8chan Goes Dark After Hardware Provider Discontinues Service (theverge.com) 627
Internet hate forum 8chan has gone dark after web services company Voxility banned the site -- and also banned 8chan's new host Epik, which had been leasing web space from it. From a report: Epik began working with 8chan over the weekend after web services giant Cloudflare cut off service, following the latest of at least three mass shootings linked to 8chan. But Stanford researcher Alex Stamos noted that Epik seemed to lease servers from Voxility, and when Voxility discovered the content, it cut ties with Epik almost immediately. "As soon as we were notified of the content that Epik was hosting, we made the decision to totally ban them," Voxility business development VP Maria Sirbu told The Verge. Sirbu said it was unlikely that Voxility would work with Epik again. "This is the second situation we've had with the reseller and this is not tolerable," she said.
Slashdot wants us to pity 8chan (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't support silencing 8chan, even when they host terrible vile things. However I do support the companies making their own decisions on what other companies to do business with. If nobody wants to sell hosting to 8chan, that is perfectly fine.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, this isn't a left/right issue.
I support people's right to say hate speech, acceptance speech, communist ideology, capitalist ideology, etc. I also support the right of individual companies not to be forced to store and propagate any content they disagree with.
Re: (Score:3)
It's a business decision (Score:2, Insightful)
The providers don't want the backlash from hosting such content, so they decided to pull it offline. It's a business decision, based on an assessment that they'd lose more money by continuing to host such sites than by just pulling the plug. If only Slashdot would make the business decision to eliminate some of the hate speech and APK spam here, this site would improve and Slashdot would probably make more money from increased traffic.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Slashdot wants us to pity 8chan (Score:4, Insightful)
I do. As it turns out, that kind of speech becomes a cyclone of hate, and exasperates mental illness.
Turns out, humans natural tendency to not spout of crazy shit when around of humans is a good stop gap. The internet removes that and we are seeing completely unprecedented impacts.
The internet is presenting human being with challenge at a scale never even conceived of 50 years ago.
While people like this have always existed, keeping them in small pockets reduced impact.
Re:Slashdot wants us to pity 8chan (Score:5, Insightful)
I was just talking to a friend about this the other day. The Internet is a double-edged sword when it comes to communications. One the positive side, it can bring people together with similar interests. If I like a certain anime show, I might be the only person in my town that likes it. Pre-Internet, I'd have nobody to discuss this with. With the Internet, I have hundreds or even thousands of other people to talk with about this.
Unfortunately, the downside is that people can "bond" about negative interests as well. If my interest was "killing everyone in Group X" then pre-Internet my interest would likely not have found many people to talk about this with. Any attempts to do so would find me shunned and likely arrested. With the Internet, though, I could find a group of hundreds with similar views who might encourage me to "take action."
Furthermore, there's both a "wide reach" and a bubbling effect. I can talk to people with backgrounds and viewpoints vastly different than those in my town - expanding my view on matters. Alternatively, I can only listen to those who agree with me - retreating into a bubble of agreement and blocking out any alternative views.
Sadly, there's no way to get rid of the negative "getting people together" aspect of the Internet without also getting rid of the positive aspect. And there's no way to enforce the "wide reach" and stop the bubbling effect. It's just how the Internet and human communications work.
Re: (Score:2)
I do. As it turns out, that kind of speech becomes a cyclone of hate, and exasperates mental illness.
I think you meant "exacerbates" ?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We do have private streets, small streets where this might be acceptable but at large it's not acceptable, there needs to be neutrality law. Currently what we have is the equivalent of a small consortium that owns most of the roads being able to come together and ban whoever they like for whatever rea
Re:Slashdot wants us to pity 8chan (Score:4, Insightful)
Take out the bits where it's planning a shooting and it's benign political commentary.
....you think "We need to fight a race war because the dark-skinned people are out-breeding whites, and those sub-humans aren't worthy" is benign political commentary?
'Cause that's the entire thesis, not a minor tidbit you can remove.
