QAnon/8Chan Sites Back Online After Being Ousted By DDoS-Protection Vendor (arstechnica.com) 211
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: A few dozen QAnon and 8chan-related sites were knocked offline temporarily yesterday when a DDoS-protection vendor disabled their access, according to an article by security reporter Brian Krebs. The websites [...] are connected to the Internet via the US-based ISP VanwaTech, which in turn "had a single point of failure on its end," Krebs wrote. "The swath of Internet addresses serving the various 8kun/QAnon sites were being protected from otherwise crippling and incessant distributed-denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks by Hillsboro, Ore. based CNServers LLC."
That changed yesterday when security researcher Ron Guilmette called CNServers, which apparently didn't realize it was providing security protection to the websites. "Within minutes of that call, CNServers told its customer -- Spartan Host Ltd., which is registered in Belfast, Northern Ireland -- that it would no longer be providing DDoS protection for the set of 254 Internet addresses that Spartan Host was routing on behalf of VanwaTech," Krebs wrote. Those 254 addresses included the few dozen related to QAnon and 8chan, which is now known as 8kun. The websites didn't remain offline for long because Spartan Host quickly "changed its settings so that VanwaTech's Internet addresses were protected from attacks by ddos-guard[.]net, a company based in St. Petersburg, Russia," Krebs wrote. "VanwaTech CEO Nick Lim in November 2019 defended his company's role in keeping 8kun websites online, writing on Twitter, 'I do what I do because I truly believe in free speech and I believe in protecting people from cyber security attacks,'" adds Ars Technica.
Spartan Host founder Ryan McCully told Krebs yesterday that he intends to keep VanwaTech as a customer. "We follow the 'law of the land' when deciding what we allow to be hosted with us, with some exceptions to things that may cause resource issues etc.," McCully told Krebs. "Just because we host something, it doesn't say anything about [what] we do and don't support; our opinions don't come into hosted content decisions."
Further reading: Is QAnon an 8Chan Game Gone Wrong?
That changed yesterday when security researcher Ron Guilmette called CNServers, which apparently didn't realize it was providing security protection to the websites. "Within minutes of that call, CNServers told its customer -- Spartan Host Ltd., which is registered in Belfast, Northern Ireland -- that it would no longer be providing DDoS protection for the set of 254 Internet addresses that Spartan Host was routing on behalf of VanwaTech," Krebs wrote. Those 254 addresses included the few dozen related to QAnon and 8chan, which is now known as 8kun. The websites didn't remain offline for long because Spartan Host quickly "changed its settings so that VanwaTech's Internet addresses were protected from attacks by ddos-guard[.]net, a company based in St. Petersburg, Russia," Krebs wrote. "VanwaTech CEO Nick Lim in November 2019 defended his company's role in keeping 8kun websites online, writing on Twitter, 'I do what I do because I truly believe in free speech and I believe in protecting people from cyber security attacks,'" adds Ars Technica.
Spartan Host founder Ryan McCully told Krebs yesterday that he intends to keep VanwaTech as a customer. "We follow the 'law of the land' when deciding what we allow to be hosted with us, with some exceptions to things that may cause resource issues etc.," McCully told Krebs. "Just because we host something, it doesn't say anything about [what] we do and don't support; our opinions don't come into hosted content decisions."
Further reading: Is QAnon an 8Chan Game Gone Wrong?
Russian based DDoS company and QAnon (Score:4, Interesting)
Seems like a pretty good match. Now Russia can have direct access to the adrenochrome factory conspiracy mill to feed our textbook example of a collapsed education system some new things to worry about.... film at eleven?
Re: Russian based DDoS company and QAnon (Score:2)
Which is funny because you are saying to protect free speech that mostly caters to Americans, a Russian business was required to help host the website... interesting...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Is this news? Where is your most famous whistleblower kept safe from US political persecution? In Moscow.
Re: (Score:3)
only because it's useful propaganda for putin. do you honestly believe that he (or the russians in general) have any interest in freedom of speech, unless it lets them take a giant shit on the US?
Re: (Score:3)
Well, instead of crying about it on Internet forums, do not allow Putin or anyone to take a giant shit on you, then.
Re: (Score:2)
Same as how Americans only care about freez peach if they can use it to take a dump on their political rivals.
