usenet

Given that Usenet's effectively dead, is an example which kills Usenet and replaces it with Usenet-Prime all that different?

Recall that the way Usenet works is that each site gets its new feeds from one or more other sites.

And still, www forums lack the most basic filtering and killfile capabilities that a usenet reader had 20 years ago.

The result was a death-spiral: as Usenet got more expensive to host, fewer ISPs hosted it; many outsourced to other providers.

Imagine reading a website where pages come up in milliseconds—that's Usenet on a local feed.

Now that you mention it, I think the web has never reached the speed of Usenet ages ago.

And the main problem with Usenet was its replication architecture and not its identity/authentication.

As noted, Usenet is basically dead by now; how would killing it and recreating a new, more trustworthy one not have been better?

I think I like web message boards more than Usenet too, but they're only now coming into their own.

ISPs that tried to host no-binaries Usenet became the target of PR campaigns.

I remember using usenet and forums where a conversation would typically last for days and sometimes for weeks or months.

Every important Usenet server that people used in the US carried binaries.

I even found out that my Usenet-influenced quoting style, answering point by point and paragraph by paragraph is seen by some people who were never socialized in that atmosphere as "hostile".

I propose the following law: "The size of web pages must expand so that, regardless of CPU and bandwidth improvements, a page will load slower than a Usenet post on a 9.6kbps modem in 1993."

Usenet was seen as a text-only medium, because binaries were so huge and mostly illegal.

No mindshare, no articles in computer magazines about Usenet, strictly (and sometimes viciously) defended netiquette.

Usenet could have been kept alive and decentralized, and maybe even evolved alongside the web.