Ask HN: Why isn't Usenet used anymore?
As far as I can tell it is a solid, scalable, decentralised social network. It reminds me of secure scuttlebutt, and I don't quite understand why it couldn't be gossiped over local networks in the same way too. Is it just that the clients and servers are old and fusty, or is there something broken about it?
18 comments
One problem is that people couldn't really agree about spam and content moderation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancelbot
Many Usenet users felt that there doesn't need to be a worldwide consensus about this (it's OK if different sites have different policies or different views of the contents of a newsgroup). However, the deployed attempts at antispam and content moderation through cancelbots and counter-cancelbots didn't scale very well or to many users' satisfaction.
I also think that moderated groups had a challenge with authenticating moderation (to prevent people from spoofing approvals).
Another scaling challenge, I think, is that Usenet originally had the model that there would be one single worldwide discussion forum about each topic. In later systems people often wanted friend-group-based, geographically-based, or project-based forums as well (although Usenet did end up having some of these, like organizationally-scoped news hierarchies!). It's daunting to imagine being on the one single worldwide talk.politics today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancelbot
Many Usenet users felt that there doesn't need to be a worldwide consensus about this (it's OK if different sites have different policies or different views of the contents of a newsgroup). However, the deployed attempts at antispam and content moderation through cancelbots and counter-cancelbots didn't scale very well or to many users' satisfaction.
I also think that moderated groups had a challenge with authenticating moderation (to prevent people from spoofing approvals).
Another scaling challenge, I think, is that Usenet originally had the model that there would be one single worldwide discussion forum about each topic. In later systems people often wanted friend-group-based, geographically-based, or project-based forums as well (although Usenet did end up having some of these, like organizationally-scoped news hierarchies!). It's daunting to imagine being on the one single worldwide talk.politics today.
From what I remember, spam was dealt with by using scorefiles, not cancelbots. And the scorefile mechanism was much superior to what you have today - except that you had to maintain that scorefile by yourself.
Depending on your limits and definition, it still is. I have an account on sdf.org and once in a while I run tin to see what people are posting about the Raspberry Pi.
But the reason it isn't very popular, I suspect, is because it is 99% spam. Only the occasional post is actually content. And most of the newsgroups that were popular once are only spam now. You can tell it's been going on a long time because there is reams and reams of it, with nobody even bothering to reply - literally spamming the void. It's really a disaster.
Back in the 90's people saw that coming. It's definitely here.
In the early 90's I used to provide UUCP news and email to BBS systems. If NNTP content was as crappy then as it is today, I would never have bothered.
But the reason it isn't very popular, I suspect, is because it is 99% spam. Only the occasional post is actually content. And most of the newsgroups that were popular once are only spam now. You can tell it's been going on a long time because there is reams and reams of it, with nobody even bothering to reply - literally spamming the void. It's really a disaster.
Back in the 90's people saw that coming. It's definitely here.
In the early 90's I used to provide UUCP news and email to BBS systems. If NNTP content was as crappy then as it is today, I would never have bothered.
This seems like it would be a wonderful greyhat movement - seek and destroy servers that spam the void. Practical experience and the whole world benefits, even the spammer.
[deleted]
In a normal case that wouldn't work. But in this case, I'm willing to bet that 90% of the spam comes from 10% of the servers.
Firstly, yes, there is something broken about it: Google Groups. Any new user becoming interested in Usenet will more likely than not end up in that quagmire, which will likely kill their appetite for Usenet rather quick.
But Google Groups is probably the only thing that could handle a large scale influx of users.
There simply aren't that many free Usenet servers.
If Usenet were to suddenly explode in popularity for some reason, those users not wanting to put up with Google Groups would probably overwhelm the small number of free NNTP servers.
Speaking of servers, what (almost) killed Usenet was ISP's shutting down their NNTP servers. It used to be that every major ISP ran an NNTP server you could connect to, similarly to how they give you an e-mail server. This service was obviously not free; it was part of the service package, though, so it looked free.
A big reason they stopped doing that was that most of the NNTP volume came to consist of copyright-infringing binaries.
People are now used to actually free discussion forums like Reddit; any resurgence of Usenet will have to use free servers (and your ISP won't provide a free-looking one any more). Too few users are willing to pay for Usenet access; a Usenet resurgence based on paying users connecting to servers cannot happen.
There is little economic incentive for anyone to provide a free Usenet server, because there is no revenue. You cannot collect any accurate personal information, and you cannot serve advertising. I suppose NNTP could be hacked to insert advertising into articles. These ads would likely be ineffective in their limited format, and face a backlash. Still, that's an idea. For instance, the non-paying users of an NNTP server might not get to see the original signatures of articles; the server would replace it with its own, containing an ad. Moreover, when posting, non-paying users would have their outgoing signature replaced by an ad. Paying users would see original signatures and get to send their own.