I struggle to see how frozen peaches are this big a political issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Putin thinks of him as a trophy. That and the three letter agencies just can't swoop in and grab him. Sure they could do that if he was in some banana republic because what are they going to do about it?
Re: Russian based DDoS company and QAnon (Score:2, Troll)
Might have something to do with the oligarchic technocrats on the left suppressing anything that harms their sycophant politicians.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Sorry about your delusions. I hope you get some medication and some therapy.
When you whine about "the left" it's clear that you're not experiencing realty. There is no left anymore. The democrats are center right. The face of the democratic party has rejected all of the progressive left platforms. I get that it helps to rile the base to bring up the 3-4 far left people in the democratic party, but they aren't the party. They are the fringe.
And it's the democrats who have embraced "me too", and cancel cultur
Re: (Score:2)
Like I said, sorry to hear about it, hope you get some help.
Re: (Score:2)
That's where we're at now, yeah
It's about free speech (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you'd manage to rub two of your brain cells together, you'd realize that their speech is not protected either. It's mob-libel and mob-slander and litigable. As long as the instigators remain anonymous and just a bunch of dummies repeat it, it appears they can get away with it - especially with a bunch of 21st century cro-magnons shouting "thaz mah free speectchs!"
This is just disgusting. We're all the lesser as we live through it.
I'm not going to have Nazi stuff on my lawn (Score:3, Insightful)
You know how political campaigns ask if they can put a sign up in your front lawn? Can the KKK put their sign in your front lawn?
Jackasses can say jackass stuff and it shouldn't be up to Washington politicians to decide what's okay for you to say.
It is, however, up to you which messages you host on your lawn. It's up to me what I host. It was also my decision what to host on my servers when I had my hosting companies. David Duke and Malik Zulu Shabazz can say what they will; I'm not going to help them, t
Re: I'm not going to have Nazi stuff on my lawn (Score:2, Troll)
A front lawn can be bought by a vast amount of people though, internet expression in the modern day can only be bought from a tiny amount of CDNs which costs billions to erect thanks to the Built for DDOS nature of the internet.
When speech costs billions freedom is a bit of a misnomer.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you are going to be very surprised when you learn what free speech actually is.
Re: (Score:2)
A front lawn can be bought by a vast amount of people though, internet expression in the modern day can only be bought from a tiny amount of CDNs which costs billions to erect thanks to the Built for DDOS nature of the internet.
Your right to free speech does not include mandatory protection from some private 3rd party (there are other laws for that)
Your request for protection services does not impinge the service owner's right to decide whether they want to do business with you (the exception being protected classes).
The same goes anywhere. Your right to free speech does not prevent someone from coming up and breaking your jaw because you spouted hateful bullshit while standing on the street. There are other laws for that. Speech
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not talking about laws and rights. I'm simply pointing out that the internet in practice has become broken, there is a very small oligopoly gate keeping the modern internet.
Not as much freedom any more as in the past, it ain't what she used to be.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
it's journalism, and the whole media in general which is falling into this.
Yep. I forget if it was Stephen Colbert or John Oliver who demonstrated the issue very clearly.
They had someone giving a climate change denial, then invited in 100 scientists to talk over him.
The point was that when the media gives fringe beliefs equal footing with facts at a table during a broadcast, they create an equality where there isn't one. Most of the media is guilty of this. They want to seem fair and impartial, so they let each side have equal time and equal representation. But that's not being fa
Re: (Score:2)
but you cannot make these statements publicly because any reasonable person would react to what's being said with upset and anger (which can ultimately lead to violence and mob mentality)
This is precisely what is wrong with anti-free speech people. It is NOT reasonable to expect anyone to react to speech with violence. You would justify silencing the law abiding to placate the criminal.
Re: (Score:2)
But "reasonable" can vary wildly. Some people would consider what happened to the teach in France over the discussion of pictures of Muhammed to be "reasonable".
Getting upset? Sure. Inflicting violence? No. That's called "living in civilized society". Taking away freedoms because some people can't behave is preschool bullshit. The people inflicting violence are doing it of their own free will, and you're dismissal of that is certainly a root problem; basically, lack of accountability.
