message.
>> I don't mean just insults, I mean saying someone is pedophile with his
>> physical address (this is only an example that I saw years ago, from
>> Dizum).
> That would be a case for law inforcement. Canceling (read: *trying* to
> cancel) - or filtering it at the server level - this stuff isn't going
> to make it go away.

Dizum is an anonymizer, that's where the problem is.They have no logs so
they can't give them to the justice. UDP was made to put pressure on rogue
servers, but with no cancels, no UDP, no law.

Eric M <conanospamic@gmail.com> wrote:
> Le 29/02/2024 à 14:34, Frank Slootweg a écrit :
>
> > I'm Dutch and live in The Netherlands, so I don't "have an american
> > point of view".
>
> You can have an American point of view everywhere in the world :)

True, but I don't have an American point of view (whatever that is),
but a European/Dutch one (whatever that is).

> > As to your example, you apparently have a misunderstanding about the
> > (correct) American meaning of "freedom of speech", because your example
> > has nothing to do with that. However, since many (most?) Americans also
> > do not know the correct meaning of "freedom of speech" (in an American
> > legal context), your misunderstanding is understandable.
>
> Explain to me (maybe in a better group).

Simply put, according to the US First Amendment (to the US
Constitution), the *governement* can not censor, interfere with or
restrain free and public expression of opinion, but *other* parties can.
i.e. in your (snipped, don't do that!) example, antisemitic posts can be
acted upon by others (and by the law, if so defined).

Some background material:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Freedom_of_speech_and_of_the_press>

Besides this US Constitution "freedom of speech", there are other
concepts of "freedom of speech". See for example

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech>

So when someone claims "freedom of speech" they/you are well advised
to determine *which* kind of "freedom of speech" they/you are talking
about.

> >> But people answer to people using Dizum, so your filter is useless.
>
> > You can filter responses to posts from Dizum, but the question is if
> > that is desirable in all cases. When someone responds to unwanted
> > material, that does not automatically mean that that response is also
> > unwanted.
>
> So I will see only a small part of what is written in the group and that's
> not better.

No, not of the group, but of the (sub)thread.

You can filter Dizum posts, responses to Dizum posts and whole
subthreads containing one or more Dizum posts.

See the tin filter documentation or just the simple comments in your
tin filter file (probably ~/.tin/filter):

# msgid=STRING Optional. Message-ID: line (e.g. <123@ether.net>) with
# full references.
# msgid_last=STRING Optional. Like above, but with last reference only.
# msgid_only=STRING Optional. Like above, but without references.
# refs_only=STRING Optional. References: line (e.g. <123@ether.net>) without
# Message-ID:

> > I don't see 'spam' (mostly - but not neccessarily- commercial content,
> > posted in bulk quantities) from Dizum.
>
> No, for the moment it's only for insults with multiple identities,
> moderatly great.

That happens in posts from many, many servers, also from 'non-rogue'
servers and in this very group, And these 'multiple identities' even
complain about 'spam' and 'abuse' and 'discuss' it with the admins. Go
figure!

> > As to "the Google shit": Canceling 'spam' isn't abuse, because it's
> > defined action *against* abuse. So there was no reason whatsoever to
> > "cry to censorship". So please don't let your misunderstanding
> > misrepresent my position.
>
> Sometimes the limit is thin, in fr.* we had a guy who posted his
> "mathematical discoveries" with Google, ten or twenty times a day, it
> meant nothing and made the group unreadable, so we had to cancel him. Now
> we don't have to do it anymore.

If the BI is above limit for the fr.* hierarchy or the group in
question, it is cancelable spam. If not, you'll have to (try to) filter
it or/and take it up with the admin in question.

> > And yes, Dizum still has "sewer" (not "sewer output") in their path.
>
> That's great.

Marco Moock <mm+usenet@dorfdsl.de> wrote:
> Am 29.02.2024 schrieb Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>:

> > That would be a case for law inforcement. Canceling (read: *trying*
> > to cancel) - or filtering it at the server level - this stuff isn't
> > going to make it go away.
>
> Making it harder to inject that is indeed a way to have less of that.
> Since aioe is down and mixmin doesn't allow unauthenticated posting,
> such stuff in de.* decreased significantly.

AFAIK, there are other servers which do allow unauthenticated posting.