It's very important for me to be able to see things and judge for myself
Why do you believe you are actually seeing the real thing? It's not like you have any evidence that the manifesto you read is actually from that guy....other than media reports and anonymous Internet posts telling you it was.
Re: (Score:3)
A more apt example is being banned from the street by whoever it is that owns the streets.
I have no idea what this even means, but I have two anecdotes:
1) I bought my current house from the guy who built it in 1976 and lived there for almost 30 years. He had planned on building a ~80ft long driveway to a parking lot in a neighboring development. The owners of the development declined this, so my driveway is now about 500ft long to the next nearest street. So, I guess the owners of the parking lot banned him?
2) My wife has a brick-and-mortar business. She is limited in how she can put tables
Re:Slashdot wants us to pity 8chan (Score:5, Insightful)
The conflict here is that while at least a good number of people support free speech generally, the same people also support freedom of association generally. 8ch should have a right to exist and businesses should have the right not to associate with them. The problem is that 8ch cannot exist in its current form without the businesses that have deplatformed it.
The existence of denial of service attacks is the flaw in the system that leads to this conflict to begin with. If you host a website and someone wants it offline, they can take it offline pretty easily. That forces you to rely on hosts with denial of service protections like CloudFlare. If the companies running those services don't want to do business with you, you're fucked. You might be able to scrape together enough funding to make your own similar service... or you would be, if the payment processors also weren't refusing to do business with you!
I think sites like 8ch that enable a space for discussion of topics that are generally considered unacceptable do have value. Sometimes speech that is unacceptable is still true and can effect societal change. The origins of the civil rights movement are a great example of this, ironically. It's just not possible to host that kind of site in today's internet without relying on businesses that inevitably won't want to associate. Maybe the government should host some kind of free speech platform so there's no (or less) reliance on businesses?
Re:Slashdot wants us to pity 8chan (Score:5, Insightful)
Why should 8ch have a right to exist? They have a right that their existance should not be legally banned, but if everybody has voluntarily come to the conclusion that they won't do business with it, well, that's 8ch's problem.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, 8chan has the freedom to post whatever awful content they want; that is part of free speech. However nobody has to guarantee them a way to post it. Similarly you can stand on the street corner and shout out almost anything you want, but you don't have the right to force people to listen to you.
I don't support silencing 8chan, even when they host terrible vile things. However I do support the companies making their own decisions on what other companies to do business with. If nobody wants to sell hosting to 8chan, that is perfectly fine.
I think https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] is the appropriate response. The thing that made 8chan's reputation was hosting intolerant people. You can't tolerate speech that will stop tolerating other speech because at some point it will win. (It's also related to the original form of Godwin's Law.)
Re:Slashdot wants us to pity 8chan (Score:4, Insightful)
See also: Tolerance is not a moral absolute; it is a peace treaty. [extranewsfeed.com] This explains it clearly. I believe in peace, but if someone uses violence against me I will use enough violence to stop the asshole, preferably for a very long time. Same thing with tolerance.
Re: (Score:2)
However nobody has to guarantee them a way to post it.
Agreed. However, they should be guaranteed the ability to post themselves - if they need to... you know, like in a fucking public forum (which those privately-owned-and-controlled sites are effectively serving as.
What happened to "I disagree with you but am willing to die to fight for your right to say it" ???
Bunch of cunts.
Re: Slashdot wants us to pity 8chan (Score:5, Insightful)
The funny thing is that it's actually freedom of speech that allows businesses to decide freely with whom they will or will not do business.
CloudFlare and Voxility have made a protected expression of opinion by choosing to not work with 8chan or its supporters.
Re: (Score:2)
The funny thing is that it's actually freedom of speech that allows businesses to decide freely with whom they will or will not do business.
CloudFlare and Voxility have made a protected expression of opinion by choosing to not work with 8chan or its supporters.
They also have the freedom to associate with whom they wish. They want nothing to do with 8chan.
Re: (Score:3)
How about private clubs choosing not to allow muslims or blacks? No, of course that's somehow completely different.
If you're talking about US law, this one's legal. Private clubs get to choose their membership, and can be as racist or sexist as they'd like while doing so. Things that are open to the public, such as your bakery, do not have this option.
