Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

alt.* hierarchy

The alt.* hierarchy is a major unmoderated category of Usenet newsgroups, established in 1987 during the Great Renaming by Brian Reid, Gordon Moffett, and John Gilmore to circumvent the centralized control exerted by the Backbone Cabal over group creation in the established hierarchies.^[1]^[2]^[3] Unlike the Big Eight hierarchies, which required formal voting and moderation for newsgroup formation, the alt.* system allowed users to initiate groups via simple control messages or persistent posting, fostering rapid proliferation without institutional gatekeeping.^[4]^[5] This approach enabled diverse topics—from technical discussions and cultural commentary to experimental and provocative content, including early alt.sex and alt.binaries subgroups—resulting in the hierarchy's dominance in Usenet volume and its role as a venue for unrestricted digital exchange.^[1]^[5] While celebrated for advancing free speech principles by evading cabal influence, the lack of oversight also permitted spam, off-topic flooding, and binaries overload, contributing to bandwidth strains and the eventual "Eternal September" influx of novice users.^[3]^[5]

Origins and Development

Founding Motivations and Key Events

The alt.* hierarchy emerged in 1987 amid growing dissatisfaction with the rigid governance structures of Usenet's primary hierarchies, which required formal voting and approval processes managed by a loose coalition of administrators known as the Backbone Cabal.^[5]^[6] These processes, intensified during the Great Renaming—a reorganization of newsgroup names from the monolithic net.* prefix to specialized categories like comp., rec., and sci.—were perceived as overly bureaucratic and prone to censorship, blocking proposals for groups on controversial topics such as rec.drugs.^[2]^[5] Programmers Brian Reid, John Gilmore, and Gordon Moffett initiated the alt. namespace to enable unmoderated, anarchic group creation without votes or oversight, prioritizing user-driven experimentation and free expression over centralized control.^[6]^[5] The hierarchy's founding was tied to the Great Renaming's completion in 1987, when Reid proposed "alt.*" as a parallel system outside the restructured mainstream feeds, allowing propagation via alternative distribution paths that bypassed backbone sites reluctant to carry unapproved content.^[2]^[6] The inaugural group, alt.gourmand, was created by Reid to discuss gourmet food, serving as a low-controversy test case for the new mechanism.^[2] This was followed by rapid proliferation, but the hierarchy gained widespread traction in April 1988 with Reid's creation of alt.sex on April 3, explicitly as a response to rejected mainstream proposals and to demonstrate the viability of unrestricted discourse.^[5] Alt.sex quickly became one of Usenet's most read groups, underscoring the alt.* model's appeal by attracting users excluded from moderated spaces and highlighting tensions between libertarian ideals and traditional administrators' concerns over spam and off-topic proliferation.^[5]^[6] By eschewing formal creation protocols, the hierarchy empowered individual users to post control messages establishing subgroups, fostering organic growth but also early challenges in propagation consistency across sites.^[5] This foundational shift decentralized Usenet's evolution, with alt.* eventually encompassing the majority of active newsgroups by the early 1990s.^[6]

Early Expansion and Technical Implementation

The alt.* hierarchy was technically implemented through the use of control messages, a standard Usenet mechanism defined in RFC 1036 for managing newsgroup lifecycle operations such as creation, removal, and moderation status changes.^[7] These messages are specially formatted articles with a "Control" header and subjects prefixed by "cmsg," distributed via the same peer-to-peer propagation protocols as ordinary posts, initially relying on UUCP batch transfers and later NNTP for real-time feeds between servers.^[5] For alt.* specifically, creation occurs when a user posts a "newgroup" control message specifying the group name, description, and optional moderation details; servers process it autonomously, adding the group if administrators approve, without centralized oversight or cryptographic approval mechanisms required in other hierarchies.^[8] This decentralized approach contrasted sharply with the Big Eight hierarchies' structured voting processes managed by Usenet volunteers, enabling immediate group instantiation upon propagation to willing sites.^[5] Initial propagation began via informal links among early adopters' servers, such as those at DECWRL (managed by Brian Reid), Gilmore's hoptoad, and Amdahl (linked by Gordon Moffett), fostering organic spread as sites opted into alt.* feeds.^[5] Groups persisted or faded based on sustained user interest and server carriage, with no formal expiration, which amplified both vitality and clutter over time. Early expansion accelerated following the hierarchy's conception on May 7, 1987, at a Mountain View, California, gathering organized by Brian Reid, John Gilmore, and Gordon Moffett, who sought to circumvent perceived over-moderation in existing categories like talk..^[5] By late May 1987, foundational groups including alt.test, alt.config, alt.drugs, and alt.gourmand were active, establishing templates for unmoderated discourse.^[5] A pivotal event occurred on April 3, 1988, when Reid created alt.sex after a proposed soc.sex group failed a formal vote, sparking widespread adoption for fringe topics and demonstrating alt.'s resilience to rejection in curated spaces; this led to rapid proliferation, with alt.rock-n-roll emerging concurrently and subsequent creations filling voids in politics, humor, and subcultures.^[5] The hierarchy's permissive mechanics—requiring only technical access to post control messages—drove exponential growth in the late 1980s, outpacing moderated peers by prioritizing user initiative over administrative gatekeeping.^[1]

