I’m not asking about how it is used for warez, since that is what it mostly hosting at this point… Nor am I asking why anyone should or should not start a community on USENET (many reasons why you wouldn’t/couldn’t).

Instead, I am asking why someone would only decide to engage with the textual, traditional, conversational aspects of USENET over modern tools like lemmy?

I could name a few I suppose:

  • Relative anonymity
  • Access to a large amount of history
  • Nostalgia
  • Communication with those who still frequent newsgroups

I don’t know how many more there are but I would like to hear your guys’ opinions in regards to those listed above and any others I may have missed.

  • resterWink@lemmy.darkc0de.oneOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    9 hours ago

    Wide range of powerful, mature clients with extensive filtering functionality, offline reading support.

    Sadly this isn’t really the case anymore. All the to previously used clients (other than command line) for most major platforms have been dead for over a decade now due to the drop in usage of USENET during the 2000s. With that as well there never were any actual mobile clients that were developed (as a side note).

    Better client-side accessibility. I mean, you can be blind and use a screenreader or something on Usenet. Going to be a lot less ideal on the Threadiverse.

    I think this has a lot to deal with just the tech stack required to run the modern Threadiverse. I honestly liked the simple and low-level aspects of USENET vs HTTP based alternatives. USENET was defined by objectively shorter standards than what current HTTP and Web technologies define. It also meant a larger selection of clients (and the possibility to create your own) due to the greater simplicity of standards required for it to function.

    Since it was also was built as function over form vs the Web’s reciprocal approach it makes implementations like screen readers much more difficult unless the developers specifically include that into their Threadiverse software

    Comment editors are probably better than the in-browser textarea editors or clients with limited text-editors that I’ve seen (though the Threadiverse has Markdown as a standard, which I think is generally preferable).

    Markdown is nice I just find it hard to read sometimes due to it kinda being like a web page within a web page. Or better put it’s more like if you took a physical scroll of simple comments (no headers, no nothing, just text) and then pasted (physically) a fully formatted document as if it were just another comment ignoring any kind of page start or end. It just feels odd to look at. I hope that all made sense.

    Though I haven’t been browsing Usenet in some time, and maybe they have MIME-encoded Markdown or HTML or something as a common thing now.

    There is the option to include HTML in messages but I think that is generally considered bad form just due to the nature of embedding images into articles rather than having them as some kind of message attachment is not really in the spirit of the minimal nature of USENET.

    More-standardized support for posting embedded binaries.

    Maybe uuencode and base32/64 as yEnc wasn’t really a proper standard and more so defacto which lead to some clients that decided to not implement it at all (MS, Mozilla; along with other mail client news readers)

    Commercial service is available. It’s great that people donate their time and funds to make Threadiverse servers run, but there’s something to be said for the resources available from commercial service. There’s nothing stopping someone from running a commercial Threadiverse instance, but AFAIK, nobody presently is doing so.

    The only real reason why the commercial service because a real big thing for USENET and pretty much the exclusive way to access it was because of the large amount of binary newsgroups, which in my opinion really destroyed USENET since it cause mass desertion of the system, including the horrible amount of spam.

    As for a threadiverse instance it probably is best that it remain non-commercialized, or if it were to become so it wouldn’t have as much an impact because the risk of storing gigantic binaries with little moderation is minimized.

    Newsgroups are more discoverable than are communities on the Threadiverse — you really need to use the https://lemmyverse.net/ index to find any communities out there, as otherwise you’ll only see it once the exact name “!community@instancename” has been searched for on your local instance. Usenet (mostly) propagated newsgroups everywhere.

    This is one of my biggest gripes I have with lemmy and the rest of the threadiverse. For me to discover new communities to subscribe to on a separate federated instance I have to navigate directly to said instance via the url bar of my browser and search them manually rather than be able to search for them from my instance. If they had some kind of community distribution function then it would be much simpler to find niche communities.

    If this point isn’t addressed eventually it might end up actually inadvertently contributing to the centralization of communities where everyone peers to lemmy.world for example just to get all the communities rather than seeing existing communities on other instances.

    Probably a larger userbase, though I haven’t dug up current numbers. Certainly a different group and set of interests.

    Its mostly graybeards and a lot of binary uploads. There are still quite a few active newsgroups though, you just have to look through the endless onslaught of past uploads in supposedly ‘text only’ newsgroups that have been overrun by binaries.

    Really the only good provider that you can use to get the classic experience is eternal September (which is free btw)

    I would bet that Usenet servers can scale up to more load than can Threadiverse servers.

    This could be argued by saying that there wouldn’t be a need to use web tech to service all the requests sure, but I honestly don’t think that the scalability would be much different. Though, I am not in a position to provide actually insightful commentary on this specific subject.