Which, btw, is the loophole if you're a baker and want to be homophobic. Just call your bakery a "private club" and charge a $5 "annual membership fee" for the first cake you bake for a particular customer.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Bakers are private companies. But Gay people forced them to do things they don't want to do.
We can't have it both ways. Free Speech is more sacred than getting married, or at least ought to be.
Re: Slashdot wants us to pity 8chan (Score:4, Informative)
You realize the bakers won that case right? Seems to be working as intended.
Re: Slashdot wants us to pity 8chan (Score:5, Insightful)
You realize the bakers won that case right? Seems to be working as intended.
The baker might have won the case, but the business no longer exists. So did they really win? Seems to me they were damaged to the point where they went out of business.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
For that bakery it may not matter but for businesses everywhere, winning the case did matter.
Free speech is a double edged sword though. It's the backbone of a free market. A business can now choose to refuse service on religious grounds, but they must deal with the consequences of that refusal. If they can survive the fallout of refusing service, then they continue doing business. If they can't survive, then that's the free market closing a business it doesn't want.
Re: Slashdot wants us to pity 8chan (Score:5, Insightful)
Everything worked as it should IMO.
Baker decided to make a stand against Gays.
Gays fought back via the courts and media.
Baker wins in court.
Everyone sees where Baker stands in regards to Gays via the media.
A significant portion of Bakers clients decide to take their business elsewhere.
Baker goes out of business because of their unpopular stand.
The Baker has their opinion and ability to act on their opinion.
Everyone else does too.
The fact that there are not enough clients that agree with the Baker to keep the Baker in business is the Bakers problem.
The Baker could have just gone with the customer is always right, made them a cake, not thrown a fuss and no one would have cared.
Re: Slashdot wants us to pity 8chan (Score:5, Informative)
The baker might have won the case, but the business no longer exists. So did they really win? Seems to me they were damaged to the point where they went out of business.
That's the free market at work, plain and simple. You should applaud such an outcome.
If you advertise widely that you're a bigoted asshole, eventually people will stop coming to your business or buying your stuff. Who's to blame? Not the customers who don't want to patronize a bigoted asshole.
Sometimes the "Invisible Hand of The Market" is a real thing, it just doesn't always work the way people think it will.
Re: (Score:3)
Except that the bakers weren't the bigots. The homosexuals were.
You and Stephen Miller should date each other, seeing as how he can't get laid either.
Re: (Score:2)
Liberals think lawyers/courts are free. (Score:2)
It costs enormous resources to defend yourself.
That's not winning.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We can declare some groups are a protected class (Score:4, Insightful)
In general the deliminator for who is a protected class is "Can this person help being a member of that class?" and to a lessor extent "Is there any material difference between a person of that protected class and another person who is not a member". We give more weight to the former than the latter.
Skin color and sex meet the first by and large (gender reassignment not withstanding). Science and Society generally agree that sexuality does too.
I couldn't, for example, tell you why I think red headed girls are cute. It doesn't make any sense, I'm red/green color blind. But there it is. And we can't just write it off as "Men are attracted to women for biological reasons" because homosexuality is common in nature. We can fall back on religion, but that's generally too contentious (and there's serious questions about whether the Christian Bible condemns homosexuality if you actually research the 6 places that it's mentioned instead of taking it at face value).
The point is that we, as a people, are capable of a much more nuanced approach to protected classes. That said, I've never once heard anyone say "Asshole" or "Internet Troll" is a protective class. And I haven't heard any say we should get rid of
Re: Slashdot wants us to pity 8chan (Score:5, Informative)
Bakers are private companies. But Gay people forced them to do things they don't want to do.
Bakers are not private businesses. They are businesses open to the public, and as such are not allowed to discriminate against protected classes.
Private clubs, on the other hand, can choose their membership. And can be as homophobic, racist and sexist as they like while doing so. Said clubs can also offer paid services to their membership.
