Re: [9fans] The Plan 9/"right" way to do Facebook

[Winston Kodogo <kodogo@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3000 bytes --]

Well, that takes me back. I haven't seen a variant of that response in over
10 years. Although "Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business
with Yahoo" in the last one I saw is probably fair comment in the case of
what's left of the company formerly known as NZ Telecom.

On 31 March 2016 at 13:23, Kurt H Maier <khm@sciops.net> wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 11:40:03PM +0000,
> cigar562hfsp952fans@icebubble.org wrote:
> > Greetings, 9fans!
> >
>
> Your post advocates a
>
> (x) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante
>
> approach to social networking. Your idea will not work. Here is why it
> won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular
> idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state
> before a bad federal law was passed.)
>
> ( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
> (x) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
> (x) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
> (x) Users of Twitter will not put up with it
> (x) Facebook will not put up with it
> ( ) The police will not put up with it
> (x) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
> ( ) Many users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential
> employers
> ( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
>
> Specifically, your plan fails to account for
>
> ( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
> (x) Lack of centrally controlling authority for social networking
> (x) Open relays in foreign countries
> (x) Asshats
> ( ) Jurisdictional problems
> ( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of communications
> (x) Huge existing software investment in Facebook
> (x) Susceptibility of protocols other than HTTP to attack
> ( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
> (x) Extreme profitability of Facebook
> (x) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
> (x) Technically illiterate politicians
> (x) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with Twitter
> ( ) Outlook
>
> and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
>
> (x) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever
> been shown practical
> ( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
> ( ) Blacklists suck
> ( ) Whitelists suck
> ( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
> (x) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
> ( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
> ( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
> ( ) I don't want the government reading my email
> ( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
>
> Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
>
> ( ) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
> (x) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
> ( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your
> house down!
>
>
> hth,
> khm
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3509 bytes --]