Date   

moderated Re: Web-only group #suggestion

Jim Higgins
 

Received from J_Catlady at 9/28/2018 06:00 PM UTC:
 
ps If I misread your point please for the love of god.. er, groups.io...forgive me!!!


I don't know if you got it all or not. I do know that I didn't conclude that the feature wasn't important or desired, so if that's what you got, then that wasn't it.

My point is that your suggested method of implementation excludes membership via email. I think that's wrong and unnecessary to achieve the goal of anonymity.

Since I know that much was missed I'll lay it out again... because I really think it would work for you and be better than a via-web-only approach.

We already see Gio rewriting "From:" headers in some cases, so why not rewrite ALL "From:" headers in an "anonymous" group so that the "From:" address is always the address of the group. Then members - via web or via email - who know nothing about other headers can't see real email addresses and a simple reply goes nowhere but back to the group.

Once we get that far, we have to deal with other headers that can contain definitive identifying information that savvy members can see... often an email address. Those headers could be stripped. All we really need are Date:, To:, From:, Subject:... with "From:" having already been rewritten to be the address of the group.

Now we have a functioning anonymous group except the Owner who has a problem member who needs to be "handled" in some manner doesn't know who that member is because no email address is in the problem messages. The (or at least one) solution to that is to absolutely require some sort of "Display Name" (for lack of a better term for it) that's chosen by the member to be completely disconnected from his/her real identity... and preferably used nowhere else lest Google find it and tie it to a real person. With that the Owner can identify members sufficiently well to manage them if necessary, and individual members have no ability to determine real personal identity.

Via the above approach members can participate via the Gio interface or via email, where via your proposed approach it's web only. Also your approach didn't address the info hidden in headers not normally visible. Nor did it include a required "Display Name" to give each member an identity that my 16+ years of experience in managing groups says is vital to building a sense of community. (Maybe that was addressed in the years ago discussion, but not recently so let's not go there.)

So... with the above all goals for anonymity are met and no one is excluded from participation. The latter is a major improvement without which I'd oppose the concept of anonymous groups. Do them "right" - meaning don't make them exclusive of a large group whose characteristics don't deserve exclusion - or don't do them at all. A chacun son bout, is fine up until it denies the many via-email members an option to participate. Or so it seems to me.

My darn email program (Eudora) doesn't handle the non-ASCII part of UTF-8 well so I can't send (or at least can't render properly) accented characters in French. Lo siento. ;-)

Jim H


moderated Re: Web-only group #suggestion

toki
 

On 2018-09-28 5:06 p.m., J_Catlady wrote:
There seemed to be no simple solution, IIRC.
It isn't that there are no simple solutions. Rather, there are no simple
solutions that also enable Groups.IO to meet the legal requirements of
some of the countries that subscribers are either residents of, or
citizens of, or otherwise under the legal jurisdiction of.

If you'd like the simple, albeit quasi-legal solution, look no further
than your local DarkNet web forum, or mailing list.

jonathon


moderated Re: Web-only group #suggestion

 

ps If I misread your point please for the love of god.. er, groups.io...forgive me!!!


On Sep 28, 2018, at 10:51 AM, J_Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:

I would not jump to the conclusion that the feature was not important or desired. There simply were perceived difficulties in achieving it.But  I’ll try not to rehash this. You could go back and look for the discussion if you’re interested.



On Sep 28, 2018, at 10:49 AM, Jim Higgins <HigginsJ@...> wrote:

Received from J_Catlady at 9/28/2018 05:06 PM UTC:
 
Approaches to the anonymous group goal were hashed and rehashed endlessly when the idea first came up years ago.


I wasn't here "years ago" and neither were many others. If years ago mattered the topic would be dead... given that Mark apparently chose to either not implement it or put is so far on the back burner that it fell off the stove entirely. (As is his prerogative.)


There seemed to be no simple solution, IIRC. This just seemed like an easy one. Some people would, as you and someone else have already mentioned, not want to join such a group. But, chacon a son bout. I personally don't participate in moderated groups. Etc.


Just for the record... GMF is a moderated group. And it would be the first moderated group I didn't unsubscribe from within a week... so we aren't so different in that respect. For others, à chacun son bout. ;-)

Jim H

--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: Web-only group #suggestion

 

I would not jump to the conclusion that the feature was not important or desired. There simply were perceived difficulties in achieving it.But  I’ll try not to rehash this. You could go back and look for the discussion if you’re interested.



