comp.os.linux.networking

David Schwartz writes:

>On Apr 11, 3:47 pm, Bit Twister wrote:

>> You can take my word that Moe is pretty honest.

>I tend not to agree, at least not based on this comment:

>"NOTE: Posting from groups.google.com (or some web-forums)
>dramatically
>reduces the chance of your post being seen. Find a real news server."

And this is dishonest how? Many people have a news filter on google groups
since so much spam originates there, as he said. If your post is filtered
out, it is not seen. If it is not seen it is not answered.


>> For *me*, it would be a server who's abuse admin would terminate the
>> offender upon complaints and provide the ip of the poster in the
>> post header. That would allow me to also send abuse complaints
>> to poster's ISP to see if I could get his account terminated. :-)

>There are huge trade-offs between privacy, abuse handling, and the
>availability of human labor. I've seen google strike the balance wrong
>in each possible direction more than once.

>I've seen no credible evidence that there's this mass of intelligent
>people who killfile posts through google. I've been posting through
>google and other news servers for many, many years and have seen
>google's reach be precisely the same as everyone else's.

And anyone who sees the world differently than you do is dishonest?



>I'm not as quick to give up on the value of anonymous speech as you
>are, and if you make the administrative overhead of allowing anonymous
>speech too high, it will cease to exist. It's very hard for non-free
>services to offer anonymous speech because a lot of people have no
>anonymous way to pay.

But for some reason you do not believe that anonymous speech could be
misused to throw out garbage into newsgroups? Note the non-anonymity in
payment does not necessarily mean non-annonymity in posting.


>DS