So, if you're a baker and want to be homophobic, you make your business a private club. Charge a $5/year "annual membership fee" on the first cake you bake for anyone in a particular year. Ta-da! Your bigotry is now legal.
Re: Slashdot wants us to pity 8chan (Score:2)
holland is a monarchy, which is just a politically correct way of saying dictatorship when you live in the dictatorship.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Try disagreeing with them or wielding some power they don't like, see how long you live/stay out of prison.
"political power" is not the point of a dictatorship, no dictatorship exists on "political power"; its the military muscle, police force obedience and their economic power that defines a dictatorship.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't know about Holland, but here in Sweden you can disagree and wield what ever power that they Monarchy don't like and they cannot do a shit about it. The largest news papers have even straight out bullied our King for his dyslexia since the 70:ies by often refer to him as "The Knig".
And the second The Monarchy would try to do anything stupid we would swiftly remove the entire system since it only takes two elections to change the constitution.
Re: (Score:3)
The 1st amendment is limited in scope to the government. Free speech is a societal concept. Why do you people have such a hard time differentiating the 1st with the concept of free speech?
No its not. See Marsh v. Alabama.
Re: (Score:2)
That case have no bearing here. That was weather or not you could be prosecuted for trespassing on a sidewalk in a privately owned company town where a major problem for the town was:
The Court noted that the residents of these non-Gulf neighborhoods were freely allowed to use the company-owned streets and sidewalks to access the town's businesses and facilities.
Re: (Score:2)
Also kids who set fire to the school have the box of matches taken off them. Anyway the self important 8chan participants can set up 16chan and carry on tomorrow if any of them actually have half a brain cell between them. What is the matter with people these days, no get up and go anymore.
Re:Slashdot wants us to pity 8chan (Score:5, Insightful)
Free speech doesn't mean we have an obligation to make sure that all voices are heard equally - it just means the government can't sanction you for saying stuff. It's not "pretty fucking worthless" because you still can't go to jail for saying something that the government doesn't want to hear. That's worth quite a lot, actually.
Re:Slashdot wants us to pity 8chan (Score:4, Insightful)
Free speech doesn't mean we have an obligation to make sure that all voices are heard equally - it just means the government can't sanction you for saying stuff.
That's just wrong. The First Amendment limits the government's power in this area, but there's nothing about "free speech" specific to the government.
I believe that any enlightened civilization has a duty to ensure that platforms exist for any speaker to reach any who want to hear. No one is forcing anyone to listen, after all, but it's important that the platform exist.
All cultural progress must necessarily begin with ideas that are very unpopular.
Re:Slashdot wants us to pity 8chan (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay. You can pay for it, then.
Re: (Score:3)
Would you really want a government-run social media platform?
To the extent that certain social media corporations are effective monopolies, the government should step in to ensure a platform exists for all. Absent monopoly abuse and collusion to crush upstarts, the market will provide.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
certain social media corporations are effective monopolies
The inability to have your hate speech published is NOT evidence of an "effective monopoly". It's evidence that the people running social media companies don't want such crap on their platform. That such a desire is nearly universal should not be surprising and does not indicate collusion.
It would be analogous to finding convention space for your Klan rally - good luck. That doesn't mean all of the hotels and large public spaces collude with one another - it just means no one wants to touch such a thing les
Re: (Score:2)
All cultural progress must necessarily begin with ideas that are very unpopular.
I think there are degrees though. Let's take the debate over whether the world is flat. Should private enterprises have refused to support flat Earthers in ancient Greece? Sure. It was still 'controversial' at the time so maybe companies should offer some leniency in being open platforms.
But what about today? I think if the flat earth movement wants to try and convince society that the earth is flat, they should have the freedom of speech to try and make that case without being arrested but it's suffic
Re: (Score:2)
Similarly racist advocacy for white supremacy might be worthy of not being arrest-worthy but it's also sufficiently settled fact that their beliefs are not backed by science that there should be no expectation of cloudflare or facebook allowing it on their platforms.
