In article <ujfjn2$ae10$
1...@dont-email.me>,
David Brown <
david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
...
>> Just not so demanding of time and interaction that it becomes easier to
>> set up Linux and run tin
>>
>> Just not that it's easier to install Linux and run tin.
>
>Why would anyone choose to run tin, unless they have been using it for
>the last three decades? There are many free Usenet clients available,
>for Windows and Linux (and I guess also for Macs). They are not
>particularly difficult to install or use, and no one needs to use an OS
>that they don't want to use.
I think you misunderstood his point. The point is that it is too easy
(currently) to automate the process of signing up with Google. This makes
it easy to mass-spam the newsgroups.
The whole point of his post is that we want it to be more difficult to
automate the process of signing up with Google. But there is a limit as to
how far to go on this road, since at some point (if you keep making it
harder and harder to sign up for Google), it becomes easier (for the
spammer/automater) to use some other newsreader (such as tin).
Got it now?
>The spammers are amateurs. Any professional spammer group would know
>perfectly well that flooding technical Usenet groups with Thai casino
>adverts is useless.
As another poster has suggested, I think something more nefarious is going
on. We should not assume that this is just another instance of the usual
"some poor schmuck in some god-forsaken third world shithole trying
desperately to make a few bucks so that they don't have to spend their
lives in grinding poverty" case.
In fact, I think Google is somehow in on it - i.e., from their POV, this
mess is a feature, not a bug. I make no assertion as to the details of
this, and I don't think we do ourselves any favors speculating about it.
>> Before we blame everything on Google, the first step is getting
>> Microsoft to fix the problem that millions of Windows machines are under
>> the surreptitious control of bad actors.
>>
>
>I don't blame /everything/ on Google - but this one is most certainly
>their fault.
Just to be clear, my underlying suggestion that I want Google to ban (i.e.,
make read-only) all the newsgroups is obviously a "not optimal, but perhaps
practical" sort of solution. They either can't or won't actually fix the
problem, so getting them out of the mess is the best we can hope for.
By the way, actually when you think about it, the idea of Google making
newsgroups read-only might actually be a good long-term solution. That
would allow newcomers (which as the other poster notes, we need to have a
steady stream of) to sample the wares w/o being able to post. They would
be encouraged to look around, decide they like it, then be instructed on
how to get setup with a real newsreader and news server. Works for
everybody!
--
"Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS
crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in
TARP money, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in
bonuses, and paid no taxes? Yeah, me neither."