As an aside, this right is actually enshrined in law. You, as copyright holder to your original work, are fully vested with the right to insist that anyone who transmits said content take it down if y

J, We are at a complete philosophical impasse. I'll grant you that your own content is something you should have the right to take down. Most groups are not composed principally of the content of any

Ro, It's not sophistry in any way. The argumentation of ideas is central to the whole age of reason. But, the above aside, I want to make clear here something I just wrote privately to J, which is not

Ro, You and I have very different ideas of what constitutes an attack. Yes, it's personal; no, it doesn't come close to being an attack. The ideas that you and J are promulgating regarding who owns a

Interesting. Selfish, short-sighted, "having trouble seeing the collaborative nature of groups," and expressing the opinion that your position "borders on the megalomaniacal" (since I wrote it, I can

Most owners do not have this much foresight, particularly when what sometimes started on a whim takes on a life of its own. I do think a succession plan should be forced on an owner. But I hasten to a

Everett, Actually, to further split a hair, but I think it's an important one, Groups.io is an owned service or owned service provider. It does not, in any meaningful sense, own the content of any of

#suggestion

There have been numerous historical cases where, for whatever the root cause, an extant "owner" of a given group could no longer be trusted and a number have been destroyed entirely on whim. This is a

By the way, and you know I've said it in the past, while the analogy of group as living room is convenient, it is in no way accurate. No online group comes close to being anything like one's actual pe

J, That's why there should exist clear policies about how group "ownership" is maintained. I do not find your position untenable in theory if each and every member who ever joins a group that you own

And to that, I would say, you are gravely mistaken. A group owner is nothing more than a group's originator and overseer until or unless they no longer want that role. A group is, quite literally, own

Mark, Personally I think there absolutely needs to be "a playbook" and that said playbook should be available for review by any member. How one handles a given ToS complaint would really depend on the

Now I'll go "meta," but it is related. It really doesn't matter whether one has to be a member of the parent group or not simply because were one to try to join a subgroup, and membership in the paren

#bug

When one goes to the NVDA Group Home Page one sees a subgroup called devlearning with the e-mail address devlearning@nvda.groups.io as well as two other subgroups. However, if you search using "Find o

#bug

I guess I need to make clear that I am interfacing strictly through the Groups.io web forum interface. In that context the last link in the prior post remains as plain text. That is an important bit o

#suggestion

Yup, that final link did not get converted for click through because I did a paste and send without any text being appended after it. This appears to be the root problem, not http versus https, so mod

#suggestion

I, and many others, use HTTPS Everywhere or other security where our browsers force the use of https instead of http whenever possible. On Groups.io if I post an http link directly into message text,

#suggestion

Consider this a "Seconded!" (or fourthed, based on original & likes)

#suggestion

I'm pasting here what I just sent to the person reporting this on one of the groups I am active on. I figure Mark may want/need to contact the ISP, too: Please report this to Virgin Media and ask that

It appears that SV is used in one of the Nordic languages and is not currently being threaded correctly.