Re: (Score:2)
Except "reasonable person" as a legal term refers to a fictional, hypothetical person; it's completely subjective. You're the US president at the end of Escape from LA; lists off stuff like red meat, smoking, extramarital sex as outlawed because they're bad for people. But it's not his decision, just like it's not yours.
I'll live in your former example. That's why we have (or supposed to have) law enforcement to deter that kind of "take it out on everyone" behavior. Or people can defend themselves against
Re: (Score:2)
It is, however, up to you which messages you host on your lawn. It's up to me what I host. It was also my decision what to host on my servers when I had my hosting companies.
Sure that's fair as long as you are taking legal responsibility for all of the messages you are hosting on your lawn.
The problem is that web hosts and site operators are not held liable for the messages on their platform due to section 230 of the CDA. They have legal protection from those messages and with that comes the duty not to exercise editorial control of the messages in that space.
Re: (Score:2)
Let me see if I understand you correctly:
If you can't go to jail for the message, you can't stop the KKK from putting it there. Correct?
Because we have the first amendment, you can't be jailed for the sign in your yard.
Therefore you have no right to keep your yard free of KKK signs.
I disagree.
I don't think that "you won't be held legally culpable for the message" necessarily means "you should be forced to assist in spreading the message".
Re: (Score:2)
You missed the whole point of my post. A website isn't like your yard at all. Your yard doesn't have the same legal protections and you don't advertise that anyone can go post signs there.
On top of that, the analogy of your yard is flawed in that the landscape is different between physical real estate and the internet. The internet is multiple layers of privately owned spaces and services with no equivalent to public roads and town squares. So there is no open forum for free speech on the internet unles
Re: (Score:2)
I believe most people have zero idea who and what the BLM organization is. They simply agree with the *name* of the organization. If they heard the "kill whitey" message, they wouldn't have BLM signs or T-shirts anymore. So this may be a case where the way to fight bad ideas is to try to make sure people hear the message, make sure they know what the organization stands for.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The thing is Qanon was entirely fictitious, but people started taking it seriously. It's like how all cults start. First it's a joke, then people start believing the poison they've been drinking is good for them.
Like I'm all for free-speech except when the line between fiction and fact is blurred. We all think Flat-earther's are a joke, yet they exist, and not in the jokey-joke way that the media thinks they are.
Entertainment media exists to "take down a notch" stupid ideas, politicians and politics. There
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That's the really scary part of all of this. Trump is a cult leader: he's an egomaniacal narcissist that lies pathologically and openly about verifiable facts, discredits and disputes experts and calls everyone else a liar while doing nothing to actually help or lead. He's just i it for himself.
Like he has done nothing but downplay the virus, blame its spread on everyone else, whil
Re: (Score:2)
If one made a movie with a Trump-like president leading the US 10 or 20 years ago and told people 'this will be the situation in 2020' nearly no-one would have believed it.
Someone did [imdb.com].
Re: It's about free speech (Score:2)
Biden's first order of business should be to reinstate the individual mandate fines and tell all the people who don't get a subsidized gold plan they are much better off and that disagreeing means they are stupid.
It will work out well this time, promise.
Re: It's about free speech (Score:2)
PS. I know his own plan actually intends to provide gold plans with percentage of income caps for everyone, which I think is a good idea. Reinstating the fines before that plan is in place is however a really good way to throw away congress majorities and not because republicans vote against their own interests.
Re: (Score:2)
All that theoretical bs and not a sentence to say about the role of so called 'working class party'.
Re: (Score:2)
Horrible as the guy is, he's a symptom, not a cause.
He's both. It's like when one illness depresses your immune system and makes you vulnerable to other illnesses. People who believe Trump's bullshit become more vulnerable to believing bullshit, because they've become used to it.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump's opposition can stand in front of a burning building and tell us it's a "mostly peaceful protest", that riots are "just a myth", that noone is identifying as Antifa and burning flags and destroying statues and trying to burn down courthouses.
The left will deny that their own shit even stinks. They're even less trustworthy than Trump is, and we're supposed to believe them when they say the censorship is for our own good.
He immediately flies himself with a helicopter? (Score:2)
Dang, now I'm voting for him twice.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with the US, and other countries gripped by populism, is that people have abandoned the very concept of truth and evaluating arguments on their merits.