On Sep 28, 2018, at 10:49 AM, Jim Higgins <HigginsJ@...> wrote:

Received from J_Catlady at 9/28/2018 05:06 PM UTC:
 
Approaches to the anonymous group goal were hashed and rehashed endlessly when the idea first came up years ago.


I wasn't here "years ago" and neither were many others. If years ago mattered the topic would be dead... given that Mark apparently chose to either not implement it or put is so far on the back burner that it fell off the stove entirely. (As is his prerogative.)


There seemed to be no simple solution, IIRC. This just seemed like an easy one. Some people would, as you and someone else have already mentioned, not want to join such a group. But, chacon a son bout. I personally don't participate in moderated groups. Etc.


Just for the record... GMF is a moderated group. And it would be the first moderated group I didn't unsubscribe from within a week... so we aren't so different in that respect. For others, à chacun son bout. ;-)

Jim H

--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: Web-only group #suggestion

Jim Higgins
 

Received from J_Catlady at 9/28/2018 05:06 PM UTC:
 
Approaches to the anonymous group goal were hashed and rehashed endlessly when the idea first came up years ago.


I wasn't here "years ago" and neither were many others. If years ago mattered the topic would be dead... given that Mark apparently chose to either not implement it or put is so far on the back burner that it fell off the stove entirely. (As is his prerogative.)


There seemed to be no simple solution, IIRC. This just seemed like an easy one. Some people would, as you and someone else have already mentioned, not want to join such a group. But, chacon a son bout. I personally don't participate in moderated groups. Etc.


Just for the record... GMF is a moderated group. And it would be the first moderated group I didn't unsubscribe from within a week... so we aren't so different in that respect. For others, à chacun son bout. ;-)

Jim H


moderated Re: Web-only group #suggestion

 

You’re welcome. 😊🐱

On Sep 28, 2018, at 10:26 AM, Jim Higgins <HigginsJ@sc.rr.com> wrote:

Received from J_Catlady at 9/28/2018 04:58 PM UTC:

All apologies. I read too fast and, as I've indicated, missed the crucial word "not." I did send my message first, as you can see by the list order.

Oh gimme a break! Being first by 35 seconds when you were wrong to begin with doesn't seem like something to emphasize at this point.


But I understand you had not seen it yet because you were responding to the emails as you received them.

Well... that's pretty much what anyone does, isn't it? You check for email, read all (esp when there are several on the same topic), then respond. What's the point?


I swear on a stack of bibles to read more carefully in the future. Not that I'm religious.

It was truly frustrating to watch you torpedo my earlier (week or so ago) suggestion based on your incorrect reading of it and then resist all of many attempts by me to correct your understanding. So I sincerely hope you keep that promise to read more carefully.

Thank you for recognizing a problem and taking steps to correct it.

Jim H



--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: Web-only group #suggestion

Jim Higgins
 

Received from J_Catlady at 9/28/2018 04:58 PM UTC:

All apologies. I read too fast and, as I've indicated, missed the crucial word "not." I did send my message first, as you can see by the list order.

Oh gimme a break! Being first by 35 seconds when you were wrong to begin with doesn't seem like something to emphasize at this point.


But I understand you had not seen it yet because you were responding to the emails as you received them.

Well... that's pretty much what anyone does, isn't it? You check for email, read all (esp when there are several on the same topic), then respond. What's the point?


I swear on a stack of bibles to read more carefully in the future. Not that I'm religious.

It was truly frustrating to watch you torpedo my earlier (week or so ago) suggestion based on your incorrect reading of it and then resist all of many attempts by me to correct your understanding. So I sincerely hope you keep that promise to read more carefully.

Thank you for recognizing a problem and taking steps to correct it.

Jim H


moderated Re: Web-only group #suggestion

 

Approaches to the anonymous group goal were hashed and rehashed endlessly when the idea first came up years ago. There seemed to be no simple solution, IIRC. This just seemed like an easy one. Some people would, as you and someone else have already mentioned, not want to join such a group. But, chacon a son bout. I personally don’t participate in moderated groups. Etc.

On Sep 28, 2018, at 10:02 AM, Jim Higgins <HigginsJ@sc.rr.com> wrote:

Received from J_Catlady at 9/28/2018 03:25 PM UTC:

On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 08:12 AM, Gerald Boutin wrote:
I just don't see any advantage that could justify more code development.
The advantage is as I stated at the beginning: the ability to create an "anonymous group," where members are not privy to the other members' email addresses.