Structure and Mechanics

Group Creation Process

The creation of newsgroups within the alt.* hierarchy relied on an informal, decentralized process that emphasized user initiative over centralized approval, distinguishing it from the structured voting mechanisms of the Big Eight hierarchies. To initiate a new group, users typically began by posting a proposal in the alt.config newsgroup, where the community could discuss the proposed name, purpose, and charter to gauge interest, identify duplicates, and refine details. This step, while not mandatory, served as a de facto coordination point, with experienced "alt gods"—self-appointed volunteers who assisted with technical aspects—offering advice on naming conventions, avoiding conflicts, and crafting effective control messages.^[9]^[8] The core mechanism for establishing a group involved issuing a "newgroup" control message, a specially formatted Usenet article containing commands that instructed news servers to add the newsgroup to their active feeds. This message included the group name (e.g., alt.example.topic), a description, and optional metadata like keywords or moderation status, and was injected into Usenet via tools such as INN (InterNetNews) software or by forging it through email to news administrators. Unlike moderated hierarchies requiring majority votes and oversight by bodies like the Usenet Volunteer Moderators or the Big Eight management, alt.* creation succeeded if a sufficient number of site administrators chose to honor the control message and propagate the group across their servers, often determined by perceived demand or lack of opposition. Propagation thresholds varied by site policy, but widespread adoption—typically involving dozens of major backbones—ensured persistence, as news software automatically fed articles to the new group once recognized.^[10]^[4]^[11] This anarchic approach, lacking formal rules or veto power, enabled rapid proliferation but also invited abuse, such as frivolous or overlapping creations; by the mid-1990s, alt.* encompassed thousands of groups, reflecting the hierarchy's design as an "escape hatch" from bureaucratic constraints. News administrators retained discretion to ignore or filter control messages, mitigating spam but introducing variability in availability across servers. No central authority enforced standards, aligning with the hierarchy's ethos of bottom-up emergence, where group viability ultimately depended on sustained user participation rather than administrative fiat.^[8]^[4]^[10]

Hierarchical Organization and Propagation

The alt.* hierarchy is structured as a decentralized, tree-like namespace in Usenet, where newsgroup names commence with the prefix "alt." followed by dot-separated categories and subcategories denoting topical focus, such as alt.comics, alt.binaries, or alt.history.alternative. This organization groups discussions thematically—spanning entertainment, technology, politics, and esoterica—without enforced moderation or central curation, enabling thousands of subgroups to emerge organically since the hierarchy's founding on May 7, 1987. Unlike the Big Eight hierarchies, which impose structured voting for creation, alt.** permits fluid expansion, resulting in its status as Usenet's largest and most diverse category, often exceeding other hierarchies in volume.^[4]^[5]^[12] Newsgroup creation within alt.** occurs via a "newgroup" control message, injectable by any participant and commonly vetted informally through alt.config for naming conventions and viability. Servers process these messages—stored in a pseudo-newsgroup called control—by local configuration: administrators may authenticate via PGP signatures, approve based on policy, and then instantiate the group, propagating the control message to peers for network-wide adoption. This voluntary, anarchic mechanism, exemplified by the rapid establishment of alt.sex on April 3, 1988, contrasts with moderated hierarchies' reliance on cabals or votes, fostering persistence only for groups sustaining activity but risking fragmentation if carriers demur.^[12]^[9]^[10] Article propagation in alt.** newsgroups leverages Usenet's flood-fill protocol over NNTP, where postings disseminate from originating servers to interconnected peers, excluding duplicates via Message-ID checks and loop prevention through Path header tracing (e.g., tracing relays like inn.isc.org!peer.site). Control-authorized groups achieve broad carriage due to alt.'s popularity—historically comprising about 34% of major hierarchies—yet propagation remains probabilistic, contingent on backbone operators' feeds and retention policies, with non-carrying sites truncating reach amid spam or bandwidth limits. This peer-driven flooding, absent central coordinators, underpins alt.'s resilience but amplifies variability in accessibility across the decentralized Usenet mesh.^[12]^[12]^[13]

