That was just a matter of making a better newsreader client.  I think that was not the problem.  It is true that usenet originated in the unix/command line/text interface world, and its traditional users probably didn't see any reason to switch to some fancy graphical interface and "feature-hiding", but it could easily have evolved.  As I said, that was not, IMO, the principal reason for its abandoning.


I never had any technical issues, honestly.  The only pain in moderated groups was that your post only appeared something like the next day, because the moderator had to approve it before it appeared.  But that was already not usenet's spirit.  Moderation was something that was added to it because the unmoderated groups were full of shit, and wading though it to find something interesting to discuss was delegated to a dude that wanted to do this.

But usenet worked very reliably, technically.  No "bad user experience" (if you didn't mind command line client software and ascii, but on a VT-100 terminal, you mostly didn't have anything else in any case !).


As I said, and I've been using usenet for more than a decade, it wasn't "disorganized shit" at all, but the fancy bells and whistles of graphical user interfaces was not deemed necessary (that said, they exist).
And yes, I already told you that I think that a system can only remain decentralized when it is "disorganized" and when there are no "rules forever".  For instance, I consider the ecosystem of crypto coins as potentially decentralized, but there is no single crypto coin which comes near being "decentralized", on the contrary.  However, the "disorganized mess" they form, comes somewhat closer.  So yes, in as much as usenet could about do anything, it was decentralized. 



Yup, but that's on purpose.


This brings us to trust, to hierarchies, and to centralization.  And why most people are not into the "decentralized stuff" thing.


Ah, I see.   By "centralized" I don't mean "one single controlling entity", but simply the existence of hierarchies of control and command.  So yes, several tribal leaders are a centralized system (from the point of view of a tribe member).  Of course, they form a decentralized system amongst themselves, if these tribal leaders themselves do not have "higher" hierarchies.  But from the point of view of the tribe member, he is part of a centralized system: his tribe, with its rules and hierarchy.

Now, there can be dynamics in the "decentralized layer" of tribal leaders (for instance, warfare) that have the tendency to make only one the dominant one ; or there can be dynamics that will rather make it difficult to dominate.  Depending on the dynamical laws of the system, there will be convergence to a "natural monopoly" or not.    Things which have network effect tend to have this convergence towards monopoly, and discussion forums are part of that.

As a member, a discussion forum is a central authority ; but discussion forums on the internet have no "higher authority" and hence form an disorganised, and hence decentralized, system.  But their evolution is usually that the forum with the biggest network effect draws in all users - unless there are niche applications for other forums (for instance, differently moderated).  The dynamical interactions of the market share of discussion forums are a messy, and hence decentralized dynamics, with no hierarchical control but which usually lead to a single market leader, giving a lot of power to the hierarchy of that "tribe".


Well that's not Theymos' "fault".  He's just the tribal leader of the tribe that became a natural monopoly.  If you want to be part of his tribe, there's not much else to do but to submit to his rules (or stay under the radar).


That's exactly why I think that usenet got abandoned ; because people wanted tribal leaders (= centralisation = hierarchy and authority).


Forum software is mostly open source... (?)


It will remain that way until humans evolve.


That's actually one of your irritating posting habits.  I forget about immediately what I say (even though by saying it, I improved a conceptual understanding of something).   It is like an oral conversation: you simply have to say again whatever it might have been what you were saying before.  I consider a discussion "without memory", and arguments only to be valid at the moment of discussion in the flow of the arguments.  Of course, during some "back and forth" in a *given discussion*, one can refer to some earlier posts if they inspired a reply to a reply or something, but indeed, everything from more than a week ago should be forgotten (and in my case, mostly IS forgotten). 

Logical reasoning is "instantaneous", well, for the length of the argument, and is then "back into the bit bucket", just like in the case of an oral conversation.  You are not going to have people listen to pre-recorded older conversations in a given conversation, are you ?



Ah, to me, yes. Decentralization is the total absence of hierarchy, leadership and the perfect "flatness" of all command and control - which can only happen in a totally disorganized system.


Ok, well, to me, both notions are the same.   I'm not saying that a decentralized system cannot implement dynamics that naturally evolve towards forms of leadership, but I consider then that they centralize ; unless they also contain dynamical rules that destroy these leaders, so that leadership is an ephemeral phenomenon. 

Like prey and predators in nature ; you might think that these establish some kind of "hierarchy", but usually, these hierarchies are just as well destroyed as set up, so that's ok.   It is when the dynamics can lock in leadership, that I consider it a failed decentralisation. 


I'm not talking about a SINGLE grouping, but *every* form of sustained grouping.  Tribal groupings are also, as I said, centralized from the point of view of a tribe member.  Whether you have to obey to your tribe leader, or you have to obey to the king of the world, doesn't really matter from the point of view of a member.  Of course, it makes all the difference in the world for a tribal leader, who has to put up with other tribal leaders ; or with a king of the world ; or wants to be the king of the world.

From the moment there are hierarchies, I consider the system centralized, even if there can be many of them in parallel, as long as you are locked into one as a member, it doesn't make a difference.


I'm not very tribal. 


Finally