|
There aren't many free Usenet relays around these days, which combined with Usenet's low profile has helped limit abuse and deterred the obnoxious. I've been a paid Giganews subscriber since 2001--so long that I think I pay twice the current plan pricing; and so long that I can't be bothered to care. Since universities and ISPs began dropping Usenet service, the most popular free gateway is Google Groups, but I filtered out most Google Groups posts years ago when they became the primary gateway for abusers. Maybe things are better now, but I wouldn't know as I usually only see replies. Anyhow, the way that Google Groups formats posts is borderline abusive itself. HN is great but on the scale of decades I can't imagine HN outlasting Usenet. There's been a very slow changing of the guard in the technical groups I read, but except for a lull a couple of years ago there's still strong technical discourse and occasional new blood. (Newcomers always chafe when regulars rebuke off-topic discussion, but eventually they see the light, or at least become less reactionary.) The big exception among the groups I read is sci.crypt, which never survived a series of flooding campaigns. After one campaign, posters like DJB disappeared completely. There were still regulars from the professional and academic communities. (Not me; I was always a lurker incapable of adding substance.) IIRC, subsequent to another flooding campaign (circa 2010-2013?) most of those people drifted away, and sci.crypt was never the same. There are still knowledgeable posters there, but there's some threshold below which strong, challenging discourse can't be sustained. You need enough collective intelligence in a group to keep everybody honest and engaged, otherwise the uninformed dominate discussion. Some people would argue that Stack Overflow has replaced Usenet. But I disagree. Stack Overflow simply doesn't have the consistency and collective intelligence that Usenet groups had and, in many cases, still have. Which isn't to say there aren't amazing contributors on Stack Overflow, but the signal to noise ratio, on the one hand, and absolute substance on the other, just isn't comparable. I've rarely come across a Stack Overflow thread where an answer was better than what a less lazy person could have found by reading primary sources (specifications, easily discovered technical papers, etc). Whereas Usenet discourse often provides insights you couldn't easily find anywhere else, if at all. This was especially true in its heyday when some Usenet posts might rightfully be considered the primary, definitive source of truth on some matter. I suppose part of the reason is because of the rules for discourse on Stack Overflow, which prevent it from becoming a forum where people can bounce ideas off each other, and explore and develop them. The rules and structure of HN similarly prevent it from consistently harboring the same kind of discourse that happens Usenet, though I think it does to a greater extent than Stack Overflow. In any event, please return. Some of your favorite groups may be lost causes, but probably others are worth your while and surely could benefit from greater participation. Unless and until a real replacement comes along, one might say its a civic responsibility. Even though for many individual subjects there are better forums (e.g. web bulletin boards), fragmented and proprietary forums have real costs. |