Content Characteristics

Diversity of Topics and Subhierarchies

The alt.* hierarchy distinguishes itself through its expansive coverage of topics unconstrained by the formal approval processes of the Big Eight hierarchies, encompassing subjects ranging from conventional interests to fringe, controversial, or transient phenomena. Established in 1987 as a response to perceived overreach in group creation decisions—such as the rejection of proposals like rec.drugs—it enabled technically adept users to propagate newsgroups via control messages without centralized oversight, fostering rapid proliferation.^[5]^[1] This mechanism resulted in alt.* surpassing other hierarchies in volume, with estimates placing it as the majority of Usenet's over 100,000 groups at peak usage in the 1990s and early 2000s, though precise counts varied by server adoption.^[5] Topics span hobbies like coin collecting and animal migrations, alongside more polarizing areas such as alternate lifestyles and adult content, reflecting the diverse and often unfiltered perspectives of participants.^[4] Subhierarchies within alt.* emerged organically rather than through predefined charters, organized by successive dot-separated categories that mirror user-driven specialization. Prominent examples include alt.binaries.* for sharing non-text files like images and software, which proliferated after MIME encoding enabled binary postings in the early 1990s; alt.fan.* dedicated to celebrity and media fandoms, such as alt.fan.pratchett for author Terry Pratchett enthusiasts; and alt.sex., originating with alt.sex in 1988, for discussions of sexuality often excluded from moderated spaces.^[1]^[5] Other notable clusters cover alt.humor. for jokes and satire, alt.religion.* for non-mainstream or eclectic spiritual topics, and alt.politics.* for unvetted ideological debates, illustrating how the hierarchy accommodated both earnest exchanges and provocative or ephemeral content like self-promotion and parody groups.^[4] This decentralized structure prioritized propagation by interested sites over quality control, leading to a mix of vibrant communities and dormant or spam-infested subgroups that self-extinguished through disuse.^[5]

Unmoderated Dynamics and User Interactions

In the alt.* hierarchy, the absence of formal moderation enabled direct, unfiltered posting by any user connected to a Usenet server, fostering threaded discussions through follow-up replies that built upon or challenged prior messages without editorial gatekeeping.^[1] This structure promoted rapid exchanges on diverse topics, from technical queries to cultural debates, but often devolved into protracted arguments due to anonymity and lack of enforced norms, with crossposting to multiple groups amplifying reach and escalating conflicts.^[14] Interactions relied on voluntary participation, where users could quote, critique, or ignore contributions, leading to emergent community boundaries enforced through selective engagement rather than centralized control.^[14] Unmoderated dynamics frequently manifested in flame wars—intense, ad hominem disputes that dominated threads—and trolling, where individuals or groups deliberately provoked reactions to disrupt discourse.^[15] A notable example occurred during the 1996 Meow Wars, initiated in January when a post on alt.tv.beavis-n-butthead triggered floods of repetitive "meow" messages, Monty Python quotes, and insults across alt.* groups like alt.fan.karl-malden.nose, perpetrated by self-organized "Meowers" using pseudonyms to evade traceability.^[16] Such tactics, including crossposting nonsense about fictional entities like a cat named Fluffy, rendered groups temporarily unusable, highlighting how unmoderated access incentivized attention-seeking disruption over substantive exchange.^[16] Users countered these dynamics through personal self-moderation tools, such as killfiles—client-side filters that suppressed posts from specific authors, subjects, or patterns—and "plonk" lists, informal registries of blocked users shared among regulars to coordinate avoidance.^[17] In subgroups like alt.hackers, established in 1990, informal norms evolved requiring posters to include an "ObHack" tag demonstrating cleverness, such as one-line code solutions, to signal legitimacy and deter low-effort spam, thereby sustaining higher-quality interactions amid broader hierarchy chaos.^[18] Similarly, alt.hacking operated on a de facto system where users forged moderator approval headers for posts, illustrating emergent self-policing that preserved utility without abandoning unmoderated principles.^[14] These mechanisms underscored a reliance on individual agency and peer pressure, though their effectiveness waned against persistent flooding, contributing to the hierarchy's reputation for both vibrant anarchy and signal degradation.^[18]