Before BitTorrent, people posted binaries as multi-part MIME or uuencode jobs to Usenet, believe it or not, using multiple articles. The clients still support automatic decoding of binaries from multiple posts.
It would be nice for Usenet to come back without the alt.binaries.* cruft that is not so useful today anyway.
But Google Groups is probably the only thing that could handle a large scale influx of users.
There simply aren't that many free Usenet servers.
If Usenet were to suddenly explode in popularity for some reason, those users not wanting to put up with Google Groups would probably overwhelm the small number of free NNTP servers.
Speaking of servers, what (almost) killed Usenet was ISP's shutting down their NNTP servers. It used to be that every major ISP ran an NNTP server you could connect to, similarly to how they give you an e-mail server. This service was obviously not free; it was part of the service package, though, so it looked free.
A big reason they stopped doing that was that most of the NNTP volume came to consist of copyright-infringing binaries.
People are now used to actually free discussion forums like Reddit; any resurgence of Usenet will have to use free servers (and your ISP won't provide a free-looking one any more). Too few users are willing to pay for Usenet access; a Usenet resurgence based on paying users connecting to servers cannot happen.
There is little economic incentive for anyone to provide a free Usenet server, because there is no revenue. You cannot collect any accurate personal information, and you cannot serve advertising. I suppose NNTP could be hacked to insert advertising into articles. These ads would likely be ineffective in their limited format, and face a backlash. Still, that's an idea. For instance, the non-paying users of an NNTP server might not get to see the original signatures of articles; the server would replace it with its own, containing an ad. Moreover, when posting, non-paying users would have their outgoing signature replaced by an ad. Paying users would see original signatures and get to send their own.
Before BitTorrent, people posted binaries as multi-part MIME or uuencode jobs to Usenet, believe it or not, using multiple articles. The clients still support automatic decoding of binaries from multiple posts.
It would be nice for Usenet to come back without the alt.binaries.* cruft that is not so useful today anyway.
> what (almost) killed Usenet was ISP's shutting down their NNTP servers. It used to be that every major ISP ran an NNTP server you could connect to
> [...]
> A big reason they stopped doing that was that most of the NNTP volume came to consist of copyright-infringing binaries.
Another reason was the deal that Andrew Cuomo (when he was the attorney general of New York) made with a number of major ISPs to prevent dissemination of child pornography. That lead to a lot of them discontinuing their Usenet service.
> There is little economic incentive for anyone to provide a free Usenet server, because there is no revenue.
It could be done using a web portal like they do for free email service, but it would be cumbersome to use.
> Before BitTorrent, people posted binaries as multi-part MIME or uuencode jobs to Usenet, believe it or not, using multiple articles.
They still do, but they use a more efficient encoding scheme called yEnc, which only has a few percent overhead in terms of attachment size, unlike base64 which has a 33% overhead.
> It would be nice for Usenet to come back without the alt.binaries.* cruft
I've always wondered why feeds couldn't be configured to exclude alt.binaries.*. Was it due to peering arrangements with other servers?
> [...]
> A big reason they stopped doing that was that most of the NNTP volume came to consist of copyright-infringing binaries.
Another reason was the deal that Andrew Cuomo (when he was the attorney general of New York) made with a number of major ISPs to prevent dissemination of child pornography. That lead to a lot of them discontinuing their Usenet service.
> There is little economic incentive for anyone to provide a free Usenet server, because there is no revenue.
It could be done using a web portal like they do for free email service, but it would be cumbersome to use.
> Before BitTorrent, people posted binaries as multi-part MIME or uuencode jobs to Usenet, believe it or not, using multiple articles.
They still do, but they use a more efficient encoding scheme called yEnc, which only has a few percent overhead in terms of attachment size, unlike base64 which has a 33% overhead.
> It would be nice for Usenet to come back without the alt.binaries.* cruft
I've always wondered why feeds couldn't be configured to exclude alt.binaries.*. Was it due to peering arrangements with other servers?
Google Groups effectively salvaged what was left of Usenet, so saying they
broke Usenet is rather uncharitable.
Gen Z doesn't even use email, so "any new user becoming interested in Usenet" seems unlikely.
Gen Z doesn't even use email, so "any new user becoming interested in Usenet" seems unlikely.
You rightfully point to the social problem. Since around the approximate start of the Usenet shakedown, kids were born who are now in college. So ...
Well, I find it to be a consistently reliable source of Linux ISOs. It does feel awfully like storing gunpowder in the Parthenon, though; it feels like it deserves better. Much like the Parthenon, it also feels obviously designed for an earlier age.
Sure it's technically scalable, but it's pretty noisy even now. Without some revolution in client design I suspect most groups would roil and gibber uselessly like the surface of an imageboard, if subjected to hyperscale-y traffic.