I oppose implementation via the approach of a web-only group.

A web-only interface isn't necessary to achieve the goal of members being unable to see each others' email addresss. It's an implementation approach that ignores the preference of those who prefer plain email without a webby interface... and it does so for no good reason.

I agree with the end goal, tho I'd never participate in such a group, but the suggested approach to implemention is all wrong.

Jim H



--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: Web-only group #suggestion

Jim Higgins
 

Received from J_Catlady at 9/28/2018 03:25 PM UTC:

On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 08:12 AM, Gerald Boutin wrote:
I just don't see any advantage that could justify more code development.
The advantage is as I stated at the beginning: the ability to create an "anonymous group," where members are not privy to the other members' email addresses.

I oppose implementation via the approach of a web-only group.

A web-only interface isn't necessary to achieve the goal of members being unable to see each others' email addresss. It's an implementation approach that ignores the preference of those who prefer plain email without a webby interface... and it does so for no good reason.

I agree with the end goal, tho I'd never participate in such a group, but the suggested approach to implemention is all wrong.

Jim H


moderated Re: Web-only group #suggestion

 

All apologies. I read too fast and, as I’ve indicated, missed the crucial word ‘not.’ I did send my message first, as you can see by the list order. But I understand you had not seen it yet because you were responding to the emails as you received them. I swear on a stack of bibles to read more carefully in the future. Not that I’m religious. 😊🐱

On Sep 28, 2018, at 7:58 AM, Jim Higgins <HigginsJ@sc.rr.com> wrote:

Received from J_Catlady at 9/28/2018 02:34 AM UTC:

You missed my previous message.

If you will take note of the timestamp on both messages (both 03:11 in the group) you'll see we sent them at the same time. So I couldn't have seen yours before sending mine. None of this would be necessary - repeatedly - if you would read more carefully before responding. "Beta" isn't a good place for a discussion that's based on failure to read for comprehension before responding.

Jim H



--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: Web-only group #suggestion

Jim Higgins
 

Received from J_Catlady at 9/28/2018 02:34 AM UTC:

You missed my previous message.

If you will take note of the timestamp on both messages (both 03:11 in the group) you'll see we sent them at the same time. So I couldn't have seen yours before sending mine. None of this would be necessary - repeatedly - if you would read more carefully before responding. "Beta" isn't a good place for a discussion that's based on failure to read for comprehension before responding.

Jim H


moderated Re: Web-only group #suggestion

 

On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 08:12 AM, Gerald Boutin wrote:
I just don't see any advantage that could justify more code development.

The advantage is as I stated at the beginning: the ability to create an "anonymous group," where members are not privy to the other members' email addresses. 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: Web-only group #suggestion

Gerald Boutin <groupsio@...>
 

What is wrong that needs to be fixed? I never use email access except under exceptional circumstances. Works fine for me.

Presumably there are thousands (millions?) of other users that are successfully using the web interface as it is currently implemented. Of course there are also tons of users that don't want to use the web interface. I just don't see any advantage that could justify more code development.

--
Gerald


moderated Re: Web-only group #suggestion

 

On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 10:51 PM, Dave Sergeant wrote:
If I were going to subscribe to a new group and found it web only I
would simply not join.
This is purely a suggestion for an easy way to implement "anonymous groups." I think anyone (or almost anyone) who uses the feature simply to create such a group would not even list it in the directory (I personally would not), so people finding it and shuddering to find out it's web-only and therefore not joining does not seem like a great risk. Or maybe some people prefer web-only groups for other reasons, and wouldn't mind even if they find such a group listed in the directory. Who knows?

do you really want to hide under a bushel.
Absolutely not! Maybe a bushel and a peck. :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tfA0LokYuo
 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: Web-only group #suggestion

Dave Sergeant
 

Although I see why you are suggesting this, I am strongly against it. I
assume you intend it to be optional, so a group owner can set their
group as web only when it is set up, but email access to groups is so
essential in my view, like it was in Yahoogroups, that it would be a
huge retrograde step and take away one of the key features of groups.io
over pure forums.

If I were going to subscribe to a new group and found it web only I
would simply not join. Many of our members rarely visit the web
interface and do everything by email - it is far more immediate than
any forum based system where you have to visit a web page once or twice
a day to see what has happened.

Revealing your email address via emails is a fact of life. If you are
worried about it you shouldn't be using email for anything. But do you
really want to hide under a bushel.