Take today's statement from the Trump Campaign:
President Trump is committed to debating Joe Biden regardless of last-minute rule changes from the biased commission in their latest attempt to provide advantage to their favored candidate
They are talking about the Commission for Presidential Debates deciding to mute the candidate's mics when it's not their turn to speak. They avoid addressing the issue and instead spin a conspiracy theory about the Commission being biased against them and helping Biden. That's how they want people to
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The guy who was supposed to be the last moderator was an intern for Biden before going into journalism, who lied about seeking anti-Trump advice on Twitter and got suspended over it. The upcoming moderator tipped off Hillary's campaign about an interview question in 2016, after celebrating Christmas with the Obamas in 2012, and comes from a family that has given buckets of money to Democrats.
That committee decided to delegate the choice of debate topics to the moderators. The debate moderators broke with
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure whoever they selected you could dig up some dirt on. More interested to know if you have any specific complaints about their performance on the night.
Re: (Score:2)
The first debate moderator was supposedly not biased, but interrupted Trump five times as often as Biden -- and allowed Biden to interrupt Trump, while not vice versa. When one of the debaters has to tell the moderator "I guess I am debating you, not him, but thatâ(TM)s okay Iâ(TM)m not surprised", that indicates a real problem with the moderation.
Team Biden ran away from the second debate, and the moderator for that one disqualified himself on Twitter and then transparently lied about it.
What ki
Re: (Score:2)
What the fuck are you smoking about the second debate? Biden said let's do it virtually because Trump was just in the hospital for Covid. Trump said no I'm not participating.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/08... [cnn.com]
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/0... [cnbc.com]
Quoting Trump "I'm not going to waste my time"
Yeah Biden really ran away. Idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
Biden didn't want to face Trump in person. So the PDC decided to change the format, add mute buttons, and so forth. And the moderator got caught red-handed being anti-Trump. So, yes, the biased debate committee changed the rules mid-stream, and Trump declined to waste his time with such a farce.
Re:It's about free speech (Score:4, Insightful)
Lol they changed the rules so Trump wouldn't infect anyone with Covid.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, because Trump should STFU. I'm surprised it was only 5 times as often.
Trump chickened out of the second debate.
Re: (Score:3)
You're arguing that a dumpster fire didn't get fair treatment?
God, what did they feed you folks. At some point you just need to accept reality and call a spade a spade.
Re: (Score:2)
it is a pathetic attempt to dodge responsibility.
Boy you must really hate Trump if those minor Biden issues got you so worked up. Or ... I'm just guessing ... you have double standards?
Re: (Score:2)
QANON a cult?
It has no leader
Asks you to make up your own mind on facts
Wants you to interact with the outside world to do research
You can leave any time without penalty
Isn't that the exact opposite of a cult?
Re: (Score:2)
QANON a cult?
The campaign for censorship is being ratcheted up, and "white supremacists" was already played on the Proud Boys, the other pro-Trump crowd. "Cult" is as good an excuse for deplatforming by their standards as any.
Firsts it's a joke (Score:2)
Then Jeffrey Epstein happened, with pictures of 2 of our last 4 presidents, 1 of whom flew multiple times on the Lolita express. But if you thought that was weird, it only gets worse from there. After getting taken into custody, he winds up dead in a maximum security cell block with non-functioning cameras.
It's like that time a guy who worked in the White House ends up committing suicide in a park but the FLOTAS is allowed to clean up his office. You think to yourself surely there was somebody else
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes by all means let's protect disinformation. Give me a fucking break.
Which is it? Do you want to censor obvious disinformation on internet sites? If so, why don't we start with this shit?
Don't forget to vote for Biden on Nov 3, or Trump on Nov 4.
Oh. That's different.
Re: (Score:2)
The guy says he believes in protecting people from cyberattacks, but hosts the site where many cyberattacks are organized and controlled from.
If he really cared about free speech he wouldn't be helping them supress it.
Re:It's about free speech (Score:5, Insightful)
It's about the underlying fundamental principals. Are you for free speech, or against it. People who are against the principals of free speech need to be aggressively stamped out.
You're saying that people who say the wrong free speech things need to be aggressively stamped out.
Free speech cuts both ways, people can use it to say things YOU find harmful, including criticising free speech.