Is it racial groups that are not backed by science or that different groups have different strengths and weaknesses when viewed as a whole? I'm pretty well convinced that East Asians are better at math and less prone to violence at a genetic level than Europeans for instance.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I believe that any enlightened civilization has a duty to ensure that platforms exist for any speaker to reach any who want to hear. No one is forcing anyone to listen, after all, but it's important that the platform exist.
So if I have very little money, do you think I should be subsidized to spread whatever BS I want? Should I be subsidized to be in touch with my girlfriend and other people?
Yesterday the Cloudflare CEO said that 8chan would be able to get similar services from a Cloudflare competitor. If no Cloudflare competitor and no hardware provider wants to deal with 8chan then that would reflect that very few people want to hear what they have to say. It is important to protect vile speech but I don't think we s
Re: (Score:2)
The First Amendment limits the government's power in this area, but there's nothing about "free speech" specific to the government.
Hopefully it is clear that I was talking about the First Amendment.
Without government, of course you can say whatever you want - but absent a government, you still have no platform handed to you. People can either listen to you or they can turn away.
No one is forcing anyone to listen, after all, but it's important that the platform exist.
I have no idea how you would enforce this without infringing on others' free speech. If I own a newspaper, will you force me to print things I don't want to print? If I run a website, you will force me to publish things that I don't want to publish? How does tha
Re:Slashdot wants us to pity 8chan (Score:4, Informative)
Insane AC Rant
Apparently, advocating free speech makes one a literal Nazi these days. Interesting times,
To quote the Holocaust Museum
During the spring of 1933, Nazi student organizations, professors, and librarians made up long lists of books they thought should not be read by Germans. Then, on the night of May 10, 1933, Nazis raided libraries and bookstores across Germany. They marched by torchlight in nighttime parades, sang chants, and threw books into huge bonfires. On that night more than 25,000 books were burned. Some were works of Jewish writers, including Albert Einstein and Sigmund Freud. Most of the books were by non-Jewish writers, including such famous Americans as Jack London, Ernest Hemingway, and Sinclair Lewis, whose ideas the Nazis viewed as different from their own and therefore not to be read.
The Nazi censors also burned the books of Helen Keller, who had overcome her deafness and blindness to become a respected writer; told of the book burnings, she responded: "Tyranny cannot defeat the power of ideas."
Re: (Score:3)
Are you hiding -1 posts? I think it's OK to respond to a post directly calling me a Nazi for advocating free speech by pointing out the irony in that.
Re:Slashdot wants us to pity 8chan (Score:5, Insightful)
No, I don't agree. That's not the point of free speech.
"Free speech" is the promise that the government doesn't have the power to force people to hold certain opinions. It is not a promise that your speech will be heeded, or have any effect whatsoever. It's not a protection against non-governmental consequences, and it's not inherently a license to violate other laws while making your free expressions.
You can speak all you like. Nobody else has to listen.
Re:Slashdot wants us to pity 8chan (Score:4, Insightful)
You're conflating the freedom of speech with the 1st amendment. They're different things.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Nonsense. Freedom of speech is an inalienable natural right. The US First Amendment just prohibits Congress from infringing on that right.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The basis of the principle of
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Free speech used to mean more than just preventing the government from restricting speech. It also meant that citizens had a moral obligation to allow each other to speak, and to defend that speech even if they disagreed with it. If you didn't like their speech, you ignored it, instead of suppressing it. This attitude is shifting and we are seeing the dire consequences of it..
Today, people seem to hide behind the "well.... the first amendment only applies to the government. So if Google + Bing + Cloudfl
Re:Slashdot wants us to pity 8chan (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah, sure, there was mail, but it took 2 weeks for that hand written letter to travel from New York to Philadelphia.
That's about a hundred miles in 14 days!
You want lots more people to see it other than a single recipient and those he might hand it to? Well you're going to have to write and send a LOT of letters! Good luck with that, the ballpoint pen and fountain pen hadn't been invented yet, you're using a sharpened quill and an ink bottle, as well as sand.
Of course you could hire a local printer to print multiple copies of your letter, but that wasn't exactly cheap for most people that didn't own their own press. Even then, you still had to pay the postage.
