+1
2017-11-16T20:26:25-0600 J.B. Nicholson wrote: > > I think the concept of a focal point is wrongheaded, particularly when > it comes to free (as in freedom) discussion. Every free software > project (even different GNU distribution) will continue to make their > own choices for hosting and get into or avoid the problems I mention > here. Also, we don't need a single point of focus any more than any > other topic discussed anywhere needs one: let a thousand flowers bloom > while recognizing that some choices are better at achieving certain > ends than others. There are lots of books covering the same topics, > lots of websites, and so on. Software freedom or the GNU OS can (and > so far has) gone the same way. > > When it comes to what hosting software should be chosen, I find that > web forums are highly overrated and ultimately a problem, not a > solution. There are some concepts that have always been simply > inappropriate for a centralized deployment. Web forums are currently > deployed in a centralized way (on purpose) thus they are inherently > censor-friendly, they're very hard to get complete and provably > accurate archives from (by design; bad design choices), and they're > likely to unnecessarily require Javascript (JS) to be fully > useful. These two problems are sufficient to arm any anti-software > freedom argument simply by pointing out the readily-apparent > ironies. Web forum moderators/hosters also like to put in ridiculous > non-features like rating systems on posts and use points gained/lost > as a default way to keep low-scoring posts from being seen right along > side high-scoring posts. > > I maintain that proper scoring, filtering, or anything like that is > properly done only on the endpoint by the user, and done in a way that > the servers that client uses have no idea the scoring/filtering is > being done. In other words, my scores/filters are nobody else's > business. > > Unmoderated mailing lists are only marginally better than web forums > as commonly implemented today: no JS use needed (which is a huge plus > and completely avoids the nonfree-JS problem), and they're more likely > to send copies of posts immediately. Scoring systems implemented on > mailing lists are very likely to fail as there's no standard for such > a thing with emails (which is good). But they're still centralized; if > one is kicked off the list one has to use another email address and > possibly some subterfuge to get back on the list and that's not > good. Public archives reading is easily curtailed through > subscriber-only archives, and web-based archive access can also > reintroduce the needless JS problem or fail to offer bulk archives in > useful formats (like a compressed mbox archive). GMane goes some way > toward fixing this, but even a hundred gmane workalikes wouldn't fix > the underlying centralization. Archives become less reliable because > the same party that could censor posts can also edit the archives > (this problem would go away with widespread support for public key > crypto use, but that's not popular enough to be practical for post > verification now). > > But netnews (particularly with widely distributed newsgroups available > on many news servers) is far better on this ground than either mailing > lists or web forums: no JS needed at all, scoring is optional and done > at the endpoint, and an increased chance of avoiding censorship > through competitive service delivery. If one NNTP server blocks one > from posting and/or reading there, or if some server admin does > something foolish to the posts, users can move to other > servers. Single-server newsgroups are a problem for the same reasons > mailing lists and web forums are a problem -- > a single point of failure and control (censorship) over the user.