They can be shipped off to whatever authoritarian shithole they feel suits them best, they simply do not belong in America.
So what you're saying is you need to repeal the first amendment so anyone using their free speech wrong can be arrested and exiled. Do you not see the irony there?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Using free speech to undermine free speech is not free speech.
It is absolutely free speech. Dangerous speech, but then again so is advocating genocide. Do you count the latter as free speech?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it's defense from government-imposed controls upon speech. Freedom of speech was never freedom from private consequences [brookings.edu]. That's why freedom of speech includes editorial control over what speech is expressed through your private outlet. That's why freedom of speech includes the freedom to engage in sometimes scathing criticism of others' speech.
Freedom of speech is freedom from the government dicta
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not confusing the two. I've made a clear distinction between them. The former is broader than the latter, but not nearly so much broader as you think.
But they could envision presses, which were rare, and for hire, and
Re: (Score:2)
They could not envision big corporations owning our communications, along with governments colliding with them for censorship
We've had newspapers long before the first amendment, one of the first newspapers was shutdown by the government of the time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Show me a right to vote apart from the ones that I mentioned in connection with Federal elections. Then tell me how they can't be amended out of the Constitution. Hell, the only right to vote in the original constitution was for landowning white males for U.S. Representatives.
Who said anything abo
Re: (Score:2)
They do not. Your friends can leave you, your family can ostracize you, the places that you do business with can ban you. It has never been the norm nor the reasonable expectation. No matter how much you attempt to disregard the Brookings link and other discussions of free speech and social consequence.
Re: (Score:2)
Spout off vile nonsense in your mothers' and fathers' house and see how far you get. 'Nuff said.
So, you neither provide evidence of the claims nor dispute that the ones that made that claim (e.g., Reddit) did not promise to practice that in perpetuity. That's not a bait-n-switch. And don't accuse me of evading the argument when you cannot back up the claim to begin
Re: (Score:2)
It's not legal, it's practical. If you suck, nobody has to carry your drivel. It's not censorship, it's social distancing from your disease. And nobody appointed you the judge of whether I've lost, buddy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They don't even run the communication's lines or satellite links. Sorry, there's no basis for regulating social media sites as common carriers under the law, and you're going to run smack into Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo once again.
Sure we do
Re: (Score:2)
No, censorship is preventing you from distributing your drivel, not refusing to carry your drivel for you. And the distributor gets to decide what's drivel, because they're the one doing the work. If your drivel is treasure, do the work yourself, acquire the audience yourself, or find a distributor that thinks that it
Re: (Score:2)
That is pretty clearly denying them their freedom of speech.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you should actually read the bill of rights and constitution. I'll get you started with how freedom of speech works.
Congress shall make no law...
Re: It's about free speech (Score:2)
people go out looking for more stuff they can find that's offensive to them. We should be taking the opposite approach. Instead of trying to be less offensive we should try to be more offenseive.
Quoting something you said not long ago, seems fitting now that the subject is free speech.
Stop being too sensitive about being called racist. Quit looking for more stuff that offends you, like bigot, because you're one of those too. Don't be offended. #freespeech
Re: (Score:2)
People who are against the principals of free speech need to be aggressively stamped out
I really think that stamping down N4zis or violent people is a higher priority, even if it causes some violations of freedom of speech.
Let the crazies keep their content up (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
What if qanon was to rebrand itself as satire news like the onion?
Wait what? They are serious?
Sounds like a bad precedent to be setting. We the people are losing out freedom of speech/expression because politicians and governments can not behave.
Not really, your right to free speech extends only as far as someone else's. Be that online or in the street. I'm reminded of a funny youtube video from Scotland where street preacher was spouting hate and bullshit. So some kid got out some bagpipes, sat down next to him and played until the preacher left the square. That's not censorship, that's free speech.
No one should be forced to host or support speech they don't agree with, be that actually publicly support it, offer servic
Re: (Score:2)
If corporations spending dollars is a valid form of political speech, then so is users sending packets.
[what] we do and don't support (Score:2, Insightful)
It absolutely does say what you do and don't support - your clients matter and what they do matters as well. If you are willing to work with conspiracy theorists in the vapid name of "free speech" then I can see your company has no moral compass, ethics, or values - only a focus on profit. You are not a public gas station, or grocery st
Re: (Score:2)
> You are not a public gas station, or grocery store - you have contracts, meaning you choose who you work with. I suggest you choose better.