But how do you get people to read your letters? Simply put, you can't. You just send it and hope. Of course, you could print posters and have people put those up, but if the person that owns the place you put the poster up didn't give you permission, or just doesn't like it, you can bet it's coming down. You might also suffer from some facial contusions because of it as well, or if it was bad enough, a severe beating and/or a tar and feathering. Yes, "social justice" back then was pretty violent by todays standards. Of course, you couldn't hide behind an Anonymous Coward posting from an unknown location, someone actually had to go and put that poster up, and if it was something likely to get the person doing that beat, you'd have a hell of a time finding someone to do it, and even then they'd probably want blood money levels of pay to do it.
So you are simply wrong, Free Speech is extremely valuable, even if you don't have modern conveniences.
Our ancestors who bequeathed it to us sure as hell thought so.
Re: (Score:3)
Is anybody ignorant enough to believe that when the 1st amendment was written that communications exceeded the range of their own voice?
Strange that you should believe this while simultaneously talking about a communication that not only spread across an entire nation, but that has endured hundreds of years.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah! It's not like they had printing or anything!
Re: (Score:3)
Doesn't matter. Free speech is not about forcing anyone to listen, it's about not being persecuted for the shit you chose to say.
Re: (Score:2)
Well that escalated quickly. I think you will find that no one can actually be bothered to get excited. I am currently watching some paint dry that has me more interested.
Re: (Score:3)
If nobody wants to sell hosting to 8chan, that is perfectly fine.
At this point it doesn't matter if they want to or not. They get forced into not doing so.
The only force at play here is market force, which is too slow to have had an impact already. Any other perceived force in this case is purely imaginary. Did the hosting provider pull the plug because they were concerned about how other users might react? Quite possible but we can't say it for sure - hence it is an imaginary force.
And if 8chan really thinks they are facing "forces" here in the US they are free to seek out a hosting provider outside the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Free speech only means that the government can't arrest you for saying what you want to say.
Wrong, retard. That's the 1st amendment. Free speech is the ideal behind it, and it used to be a cornerstone of the country.
Re: (Score:2)
Free speech only means that the government can't arrest you for saying what you want to say.
That's the 1st amendment. Free speech is the ideal behind it, and it used to be a cornerstone of the country.
Please have this simpler version of your argument that also works.
Re: (Score:3)
We are not talking about the right to be heard either, even if 8chan still had a web site, nobody would have to go there and read it (I have never read it). What we are talking about is if a company has the right to discriminate based on the beliefs of the customer. Is it OK for a shop to say no I am not serving you because you are of X religion? Even though the bakers won the case I do not think what they did was right. When the constitution was written it may have been OK to limit that clause to just the
Re: (Score:3)
Is it OK for a shop to say no I am not serving you because you are of X religion?
It should be, because religion should not be protected any more than political beliefs.
There is a clear distinction between things a personal has little choice over, such as their race, gender or sexual orientation, and beliefs they choose to hold.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
This will surely be a well written, unbiased piece of news.
Well yes. If you think that that label is unjust you simply haven't been to 8chan in a while. It's like a 4chan, only without any of the sensible upstanding people who regular /b/
Re: (Score:2)
Internet hate forum? (Score:5, Insightful)
Internet hate forum? Really? 8ch let anyone create their own forum, as long as it's legal. Sure, you'll find hate on /pol/ and /leftypol/, but the rest of the site is mostly the typical boring bland stuff that makes up most of the internet.
Ah, well, I'm sure it will stay up on TOR, only now the FBI won't be able to get the IP addresses of "every commenter" (as per an April 2019 search warrant). So, yay?
But, hey, I'm sure teenagers won't be attracted to the "secret, forbidden, dangerous internet sites that would shock their parents". That's just not how teens work, am I right?
Re: (Score:2)
The fun part is that you people never, ever remember that the endpoint can find you [theregister.co.uk], especially after being served up a warrant or seized.
A lot fewer than if it was available through Chrome. Explaining why you have
Re: (Score:2)
The fun part is that you people never, ever remember that the endpoint can find you, especially after being served up a warrant or seized.