Sure it's technically scalable, but it's pretty noisy even now. Without some revolution in client design I suspect most groups would roil and gibber uselessly like the surface of an imageboard, if subjected to hyperscale-y traffic.
Overrun with spam, mainly used for piracy, difficult for regular folks to get on.
Yup, mostly the last part about the masses. Usenet is still a technically
viable forum, but you can't have much of a discussion when everyone's on
Reddit and HN.
It may be feasible to use the API to implement a gateway of sorts to duplicate content of HN or Reddit and post the content in one or more Usenet newsgroups. It's probably against the TOS though.
I do precisely that with https://github.com/dickmao/nnreddit and
https://github.com/dickmao/nnhackernews.
Edit: I don't replicate content to a Usenet group -- that would be wrong. I just use their APIs to give their content a Usenet look and feel.
Sent from nnhackernews
Edit: I don't replicate content to a Usenet group -- that would be wrong. I just use their APIs to give their content a Usenet look and feel.
Sent from nnhackernews
> or is there something broken about it?
It can't, and doesn't want to be, monetized, therefore big players hate it. Just look at how Google first destroyed DejaNews then removed the discussion filter from the search engine.
Also Usenet comes from when the Internet was a place for gentlemen, therefore is very open to abuse. If it was extended with basic security in mind and allowed very small binary support in line it would become a killer protocol that could displace many proprietary ones.
It can't, and doesn't want to be, monetized, therefore big players hate it. Just look at how Google first destroyed DejaNews then removed the discussion filter from the search engine.
Also Usenet comes from when the Internet was a place for gentlemen, therefore is very open to abuse. If it was extended with basic security in mind and allowed very small binary support in line it would become a killer protocol that could displace many proprietary ones.
I have been using newsdemon.com for years. If you ask their owner on Reddit for a free account, he almost always helps you out. He has been involved in usenet forever. I found their site a long time ago when I was writing a paper in college. They have the only copy of the docs detailing the creation of usenet: https://www.newsdemon.com/newsdemon-first-official-announcem...
I just let my year-long usenet subscription lapse after signing up thinking it might be like when I was at university back in the 1990s.
Hahahahahahahahaha
It’s a complete wasteland of meaningful discussion, everything is spam or pirate porn or copy-pasted nonsense. I have no idea what you would legitimately use it for now.
Hahahahahahahahaha
It’s a complete wasteland of meaningful discussion, everything is spam or pirate porn or copy-pasted nonsense. I have no idea what you would legitimately use it for now.
Social network? Considering what you know of the possibilities as far as rich content and complexity of current social networks, how can you really compare Usenet newsgroups? They're email mailing lists, threaded. People needed to move on, things got too big, too fast moving. Not to say mailing lists don't still have merit but not the same draw for the scale of userbase that Usenet was in its prime. Back in the day that was where the conversations and gathering was going on (maybe with IRC also), as there want really other platforms for it without specialized apps and the web wasn't there yet as far as interactivity.
Unless you consider all that complexity a misfeature, like I do.
What surprises and impresses me is that Usenet was huge: bigger than Slashdot or Hacker News, and bringing in a diversity of people (not just computer geeks). Perhaps the anti-spam made it difficult to welcome newcomers, and when the newcomers went elsewhere, other web forums grew up. What is the best way to balance safety and welcoming new people? I genuinely don't know, but would be interested to hear ideas.
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=%2Fm%2F0...
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=%2Fm%2F0...
Back in the day, Usenet servers were very difficult to setup. They came with a lot of demands and a lot of machines fell over under the load. Usenet servers also consumed a lot of bandwidth to stay synced. Another problem that crept up is a lot of file systems would fill up prematurely because when the file system was created the block sizes were too large.
In the end, Usenet really taxed the resources of an organization and I think many sys admins just decided all the time and energy required to keep the server up was not worth it.
In the end, Usenet really taxed the resources of an organization and I think many sys admins just decided all the time and energy required to keep the server up was not worth it.
Based on daily volume and number of posts per day [0], it kept up consistent usage and growth over the years. It is still a great way to distribute information to large numbers of people.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet#Usenet_traffic_changes
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet#Usenet_traffic_changes
For free access to actual discussion groups (not binary downloads), go to eternal-september.org
There are still good discussions going on in particular newsgroups. You have to do a bit of searching. comp.misc would be of interest to Hacker News readers.
There are still good discussions going on in particular newsgroups. You have to do a bit of searching. comp.misc would be of interest to Hacker News readers.
I wish eternal-september.org to disappear asap. There are all sorts of spammers and trolls using it to plague some local groups of ours, and the German guy managing it never listened to complains, not a single time. As of today I consider it a malicious entity, and part of the cancer that is killing Usenet.
Free usenet servers are scarce and paying to participate is too big of an obstacle
It's been filled with spam ever since the Eternal September of 1993.
It’s a thriving method of pirating movies and TV shows.
Fight Club stole the rules from Usenet.