On 6/7/26 5:53 PM, Root Badger wrote:

On 2026-06-07, Daniel Cerqueira <dan.list@lispclub.com> wrote:

--=-=-=
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Root Badger <admin@rootbadger.com> writes:

On 2026-06-07, Juancho <eternal@notreally.com> wrote:

Koen Martens wrote:

Daniel <me@sc1f1dan.com> wrote:

I tend to agree. I don't think efforts like this would drive away usenet >>>>>> posters who have stayed here all along.

=20
I'm also not sure what a walled garden that is inspired by usenet
would add to the table. It's still a walled garden, whereas usenet
is an open, decentralised and federated space.

It adds nothing to the table. The proposal to replace USENET with a
privately owned, all-topic-emcompasing, web forum is ludicrous.

NO one said anything about replacing usenet, calm down, son.

Nothing will ever replace usnet ffs, it is just a new social media
platform coming soon and will also be decentralized eventually.

lol God damn!

The gist is not the "replacing" wording, it is the rest of those words
that should be taken more into account.

Don't count me in, and I doubt you have a way to stop trolling if it
reaches rootbadger.

RootBadger would be pro-free speech, but not pro-spam or pro-harassment.

People should be able to argue, criticize, disagree, joke, offend, and have strong opinions without admins jumping in every five seconds.

But free speech does not mean flooding groups, harassing users, doxxing people, impersonating others, posting malicious links, running fake-account spam, or wrecking every discussion on purpose.

That is where the tools come in: email verification, new-user posting limits, rate limits, link scanning, spam scoring, disposable email checks, duplicate post detection, moderation queues, and admin controls for banning accounts, email domains, IPs, IP ranges, and spam domains.

So the idea is simple: protect open discussion, but keep out the garbage that makes open discussion impossible.

Overlooked is open access for reading. All the commercial "social"
media restrict readership to members only, and I consider that to
be a fatal error. There is no way for a "free speech" site to keep
outsiders from reading it, that makes it a closed site.

On Wed, 8 Jul 2026 19:35:56 -0700
Pluted Pup <plutedpup@outlook.com> wrote:

Overlooked is open access for reading. All the commercial "social"
media restrict readership to members only, and I consider that to
be a fatal error. There is no way for a "free speech" site to keep
outsiders from reading it, that makes it a closed site.

There's a case, I think, for a members-only *section* - for e.g. topics
people wanna chit-chat about, but may not feel comfortable having show
up in a Web search - but yeah, this. Any site/service that requires me
to sign up just to see what the place is like is one that I am highly disinclined to sign up for.