Controversies

Spam and Flooding Issues

The unmoderated structure of the alt.* hierarchy, which allowed any user to post without prior approval, facilitated widespread spam—defined as irrelevant, commercial, or disruptive messages crossposted across multiple groups—and flooding, involving excessive or repeated postings intended to overwhelm servers with volume or bandwidth demands. These issues escalated in the early 1990s as Usenet traffic grew, with alt.* groups comprising over 51% of total volume by January 1994, much of it from unfiltered binaries and off-topic content.^[19] Spam often targeted alt.* for its permissive environment, including early incidents like the January 1994 "Christ is coming" message crossposted to every newsgroup, marking one of the first large-scale spams that burdened alt.* propagation.^[19] A pivotal event was the April 1994 posting by attorneys Laurence Canter and Martha Siegel, who advertised U.S. green card lottery services in over 5,000 newsgroups, including numerous alt.* ones, via automated crossposting tools; this not only flooded discussions but provoked the development of cancelbots to automate message removal, though effectiveness varied in alt.* due to resistance against external moderation.^[20] Flooding attacks, distinct from routine spam, involved deliberate overloads such as massive binary uploads or rapid repetitions; for instance, alt.binaries.* subgroups saw chronic resource strain from warez and multimedia files, consuming disproportionate bandwidth—up to 99.9% of some providers' Usenet traffic by the late 1990s—prompting many ISPs to limit or drop alt.* propagation altogether.^[21] Later examples included targeted denial-of-service floods, like the 2017 attack on alt.binaries.teevee, where perpetrators posted gigabytes of redundant data over days, detected via abnormal traffic spikes and aimed at crashing news servers hosting the group.^[22] Similarly, floods against alt.checkmate involved persistent attempts to deluge the group post-moderation disputes, highlighting how alt.'s open creation process enabled abusers to exploit propagation mechanics without built-in safeguards.^[23] These problems contributed to alt.'s decline, as server operators faced unsustainable storage and feed costs—exacerbated by binaries flooding—leading to fragmented participation and reliance on paid providers by the 2000s, though the hierarchy's anarchic design prioritized unrestricted access over abuse prevention.^[24]

Cancel Messages and Self-Moderation Attempts

In the unmoderated alt.* hierarchy, where formal moderation was absent by design, users frequently resorted to cancel messages—special control messages requesting news servers to remove previously posted articles—as a primary mechanism for self-moderation. These messages, originating from the original poster or third parties, targeted spam, excessive multi-posting (EMP, defined as 20 or more identical articles), spews (mass crossposting), forgeries, and binaries in text-only groups, adhering to informal guidelines outlined in Usenet standards like RFC 1036bis.^[25] Third-party cancels were tolerated only for such technical abuses, not content-based disputes, to preserve the hierarchy's anarchic ethos, though server operators retained discretion to process or ignore them.^[25] A landmark catalyst occurred on April 5, 1994, when lawyers Laurence Canter and Martha Siegel posted an advertisement for U.S. green card lotteries to over 5,500 newsgroups, including many in alt.*, flooding servers and prompting immediate backlash. Users responded with manual cancel messages, flames, and automated tools; Norwegian programmer Arnt Gulbrandsen rapidly developed the first cancelbot that week, scanning for matching spam signatures and issuing cancels masquerading as the original author to ensure propagation.^[26] ^[27] This tool, and subsequent variants, effectively curbed identical spam in unmoderated groups by deleting articles before widespread archiving, but it also overloaded servers with counter-messages, sometimes causing crashes.^[27] Self-moderation efforts escalated into cancel wars, where vigilante cancellers like "CancelBunny," "NewsAgent," and "Cosmo Roadkill" issued mass unauthorized cancels for subjective reasons, such as perceived off-topic posts or personal vendettas, bypassing guidelines.^[25] These actions provoked retaliatory posting floods and counter-cancels, exemplified by the 1996–1998 Meow Wars, where a poster flooded groups with "meow" messages, met with cancelbot countermeasures that inadvertently amplified disruption across alt.*. Experimental retromoderation groups, like alt.sex.cancel, emerged to centralize spam reporting and coordinated cancels, but adoption was inconsistent due to Usenet's decentralized nature, with many servers rejecting unverified controls.^[25] Despite initial successes against spam—such as cancel-on-sight policies for recurring scams like "Make Money Fast"—abuses eroded trust, as rogue operators ignored notifications to posters or postmasters, violating etiquette requiring transparency via "X-Cancelled-By" headers and bulletins in news.admin.net-abuse.^[25] In alt.*, this highlighted tensions between user-driven cleanup and risks of de facto censorship, as content-neutral rules were often stretched, contributing to broader fragmentation without resolving underlying propagation issues.^[26]