In order to reveal someone using TOR, the FBI must seize the server, and then hack the computers of everyone who accesses the site. Certainly possible, but not likely to be approved unless most of the activity on the site is actually illegal. I suppose a nation with fewer restrictions on police could do it, though.
A lot fewer than if it was available through Chrome. Explaining why you have TOR on your computer to your parents would be an interesting job, I think.
I'm sure there's nothing on a teen's phone that's hidden from their parents. Perish the thought! Certainly parents who search their kids "computers" these days won't find anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Warrant, and "any of the activity on the site is actually illegal," but you go on thinking otherwise [justice.gov].
Re: (Score:2)
Hacking someone's computer in order to search them with a warrant was only recently made legal. The only times it has ever been done (or, at least, gone to court where we'd hear about it) were times where the site was primarily used for illegal activity - that is, where there was probable cause that each computer that accessed the site was being used to commit a crime.
Re:Internet hate forum? (Score:5, Insightful)
Internet hate forum? Really?
Yes. No seriously defending it just shows you haven't actually been there. 8chan may be known for letting anyone create anything, but ultimately what it turned into was a place where the bile of the internet chose to make their home and all the sensible people moved out.
Re:Internet hate forum? (Score:5, Insightful)
Slashdot's moderation system works remarkably well. Browsing at 0 will hide almost all the garbage (and some insightful stuff too), but the platform remains for those who want to say any crazy shit they want to at -1. Even, heavens forfend, to promote the virtues of hosts files.
Every street need a gutter.
Re:Internet hate forum? (Score:4, Interesting)
One option could be to simply increase the number of mod points. If you wanted to get fancy with this the total number of points given out could be based on the number of comments being made, maybe the number of comments made on the previous day, maybe the number of comments made on the same day in the previous week. Something like that.
Another option could be to deal with ACs specially: maybe mod points which are just for ACs. This could help to deal with the trolls, but also potentially help to promote good AC posts. As things are now, good AC posts are often neglected.
I'm sure there are other options, those are just the first two off the top of my head, but this should be dealt with.
Finally (Score:5, Insightful)
Now let's wait for the sharp drop in mass shootings.
Re: (Score:2)
Now let's wait for the sharp drop in mass shootings.
Oh thank god. And here I thought America wouldn't introduce gun laws. Finally.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Am I the only one who skimmed this guys manifesto?? Im not sure where anyone gets he was a white supremist. He didnt rant about all races being inferior or any of that typical shit. The info was, imo, more along the ted kazinski line of blabber. He goes on about unsustainable population growth. Called illegal mexicans ‘breeders’ that will bankrupt any chance of universal healthcare, etc etc. it sounded pretty socialistic to me. What worries me more than mass shootings was the logic of it. The lo
Re:Finally (Score:4, Informative)
Im not sure where anyone gets he was a white supremist. He didnt rant about all races being inferior or any of that typical shit.
The manifesto is based around the theory of "The Great Replacement", where "evil" people, usually Jews, are importing a lot of dark-skinned people into countries that should be ruled by whites in order to replace said whites and destroy civilization.
So, yeah, he was ranting about all races being inferior. It's not about "unsustainable population growth", it's about those terrible dark people out-breeding whites.
What happens when a virologist buys into this whole, world is 100million overcrowded, sort of belief system? 20 million dead from a bioengineered virus is a lot scarier than 20 dead from a shooting.
One should not learn their science from Tom Clancy-based video games.
People need to spend less time online and find ways to have more alone/decompress time.
Not everyone is an introvert.
Re: (Score:2)
This will probably make things worse
Justify.
The shootings perpetrated by those who advertise on 8chan are the result of mentally deranged seeking an audience. That audience was a bunch of internet tough-guys egging on a mentally unstable idiot. This isn't some organised terror group who got kicked out of their home. This isn't some anti-government crusaders who are fighting against tyranny.
It's a bunch of spineless wankers wanting to look cool on a forum that has been disbanded.