Dave

On 26 Sep 2018 at 19:21, J_Catlady wrote:

This is a suggestion for a ~web onlyTM option for groups. In a web-only
group, everybody would essentially be set to either ~no emailTM or
~special noticeTM. Everybody would have to access the group via the web
in order to send or read messages. Nobody would have access to anybody
elseTMs email address, which would be the main reason to use the feature.
I havenTMt thought this through and there may be some flaws in it, but it
strikes me as possibly a way to easily implement the long-ago asked-for
~anonymous groupTM idea.


http://davesergeant.com


moderated Re: Web-only group #suggestion

 

You missed my previous message. 😊

On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 7:11 PM, Jim Higgins <HigginsJ@...> wrote:
Received from J_Catlady at 9/28/2018 01:11 AM UTC:
 
On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 05:38 PM, Jim Higgins wrote:
It also strikes me that such a group will lose any significant sense of community unless some sort of "Display Name" that would have no connection to the real life identity were required,

I totally disagree. All, or most, social media that uses handles instead of real IDs still create a significant sense of community.


I never said "real IDs." Those are your words... your straw man set up only to be shot down.

What I said was "some sort of 'Display Name' that would have no connection to the real life identity." You even quoted what I said above... and then seem to have completely ignored it in your response. So how about you give another look at what I said and then tell me how it differs from the "handle" you just mentioned.


Second, you may not want a "sense of community" in some situations. For example, I originally suggested the anonymous group idea for my business. I don't want the group members to know each other or be able to communicate with each other via email. (For the record, there were some "seconds" to the idea of that application.)


"Some sort of 'Display Name' that would have no connection to the real life identity" used to help create a sense of community would not allow group members to know each other or be able to communicate with each other via email. And nothing else I said/suggested would make it possible to be able to communicate with each other via direct email. In fact I suggested that Groups.io post messages to an anonymous group with the "From:" address replaced by the group address and with all potentially identifying headers stripped from the message. that would kill all possibility of direct email contact. Did you perhaps hit reply and fire off your response before reading that far?

Jim H



--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: Web-only group #suggestion

Jim Higgins
 

Received from J_Catlady at 9/28/2018 01:11 AM UTC:
 
On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 05:38 PM, Jim Higgins wrote:
It also strikes me that such a group will lose any significant sense of community unless some sort of "Display Name" that would have no connection to the real life identity were required,

I totally disagree. All, or most, social media that uses handles instead of real IDs still create a significant sense of community.


I never said "real IDs." Those are your words... your straw man set up only to be shot down.

What I said was "some sort of 'Display Name' that would have no connection to the real life identity." You even quoted what I said above... and then seem to have completely ignored it in your response. So how about you give another look at what I said and then tell me how it differs from the "handle" you just mentioned.


Second, you may not want a "sense of community" in some situations. For example, I originally suggested the anonymous group idea for my business. I don't want the group members to know each other or be able to communicate with each other via email. (For the record, there were some "seconds" to the idea of that application.)


"Some sort of 'Display Name' that would have no connection to the real life identity" used to help create a sense of community would not allow group members to know each other or be able to communicate with each other via email. And nothing else I said/suggested would make it possible to be able to communicate with each other via direct email. In fact I suggested that Groups.io post messages to an anonymous group with the "From:" address replaced by the group address and with all potentially identifying headers stripped from the message. that would kill all possibility of direct email contact. Did you perhaps hit reply and fire off your response before reading that far?

Jim H


moderated Re: Web-only group #suggestion

 

On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 06:11 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
unless some sort of "Display Name" that would have no connection to the real life identity were required,
Oh, I see you said "no connection." Yes, I envision that everyone would have a display name.  
 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: Web-only group #suggestion

 

On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 05:38 PM, Jim Higgins wrote:
It also strikes me that such a group will lose any significant sense of community unless some sort of "Display Name" that would have no connection to the real life identity were required,
I totally disagree. All, or most, social media that uses handles instead of real IDs still create a significant sense of community. Second, you may not want a "sense of community" in some situations. For example, I originally suggested the anonymous group idea for my business. I don't want the group members to know each other or be able to communicate with each other via email. (For the record, there were some "seconds" to the idea of that application.)
 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: Web-only group #suggestion

 

On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 05:25 PM, Shal Farley wrote:
an anonymous member there is anonymous even to the group managers
No, absolutely would not do that here. I agree.
 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu

12341 - 12360 of 30686