Debates on Free Speech versus Content Control

The creation of the alt.* hierarchy in 1987 was explicitly intended to foster unrestricted free expression by enabling users to propose and vote on newsgroups through the unmoderated alt.config process, bypassing the controlled creation mechanisms of the "Big Seven" hierarchies. This design principle clashed with escalating abuses, particularly after the April 5, 1994, spam campaign by lawyers Laurence Canter and Martha Siegel, who cross-posted advertisements for U.S. Green Card Lottery services to over 5,500 newsgroups, predominantly in alt.*, causing widespread server overloads and bandwidth exhaustion.^[26] Proponents of unfettered speech argued that such incidents represented protected commercial expression in a decentralized system, where users could filter unwanted content via personal killfiles or selective subscriptions, emphasizing individual responsibility over collective intervention.^[28] In response, Usenet participants developed cancel messages—forged control messages designed to retract spam posts from servers—and automated cancelbots, with Norwegian developer Arnt Gulbrandsen creating an early tool to mass-cancel the Canter-Siegel posts, establishing a precedent for user-initiated removals.^[26] This elicited sharp debates: advocates for content control viewed cancels as essential self-defense to prevent spam from constituting a denial-of-service attack that drowned out legitimate discourse, thereby preserving the platform's overall accessibility for free expression.^[29] Critics, including free speech absolutists, condemned cancelbots as vigilante censorship, arguing they bypassed due process, enabled forged interventions across borders, and risked a "slippery slope" toward arbitrary suppression of unpopular views under the guise of netiquette enforcement.^[28]^[25] Anonymous operators like Cancelmoose, active from around 1994, amplified these tensions by systematically canceling spam and abusive posts, such as those exceeding posting thresholds or violating perceived Usenet norms; while some administrators praised this as voluntary norm-enforcement in an anarchic environment, others decried it as extrajudicial overreach that undermined the alt.* ethos of minimal hierarchy.^[30] Siegel herself advocated for regulatory oversight, such as FCC intervention, to curb "anarchy," highlighting how spam's cross-jurisdictional nature complicated free speech claims under varying national laws.^[29] Empirical outcomes showed that without such mechanisms, alt.* subhierarchies suffered signal-to-noise degradation, with spam volumes surging post-1994 and contributing to user exodus, yet imposed controls often fueled accusations of a de facto "cabal" of admins wielding disproportionate power in a supposedly egalitarian space.^[26]^[28] These debates underscored causal trade-offs in decentralized systems: absolute non-interference enabled rapid innovation and fringe discourse but invited resource exhaustion via flooding, while ad-hoc controls like cancels mitigated immediate harms at the cost of perceived erosions in user autonomy, prefiguring broader internet governance challenges.^[29] No formal resolution emerged, as alt.* rejected centralized moderation, leaving ongoing reliance on voluntary participation and site-specific policies.

