Casual Conversation

2367 readers

269 users here now

Share a story, ask a question, or start a conversation about (almost) anything you desire. Maybe you'll make some friends in the process.

RULES (updated 01/22/25)

Be respectful: no harassment, hate speech, bigotry, and/or trolling. To be concise, disrespect is defined by escalation.
Encourage conversation in your OP. This means including heavily implicative subject matter when you can and also engaging in your thread when possible. You won't be punished for trying.
Avoid controversial topics (politics or societal debates come to mind, though we are not saying not to talk about anything that resembles these). There's a guide in the protocol book offered as a mod model that can be used for that; it's vague until you realize it was made for things like the rule in question. At least four purple answers must apply to a "controversial" message for it to be allowed.
Keep it clean and SFW: No illegal content or anything gross and inappropriate. A rule of thumb is if a recording of a conversation put on another platform would get someone a COPPA violation response, that exact exchange should be avoided when possible.
No solicitation such as ads, promotional content, spam, surveys etc. The chart redirected to above applies to spam material as well, which is one of the reasons its wording is vague, as it applies to a few things. Again, a "spammy" message must be applicable to four purple answers before it's allowed.
Respect privacy as well as truth: Don’t ask for or share any personal information or slander anyone. A rule of thumb is if something is enough info to go by that it "would be a copyright violation if the info was art" as another group put it, or that it alone can be used to narrow someone down to 150 physical humans (Dunbar's Number) or less, it's considered an excess breach of privacy. Slander is defined by intentional utilitarian misguidance at the expense (positive or negative) of a sentient entity. This often links back to or mixes with rule one, which implies, for example, that even something that is true can still amount to what slander is trying to achieve, and that will be looked down upon.

Casual conversation communities:

Related discussion-focused communities

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Anyone here old enough to miss 1980's computer days? (lemy.lol)

submitted 5 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

32 comments fedilink hide all child comments

It was so fun back then. Not the yelling and moaning we have going on today.

Here on Lemmy, even in non-political discussions some is always whining about the current president or whatever.

Or calling for alt voices to be banned.

Back in the 80's computer stuff and conversation was more fun and not so freakin' political.

It was about games, DYI, trying to learn to hack, learning the new tech. It was awesome!

I was part of it, but not as much as I could have been because I was in a small town and couldn't afford a lot. But I def had a foot in the scene, and it was awesome!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Back in the 1980s, a number of phone networks didn't charge (or didn't charge much) for local calls, but charged a lot for long-distance calls.

So while one didn't have the Internet, this meant that one could link up various BBSes via FidoNet. Each BBS could, on a regular schedule, call up a few linked BBSes near it, and forward messages along.

It was a federated system which permitted for forum discussion, something in common with the Threadiverse today. Some of those messages were archived.

https://www.sensitiveresearch.com/Archive/FidoNet/

A major component of FidoNet is (was, whatever) its newsletter, FidoNews. I started it in 1984; as of this writing (1999) it's in its 15th year, and has been published weekly from the start. It is the meta-network, a means to discuss the network itself.

https://www.sensitiveresearch.com/Archive/FidoNet/FidoNews/index.html

Let us investigate the first issue of this newsletter, a snapshot of culture and see how it differs from our own environment!

https://www.sensitiveresearch.com/Archive/FidoNet/FidoNews/1984/FIDO102.NWS

We have content about network security!

Fido is pretty secure, but there have been a few instances where callers gave them selves SYSOP priveleges, and ran amok ... the cure is quite simple.

NEVER NEVER NEVER have your "main" Fido directory available as a download or upload area. Always make sure there is no path that can reach your .BBS files. It is OK to have it as a SYSOP only area, never let it be accessed by NORMAL users.

We have content about piracy and that vile DRM!

Now, it seems, software publishers are getting to be more and more uptight about people either A)Pirating their software (most of which isn't worth the disk it was copied on) or B)Making honest, legitimate backups of their valuable software.

We have content about the potential for government regulation of forums, common carrier legal status, and how it might spell doom for network discussion!

The underlying issue here is one of control: who is liable for the contents of a BBS? It was related to me (by someone who had lawyers persue it) that the status of BBS's is quite up in the air; are they common carriers (ie. the phone co.) or are they publishers (ie. newspapers). Phone companies have limited liability because they provide a medium, and not the contents, and are generally not liable. (If you arrange a sale for a stolen bicycle by phone, Pacific Bell is not resonsible). Publishers control their contents, and I think are liable for even the contents of their classified ads, though that is obviously impossible to ensure.

You really should voice your opinion on this issue. It will not mark you as a political radical, and the FBI will not harrass your neighbors. It is your right, and our right to free communications.

Losing this case will be a large step towards regulating BBSs. Regulation will mean the death of BBSs as we know it. We are unregulated, and are quite responsible and take care of our own problems. The trouble makers are far and few between.

Apparently, people back then didn't always back up data and sometimes lost it!

Oh boy ... the hot news this week is that Fido #1 dropped dead. The hard disk is in the junk pile. Any articles that were submitted for this weeks newsletter are lost forever. Please send them again, I'll see if I cant hold on to them.

Fido is running on two floppies, no room for anything. Until further notice, Fido cannot be downloaded from #1. I have a solution though; I'm getting an ancient old multibuss machine,three 8 inch floppies, at least 660K each, for a total of 1.98 megs. If I can get double sided drives, that might go up to almost 3 megs. It will take a week or two, though.

skims further

And here we are at Issue #26, 1985, and we've got people trying to form a PAC because they're worried about politics in Washington not going their way:

https://www.sensitiveresearch.com/Archive/FidoNet/FidoNews/1985/FIDO226.NWS

The Dog Barks in Washington

We may be getting some power soon. I'm hearing rumors that a "FidoPAC" is in its first stages of birth.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with politics (as I pretty much am myself), a PAC is a Political Action Committee. I gather that they lobby for specific issues, make campaign contributions, and so forth.

With this in mind, a FidoPAC sounds like a pretty good idea.
It's sure as taxes (literally) that the guys in Washigton are going to be passing laws which affect us. It's only common sense that we should try to provide our input into that lawmaking process.

I don't know if necessarily the past was necessarily quite as different as memory might suggest. :-)