Eric M <conanospamic@gmail.com> wrote:
> Le 29/02/2024 à 15:30, Frank Slootweg a écrit :
>
> >> I totally agree with that, but there can be real abuse in a text message.
> >> I don't mean just insults, I mean saying someone is pedophile with his
> >> physical address (this is only an example that I saw years ago, from
> >> Dizum).
>
> > That would be a case for law inforcement. Canceling (read: *trying* to
> > cancel) - or filtering it at the server level - this stuff isn't going
> > to make it go away.
>
> Dizum is an anonymizer, that's where the problem is.They have no logs so
> they can't give them to the justice. UDP was made to put pressure on rogue
> servers, but with no cancels, no UDP, no law.

Anonimity is widespread, also on ('modern') social media. We (society)
and law enforcement will have to live/deal with the undesirable
consequences of that.

OTOH, their (Dizum's) Usenet F.A.Q. indicates that they will work with
law enforcement and that they have ways of disabling a user's posting
ability.

Le 29/02/2024 à 17:01, Frank Slootweg a écrit :

>> Dizum is an anonymizer, that's where the problem is.They have no logs so
>> they can't give them to the justice. UDP was made to put pressure on rogue
>> servers, but with no cancels, no UDP, no law.
> Anonimity is widespread, also on ('modern') social media. We (society)
> and law enforcement will have to live/deal with the undesirable
> consequences of that.

Social media have logs, you are never anonymous, even on Twitter (or
whatever it's called now).
> OTOH, their (Dizum's) Usenet F.A.Q. indicates that they will work with
> law enforcement and that they have ways of disabling a user's posting
> ability.

So maybe it's better than before.

Le 29/02/2024 à 16:19, Frank Slootweg a écrit :

>> You can have an American point of view everywhere in the world :)
>
> True, but I don't have an American point of view (whatever that is),
> but a European/Dutch one (whatever that is).

[...]

> Simply put, according to the US First Amendment (to the US
> Constitution)

So maybe you have an American point of view after all :)

Eric M <conanospamic@gmail.com> wrote:
> Le 29/02/2024 à 17:01, Frank Slootweg a écrit :
>
> >> Dizum is an anonymizer, that's where the problem is.They have no logs so
> >> they can't give them to the justice. UDP was made to put pressure on rogue
> >> servers, but with no cancels, no UDP, no law.
>
> > Anonimity is widespread, also on ('modern') social media. We (society)
> > and law enforcement will have to live/deal with the undesirable
> > consequences of that.
>
> Social media have logs, you are never anonymous, even on Twitter (or
> whatever it's called now).

Yes, but these logs don't point to a person. At best, they point to an
IP address, which is often shared by multiple people.

Of course there are stupid anonymous people, who can and will get
caught. But when they're smart, it's not so easy and sometimes (often?)
impossible.

> > OTOH, their (Dizum's) Usenet F.A.Q. indicates that they will work with
> > law enforcement and that they have ways of disabling a user's posting
> > ability.
>
> So maybe it's better than before.

Eric M <conanospamic@gmail.com> wrote:
> Le 29/02/2024 à 16:19, Frank Slootweg a écrit :
>
> >> You can have an American point of view everywhere in the world :)
> >
> > True, but I don't have an American point of view (whatever that is),
> > but a European/Dutch one (whatever that is).
>
> [...]
>
> > Simply put, according to the US First Amendment (to the US
> > Constitution)
>
> So maybe you have an American point of view after all :)

Nope, I just see when clueless Americans rant about this! :-)

On 29 Feb 2024, Eric M <conanospamic@gmail.com> posted some
news:eCZqkD1SlXApdN1fp4H7_t0KIKg@jntp:

> Le 29/02/2024 à 15:30, Frank Slootweg a écrit :
>
>>> I totally agree with that, but there can be real abuse in a text
>>> message. I don't mean just insults, I mean saying someone is
>>> pedophile with his physical address (this is only an example that I
>>> saw years ago, from Dizum).

Obviously you've never visited alt.checkmate where pedo accusations galore
spew from google, giganews, blocknews and others.

