News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Usenet – Let's Return to Public Spaces by ape4 on Thursday February 13, 2020 @09:40AM (#22318043)
Yeah, no binaries would be a start for a new Usenet
Re:Usenet – Let's Return to Public Spaces by crankylinuxuser on Thursday February 13, 2020 @09:58AM (#22318175)
The problem is that binaries are transferred in a non-binary manner. Base64 was the preferred way. Except it was also used to push images back and forth as well for pertinent conversations.

For any method of communication, you can transfer content that someone else tries to prevent.

Re:Usenet – Let's Return to Public Spaces by chalst on Thursday February 13, 2020 @10:10AM (#22318270)
Upper bounds on per-user bandwidth would work. Implementing this is nontrivial, but it's an essentially easier problem than spam.
Re:Usenet – Let's Return to Public Spaces by shadowgovt on Thursday February 13, 2020 @10:34AM (#22318493)
Upper bounds on per-user bandwidth would help. Though for significant messages, one still has sock-puppet accounts (or aggregates of like-minded individuals with copies of the source message pooling their resources). And, of course, upper bounds create knock-on restrictions (should the system be allowed to transmit public-domain large-volume data? A bandwidth limit blocks that "valid" use too).

It's fun to game-theory how such limits can be broken.

Re:Usenet – Let's Return to Public Spaces by kick on Thursday February 13, 2020 @10:18AM (#22318332)
Who cares about piracy? It exists over HTTP, too, and in a far greater volume than a modern USENET-equivalent could ever hope to achieve, and it's not like ISPs need to be sucked up to anymore: they've already taken their ball and went home on this matter, proverbially-speaking.
Re:Usenet – Let's Return to Public Spaces by ape4 on Friday February 14, 2020 @11:42PM (#22333321)
Re:Usenet – Let's Return to Public Spaces by shadowgovt on Thursday February 13, 2020 @10:30AM (#22318439)
Unfortunately, technically banning binaries merely means binaries will be transferred in a more spacetime-inefficient manner.

You can mathematically prove atop Shannon's theorem that if the system can transmit comprehensible text information between two users, it can transmit binaries. Worst-case scenario, the users could use the text information layer to just say 'one, zero, one, one, zero, one' at each other, etc.

(Socially banning them can certainly "work," in the same sense that social banning works in any context: pushes it underground out of the moderators' lines of sight. Depending on what you're trying to accomplish, that can be good enough).

Re:Usenet – Let's Return to Public Spaces by tomjen3 on Thursday February 13, 2020 @03:39PM (#22321221)
I have given this some consideration, and what I ended up with is super low tech: require a user registration where users can't just sign up for N accounts and limit all accounts to 10 MB a day. Too little to share any meaningful binary data and way more than a person can type in a day.
Re:Usenet – Let's Return to Public Spaces by shadowgovt on Thursday February 13, 2020 @04:04PM (#22321408)
It's a good idea. What stops a user from registering for N accounts? How do you tie one account to one human?
Re:Usenet – Let's Return to Public Spaces by tomjen3 on Thursday February 13, 2020 @04:49PM (#22321773)
In my original consideration you could only sign up with government ID -- actually the original problem was what to do prior to the day reddit banned your community, so that you could keep going.

In either case it was pretty trivial to picky bag of existing IDs, if I ever solve that for the general case, you will find out.