Impact and Legacy

Contributions to Internet Free Expression

The alt.* hierarchy, established in 1987 following the Great Renaming of Usenet newsgroups, introduced a permissionless system for creating discussion groups, allowing users to propagate newsgroups without requiring approval from centralized moderators or voting processes inherent in the "Big Eight" hierarchies.^[1]^[4] This mechanism directly empowered individual users and small collectives to initiate forums on any topic, fostering an environment where expression was limited primarily by technical propagation rather than institutional gatekeeping.^[5] By design, alt.* groups operated without formal moderation, enabling unfiltered exchanges that included politically sensitive, culturally fringe, and technically experimental content, which demonstrated the scalability of decentralized discourse on a global network.^[5] This unmoderated structure contributed to early precedents for free speech on digital platforms, as it intertwined Usenet's growth with debates over unrestricted online communication, predating widespread internet access and highlighting the viability of user-driven content creation absent top-down control.^[29] The hierarchy's rapid expansion—surpassing the moderated groups in volume by the early 1990s—illustrated causal links between reduced barriers to entry and increased participatory expression, influencing the ethos of subsequent unmoderated forums and bulletin board systems.^[5]^[4] The alt.* model's emphasis on self-propagation via voluntary site adoption underscored a first-come, community-consensus approach to visibility, which resisted censorship by distributing control across network nodes rather than vesting it in singular authorities.^[1] This framework not only liberated speech from mainstream societal norms but also served as an empirical testbed for the tensions between absolute expression and emergent self-regulation, informing later internet governance discussions on balancing openness with abuse mitigation.^[31] Pioneers like John Gilmore, credited with early advocacy for alt.* propagation, exemplified how such systems could amplify marginalized or adversarial viewpoints, contributing to a legacy of adversarial interoperability in online spaces.^[32]

Criticisms and Long-Term Drawbacks

The alt.* hierarchy's lack of moderation enabled the unchecked proliferation of spam, most notably demonstrated by the April 12, 1994, advertisement posted by lawyers Laurence Canter and Martha Siegel promoting U.S. green card lottery services to approximately 5,500 newsgroups, predominantly within alt.*.^[33] This event, which netted the spammers over $100,000 in fees while imposing negligible posting costs, functioned effectively as a distributed denial-of-service attack on Usenet infrastructure by multiplying storage and bandwidth demands across servers.^[34] In response, users and administrators deployed cancel messages and rudimentary filtering tools, but these ad hoc measures underscored the inherent fragility of decentralized, unmoderated systems to coordinated abuse.^[34] The hierarchy's permissive creation policies resulted in an explosion of subgroups, including alt.binaries.*, where users encoded and distributed binary files such as software and media, often infringing copyrights.^[24] This shift overwhelmed textual discourse with voluminous multipart posts, escalating storage requirements—evident in the rapid growth of Usenet's total archived data—and consuming disproportionate network resources, which many Internet service providers cited as a rationale for curtailing access.^[24] Consequently, signal-to-noise ratios deteriorated, fostering environments rife with flame wars, off-topic threads, and low-quality content that deterred sustained participation.^[24] Over the long term, these dynamics accelerated Usenet's decline from the mid-1990s onward, as persistent spam and binary flooding eroded its viability for meaningful exchange, prompting migration to web forums equipped with threading, search, and moderation features.^[24] The alt.* model's emphasis on unrestricted propagation also amplified security vulnerabilities, with binaries serving as vectors for malware dissemination, exposing users to viruses and trojans without institutional safeguards.^[35] While preserving a niche for anonymous file sharing, the hierarchy's drawbacks—fragmentation into thousands of underpopulated groups and tolerance for exploitative practices—ultimately marginalized its role in broader internet discourse.^[24]

Current Status and Relevance

The alt.* hierarchy remains operational within the Usenet ecosystem as of 2025, encompassing tens of thousands of newsgroups amid the network's total exceeding 120,000 groups across all hierarchies. While the underlying NNTP protocol and server infrastructure persist through specialized providers, textual discussion activity in alt.* has dwindled to niche levels, overshadowed by binary-focused subgroups like alt.binaries for file distribution. Mainstream access points, such as Google Groups, ceased supporting new Usenet postings effective February 15, 2024, further marginalizing interactive use.^[36]^[37]^[38] Contemporary relevance of alt.* lies primarily in its historical role as a decentralized, unmoderated forum that prioritized user-driven content creation over institutional oversight, offering lessons for modern platforms grappling with moderation challenges. This structure facilitated rapid group proliferation without formal votes, embodying early principles of unrestricted expression that contrast with today's algorithmically curated social media. However, its unchecked dynamics—evident in ongoing spam and low-signal discussions—underscore practical limits of absolute laissez-faire policies, informing critiques of similar unfiltered environments like certain imageboards or peer-to-peer networks.^[5]^[39]