I'm keen to hear why you think de-platforming a bunch of internet
Re: (Score:3)
Hmm.. I wandered into "Hope not Hate" on Facebook (in the strange idea that it may have actually had something to do with its name), and there were outright calls to doxing, harrassment of individuals, and constant "we'll get 'em" style talk. Pointing out that this had nothing to do with hope immediately had me branded fascist, and "you know what we do with facists, we string 'em up", amongst other threats.
Turns out they're hard left/antifa and as vicious as they get. However, reporting that to Facebook
Internet hate forum? (Score:2)
True, they do go beyond the limits of good taste with their attitude of not moderating anything that isn't expressly illegal (i.e no incitement to violence, no child porn or doxxing), but to expressly call them an "internet hate forum" because of
Re: (Score:2)
No it is not a bit much. /pol/ i"
"but to expressly call them an "internet hate forum" because of
You can't really be that stupid, can you?
Re: (Score:3)
I know it's easy to jump on the bandwagon, us people are practically wired for it, but in this instance you are labelling a larger group over a smaller subsection of it. If you know anything about chan culture that isn't hopelessly out of date you'll know that
Free speech doesn't mean what you think it means (Score:2, Informative)
How many times do we have to explain free speech to people? All free speech guarantees is that the government will not arrest you for saying whatever it is you want to say. That's it. Nothing else. It doesn't mean that a company has to sponsor your website. It doesn't mean equal time on media. Yet people throw around the term proving they have zero idea of the concept of free speech. Stop using the term until you understand it. It's embarrassing.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Free speech is not the 1st amendment, moron.
Another one (Score:2, Interesting)
I've read a lot of the posts here, and I really have to marvel at the blatant ignorance of those that think companies have to allow others to use their property or services for actions the companies find repugnant and bad for business. Not to mention it also allies them with those same repulsive actions/words since they let them use their "soapbox" to do so.
Other people have Free Speech as well, and that includes the right to remain silent. These companies are in no way removing
I'm sure they'll be able to get the word out (Score:3)
You want to see speech suppressed, much more vigorously but still unsuccessfully, take a look at the history of socialist speech. From Debs in jail for 'sedition', to the University of California, not just banning socialists from renting a hall and making money from doing business with the university, but banned from stepping on campus with a soapbox to speak for free.
Yet, here it is, advocating free university and public health insurance from the highest podiums in the land. It's not like the "suppression" ever worked.
The Iranian revolution in the late 70's was instigated by cassette tapes of political Khomeini sermons being passed hand to hand as multi-generation copies. Russian samizdat newspapers were hand-copied and passed hand-to-hand.
Complaints about "freedom of speech" are almost never about the actual ability to communicate to willing ears, since that is very hard to suppress indeed. They're mostly about the inability to make money with your speeches, or paper, or internet business. If Ann Coulter or Ben Shapiro thought their message so important that they would happily speak in the Quad on a soapbox for free (actual free speech, heh), I don't think anybody could or would stop them.
Conflating the inability to make money off of politics with the inability to actually get the word out at all strikes me as an insult to people who really had trouble getting the word out at all.
These folks often wrap themselves up in the flag; but it's a weak sunshine patriot indeed that loses heart for the Great Struggle To Save Civilization if you just take away his ability to make a buck off of it.
De-Platforming is old indeed (Score:3, Interesting)
Here we go again (Score:2)
Free speech. Yet again.
And all the people screaming bloody murder over free speech rights. News flash: Hosting providers also have a right to free speech, same as those wanting to be hosted. Free speech includes the right to NOT SPEAK.
So please, pack your outrage in a box and send it off to Santa, cuz no one here cares. Everything working as intended.
Everyone gets free speech, including the right to not speak. Your free speech cannot override my free speech. Hence, 8chan can't waggle the free speech
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be having a stroke. Perhaps you should call 911 (or whatever the equivalent is in your country) and ask for an ambulance.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd never even heard of 8chan. I assume it's what happens when 4chan doubles down.
Re: (Score:2)
You keep yousing that word,,,, I don't think it means, what you think it means...
Re: (Score:2)