On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 21:54:30 -0500, SL <SerpentLord@Evil.Incarn8>
wrote:
>On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 20:43:58 -0400, oynk@stickytree.moc wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 05:37:52 -0500, SL <SerpentLord@Evil.Incarn8>
{Snip}
>>
>>Oynk
>
> I do change the headers at times to cater to the different
>audiences. As far as takedowns? Are there any moderators anymore,
>anywhere? Doesn't matter. Even in the old days of .pubes, nearly
>100% of the takedown threats came too little too late. I saw most of
>them.
> I think that if you could force a takedown today, it would be
>more effective. Why? Because most of the ISP Usenet services are
>long gone. When they did their grabs(snatches!), they stayed there.
>This is all conjecture on my part.
> (speaking as an American)...We're not worried about kiddie
>pRon these days. That's why we don't have ISP usenet today. They
>didn't want the legal hassles for content they no-way-in-Hell could
>police. So they gave it up. It was cheaper and easier not to have
>it. We're all worried about guns and 2nd Amendment issues these days.
> They'll snatch those rights away too, because it's easier to
>subdue a populace armed only with shotguns and maybe bolt-action
>rifles. The day is coming.
I'm not speaking of a moderator taking down posts. I'm talking
about DMCA takedowns. Look at what happened with the Southern Charms
group. True, it was a group begging for trouble by being named after
and containing the contents of one web site. But after the 7 million
fine levied upon, I believe it was, a UK news service. Usenet
providers everywhere scrambled to rid the group of the SC posts. I
just checked. Over the range of 9 years it contains 1551 headers of
spam.
Oynk
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
|