References

[1]
alt.* | Giganews
* hierarchy was created in 1987, after the finalizing of the Great Renaming. Brian Reid, Gordon Moffett, and John Gilmore are credited for the creation of the ...
[2]
Great Renaming - Controlling the Virtual World
The backbone was mainly controlled by a group known as the "Backbone Cabal." The Cabal was a group of admins and their close friends who helped shape Usenet.
[3]
The Early History of Usenet, Part VIII: The Great Renaming - CircleID
Dec 27, 2019 · The alt hierarchy was created as a set of newsgroups explicitly outside the control of the Backbone Cabal. And it succeeded because technology ...
[4]
Usenet Hierarchies: What They Are and How They Work
Jul 29, 2021 · The alt hierarchy would allow anybody to create a newsgroup without having to go through a long, complex voting process.Missing: origins | Show results with:origins
[5]
Alt Hierarchy History - Brian Reid, Usenet Newsgroups, Backbone ...
The introduction of genuine free speech on the Usenet began with the creation of the “alt.” hierarchy, sparked by the creation of alt.sex. The alt hierarchy now ...
[6]
Usenet Newsgroups History - Giganews
Learn about the history of Usenet. From the its beginnings in 1979 to the present-day, Giganews has recorded every historic moment of Usenet.
[7]
RFC1036: Standard for Interchange of USENET Messages
Control messages are used for communication among USENET host machines, not to be read by users. Control messages are distributed by the same newsgroup ...
[8]
So You Want to Create an Alt Newsgroup - Graham Mitchell
* How do alt groups get created? Like any group in Usenet, a group gets created (typically) when someone sends out a special "control" message to "newgroup" it.
[9]
How to create an ALT newsgroup in Usenet - nylon.net
To create a newsgroup in alt, you first propose a group to alt.config. The gods will offer advice, point out technical errors, and may help with sending control ...
[10]
Create An Alt Newsgroup | LivingInternet
It has a “control” header. The first four letters of the subject are “cmsg”, in which case the rest of the subject is the control message.
[11]
How are Newsgroups Created? - Usenet
Rating 5.0 (50) The creation of the Newsgroup in Alt Hierarchy is also comparatively very easy and you can do it with a simple discussion.
[12]
[PDF] USENET
– The “alt” hierarchy established because some people didn't like the. USENET Cabal. – Other hierarchies are “private” but propagated. • e.g., news hierarchies ...
[13]
2. Principles of Operation
The Usenet news software maintains a pseudo-newsgroup called control, where it files all control messages it receives.
[14]
Mapping Anarchy on Usenet - WIRED
Mar 5, 1998 · Alt.2600 is an open, unmoderated group. Alt.hacking, however, is a curious phenomenon: a moderated group without a moderator. To post to alt ...
[15]
The Flame Wars on Usenet: Shaping the Internet's Discourse Culture
Flame wars were more than just online bickering; they were a cultural phenomenon that influenced how people interacted on the nascent internet.Missing: alt. | Show results with:alt.
[16]
Twenty Years Ago, Trolling Was Repeatedly Posting 'Meow ... - VICE
Jul 8, 2016 · “Meowers,” as the early trolls were known, flooded these boards and derailed them with blocks of text, posting quotes from Monty Python or Beavis and Butthead.
[17]
No, killfiles were at an individual level. But they were more than "I'm ...
No, killfiles were at an individual level. But they were more than "I'm tired of seeing User Y", as you could also plonk text patterns and the like.Missing: self- alt.
[18]
The once-great alt.hackers newsgroup - Sam Trenholme's webpage
The self-moderation system protects the group from most spam; unlike other newsgroup, this newsgroup never got dominated by spammers when the number of actual ...Missing: unmoderated | Show results with:unmoderated
[19]
Net History in Brief - Brad Templeton
tech defeated, then wins on appeal. Usenet over 100 megs/day, over 51% of it is ALT; Jan/94 Christ is coming -- posted to every newsgroup (first spam); Apr/94 ...
[20]
What is Usenet? 5 things to know about newsgroups - TechRadar
Jun 9, 2023 · The idea of Spam was first introduced en masse on Usenet in 1994 by the law firm Canter & Siegel. The firm posted in all of the Usenet ...
[21]
Why did Usenet fail? - Hacker News
