From Newsgroup: alt.free.nntp

Simp <simp@email.invalid> writes:

It doesnt make any sense to me how people prefer a
Socialist-controlled centralized social media network in which
opinions are controlled and removed over a free speech network like
Usenet in which information can flow and disseminate quickly and
easily. I dont need Facebook. I dont need Instagram. These companies
exist to control America through brainwashing and fake news.

I agree. But I think what these platforms have over USENET is the sheer convenience of getting and using one. Social media websites have perfected the low-effort, addictive UX design to the point that it's so seamless and effortless to use it instead of other platforms.

If you dont like a specific news server, you can just go on another
one and interact with the Usenet network. If you dont like Facebook,
you cant communicate with the Facebook network without having a FB
account.

While other networks come and go, Usenet survives.

I agree, this is one of USENET's greatest strengths. Its design is very resilient. Discussions are hard to censor and there's little to no moderation. Inevitably, this led to low-effort spamming, but I don't
think it takes that much effort to remove these spam.

Its a shame (or a pleasure) that Usenet isnt more popular. Just think
about it - the instant dissemination of information to servers all
across the world. There is no need to look hard for censored posts and content -its all right here. Over 100,000 connection points to the
Usenet network exist. Usenet remains the best social media network out
there. That simple.

And there exist Usenet/Facebook like platforms like Mastodon and
Diaspora in which people can get Facebook-like and Twitter-like
functionality while still maintaining the decentralized properties of
Usenet. So there is no excuse for people not to try these platforms.

While Mastodon and Diaspora are "federated" it still not as resilient as USENET. For example, it is impossible to "carry over" user data, history
and nyms on Mastodon without explicit action on the part of the sysadmin. This can be an issue in cases where users are banned in an instance for "undesirable speech".

In USENET, since there's no "user data", you can either be an anonymous
joe or use PGP to create a sort-of persistent nym that can exist outside
a service provider's control. That way, even if your service provider
cuts you off for undesirable speech, you can still verifably prove to
other people that you are who you claim to be.
--
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2