>> That would be a case for law inforcement. Canceling (read: *trying*
>> to
>> cancel) - or filtering it at the server level - this stuff isn't
>> going to make it go away.
>
> Dizum is an anonymizer, that's where the problem is.They have no logs
> so they can't give them to the justice. UDP was made to put pressure
> on rogue servers, but with no cancels, no UDP, no law.

Definitions of "rogue" tend to shift fitting an emotional state of the
moment.

Consider this, some dizum posters work in law enforcement.

On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 21:36:50 +0100 (CET), anon <anon@invisible.org> wrote:
>On 29 Feb 2024, Eric M <conanospamic@gmail.com> posted some
>news:eCZqkD1SlXApdN1fp4H7_t0KIKg@jntp:
>> Le 29/02/2024 A� 15:30, Frank Slootweg a A crit :
>>
>>>> I totally agree with that, but there can be real abuse in a text
>>>> message. I don't mean just insults, I mean saying someone is
>>>> pedophile with his physical address (this is only an example that I
>>>> saw years ago, from Dizum).
>
>Obviously you've never visited alt.checkmate where pedo accusations galore
>spew from google, giganews, blocknews and others.
>
>>> That would be a case for law inforcement. Canceling (read: *trying*
>>> to
>>> cancel) - or filtering it at the server level - this stuff isn't
>>> going to make it go away.
>>
>> Dizum is an anonymizer, that's where the problem is.They have no logs
>> so they can't give them to the justice. UDP was made to put pressure
>> on rogue servers, but with no cancels, no UDP, no law.
>
>Definitions of "rogue" tend to shift fitting an emotional state of the
>moment.
>Consider this, some dizum posters work in law enforcement.

maybe, would guess probably if not definitely, considering how very
popular dizum, remailers, m2n gateways, and nyms have been over the
decades . . . it is certain that anonymous remailers have been used
frequently to post "storefront" promotions and other big brotherish
propaganda (nothing new, old bbs users will recall provocateurs and
such asking unsolicited, incendiary, cointelpro-style questions for
no logical reason); whiners about anonymity are probably in cahoots

On 2024-02-29 16:19, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Eric M <conanospamic@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Le 29/02/2024 à 14:34, Frank Slootweg a écrit :
>>
>>> I'm Dutch and live in The Netherlands, so I don't "have an american
>>> point of view".
>>
>> You can have an American point of view everywhere in the world :)
>
> True, but I don't have an American point of view (whatever that is),
> but a European/Dutch one (whatever that is).
>
> ...
>>
>> Sometimes the limit is thin, in fr.* we had a guy who posted his
>> "mathematical discoveries" with Google, ten or twenty times a day, it
>> meant nothing and made the group unreadable, so we had to cancel him. Now
>> we don't have to do it anymore.
>
> If the BI is above limit for the fr.* hierarchy or the group in
> question, it is cancelable spam. If not, you'll have to (try to) filter
> it or/and take it up with the admin in question.
>

Funny that the BI has a name that is also that of a major US source of
disinformation, not unlike a certain German newspaper from the interwar
years. Of cause A Breitbart was adopted and the BI was made by S
Breitbart, whom I guess was not a blood relative.

Godwin was already mentioned.

Enjoy

Jakob
--
Jakob Bohm, CIO, Partner, WiseMo A/S. https://www.wisemo.com
Transformervej 29, 2860 Søborg, Denmark. Direct +45 31 13 16 10
This public discussion message is non-binding and may contain errors.
WiseMo - Remote Service Management for PCs, Phones and Embedded

Jakob Bohm <jb-usenet@wisemo.invalid> wrote:
>Funny that the BI has a name that is also that of a major US source of
>disinformation, not unlike a certain German newspaper from the interwar
>years. Of cause A Breitbart was adopted and the BI was made by S
>Breitbart, whom I guess was not a blood relative.

Seth was famous on the net as a major force on Usenet many years before
that political loon ever made it to TV. Seth is good people.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Jakob Bohm <jb-usenet@wisemo.invalid> wrote:

>Funny that the BI has a name that is also that of a major US source of
>disinformation, not unlike a certain German newspaper from the interwar
>years. Of cause A Breitbart was adopted and the BI was made by S
>Breitbart, whom I guess was not a blood relative.

Speaking of disinformation, you misspelled his name.

Seth Breidbart
Andrew Breitbart

This post exhibits a failure of snark.