Jun 5, 2023 · It is a distributed system without central authority over who could connect to the network or firm control over groups and their contents.
[22]
alt.binaries.teevee DOS/Flood Attack in progress : r/usenet - Reddit
Jan 18, 2017 · An apparent Denial of Service/Flood attack is underway against the alt.binaries.teevee newsgroup. First indications were detected about 3-4 ...Missing: hierarchy issues history<|separator|>
[23]
alt.checkmate flooder - Google Groups
Please be aware that the perpetrator of the recent Neodome floods attacking alt.checkmate is still attacking the group, this time by attempting to get the ...
[24]
The rise and fall of Usenet: How the original social media platform ...
Dec 19, 2023 · Then the alt groups emerged as a free speech protest. Afterward, fewer Usenet sites made it possible to access all the newsgroups.Missing: growth | Show results with:growth
[25]
Cancel Messages FAQ - usenet - Tim Skirvin
However, there are rules that allow third-party cancels in specific circumstances, such as group moderation, spam and spew cancellations, article forgeries, and ...Missing: self- | Show results with:self-
[26]
Content Moderation Case Study: Usenet Has To Figure Out How To ...
Others focused on trying to help Usenet server operators get rid of the spam. ... Self-Deleting Tweets Feature Creates New Moderation Problems (2) ...
[27]
How Bots Were Born From Spam - How We Get To Next
May 6, 2016 · Cancelbots worked because the messages they were canceling were either identical or changed very infrequently–they could be compared to a human- ...
[28]
Meow Wars - Wikipedia
The Meow Wars were an early example of a flame war sent over Usenet which began in 1996 and ended circa 1998. Its participants were known as "Meowers".
[29]
An Alternative Primer on Free Speech - JetCafe
An alternative Primer on Net Abuse, Free Speech, and Usenet Dave Hayes dave ... An Active UDP is essentially a cancelbot, and also covered by 3) above.
[30]
Usenet Poses New Freedom of Speech Questions
### Summary of Usenet Free Speech Questions
[31]
Witnessing the Birth of a Legal System on the Net
Cancelmoose's activities have elicited cries of censorship from some critics, who feel that canceling any message constitutes a violation of the free-speech ...
[32]
Revisiting the Free Speech Revolution on the Electronic Frontier of ...
Both The WELL and the alt. groups embody the development of virtual communities where online speech not only liberates itself from mainstream society, but also ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[33]
alt.interoperability.adversarial | Electronic Frontier Foundation
Nov 13, 2019 · Thanks to a convention proposed by EFF co-founder John Gilmore, there was a formal process for creating a Usenet newsgroup, requiring that a ...
[34]
The Spam That Started It All | WIRED
Apr 13, 1999 · The notorious "Green Card Spam" marked the beginning of a flood of spam that has since made Usenet a very different place.
[35]
Usenet Spam: a Slice of History - The Fishbowl
Jan 12, 2021 · The “modern era” of spam is generally accepted as having begun in 1994, when the law-firm of Canter and Seigel sent a message to 5,500 ...Missing: alt. | Show results with:alt.<|separator|>
[36]
[PDF] The Infosec Issues of Usenet - GIAC Certifications
May 22, 2001 · Users of any newsgroup, not just the “alt”, or “binaries” ones, are potential targets for most of the varieties of malicious software, such as ...
[37]
Usenet Hierarchies in 2025 : Big 8, Alt & Regional Groups
Discover how Usenet hierarchies organize 120000+ newsgroups into the Big 8, alt.*, and regional categories. Learn their history, structure, ...Missing: years | Show results with:years
[38]
Google declares UseNet DEAD after February 15, 2024
Dec 14, 2023 · Effective February 15, 2024, Google Groups will no longer support new Usenet content. Posting and subscribing will be disallowed.Missing: active traffic<|separator|>
[39]
How Usenet Works in 2025: A Simple Guide - Newshosting
Jan 17, 2025 · Articles Propagate Across Servers. Once posted, the article propagates (i.e. copied) to other Usenet servers across the network. This ...
[40]
Usenet Users Network – Everything you Need to Know in 2025
Rating 5.0 (50) In 2024, there are a number of hierarchies available on Usenet, but the majority of them are divided into BIG 8 and Alt. * Hierarchies. These Hierarchies come ...