Web hosting/ddos is certainly a public accommodation. As soon as you start making editorial decisions, you lose S.230.
You'd be a fool to drop people on political grounds. Who cares what kinds of fanfic they like or religious ideas they have. It's America.
Also, Krebs just lost most of his credibility in my mind.
Re: (Score:2)
Web hosting/ddos is certainly a public accommodation. As soon as you start making editorial decisions, you lose S.230.
No, you explicitly do not. That was a lie, and you are a liar. There is NO PROVISION for losing protections under S.230 of the CDA.
You'd be a fool to drop people on political grounds.
I'd be a fool to believe anything you say.
Re:[what] we do and don't support (Score:5, Insightful)
If you believe in free speech only when it suits you, then it is you who are totally devoid of a moral compass.
" I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" Voltaire.
I myself have a scientific background and I cannot even entertain the idea of restricting the speech of earthflaters.
Suppression of dissent is totally alien to the scientific method.
It's not a binary choice (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
"Fire in a crowded theater" example. Free speech does not mean consequence free speech
Which has less to do about Voltaire's expressed desire to defend the marketplace of ideas, and more with leftists abandoning the principles of liberalism in favor of enforcing their own ideology at the expense of all others.
Re: (Score:2)
I myself have a scientific background and I cannot even entertain the idea of restricting the speech of earthflaters.
But I guess you would defend the freedom of others to chose not to associate with earthflaters by providing them DDoS protection for some private tussle between the earthflatters and the earthrounders?
Free speech includes freedom of association. You can be in favour of free speech while being completely against promoting the speech you disagree with.
Suppression of dissent is totally alien to the scientific method.
This isn't a scientific question, it's societal. Science's abstinence in this field can be considered as a contributing factor to kids actually dying of measles
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If you believe in free speech, then you should defend the rights of people who advocate in abolishing it!
Yes. Because if force can be used to muzzle them, then force can in turn be used to muzzle me. The playing field should be kept level, and ideas will stand on their own merits.
If you believe in democracy, then you should allow a referendum to abolish democracy!
Because it would be tyranny otherwise.
Free speech is a critical tenet of democracy, as well as an informed electorate. Undermining free speech ultimately undermines democracy.
The corporate class and authoritarians alike fully realize now that they must act as gatekeepers to the online public square, in order to preserve their own power and influence and protection for being able to commit injustice.
Eventually after all the low hanging fruit is plucked, their shills wil
Re:Please fight more (Score:4, Insightful)
The summary is bullshit. 8chan/8kun are being kicked off by their hosting providers due to having several mass murders post their manifestoes there as well as the livestream of the New Zealand killer. This isn't about suppressing Qanon, it's about refusing to facilitate murderers.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The summary is bullshit. 8chan/8kun are being kicked off by their hosting providers due to having several mass murders post their manifestoes there as well as the livestream of the New Zealand killer. This isn't about suppressing Qanon, it's about refusing to facilitate murderers.
You might as well say the 1st Amendment facilitates mass murder. Short of reporting threats what is 8chan your basically talking censorship of legal speech. The big social media networks have had their share of murderers posting what they are going to do and nobody ever talks of shutting them down over it. What about all the heated rhetoric over BLM that is getting police killed and the social networks do little to nothing over it? Why are 'rightwing' sites the only ones that exist whenever this topic comes
Re: (Score:2)
The summary is bullshit. 8chan/8kun are being kicked off by their hosting providers due to having several mass murders post their manifestoes there as well as the livestream of the New Zealand killer. This isn't about suppressing Qanon, it's about refusing to facilitate murderers.
I was trying to make the point that 8chan/8kun were not taken down because they hosted Qanon as is implied by the title.
And I feel bad for using a comma where I should have used a period or semicolon.
Re:Please fight more (Score:4, Informative)
So, should slashdot be kicked out of the internet if some murderer decide to use the platform to host a manifesto?
Not the first time. And not if they don't celebrate such activities, encourage such activities, meme such activities, and provide advice for such activities.
You seem to have an opinion without understanding how deeply these communities support such activities.
The GP was only half correct. Yes, they had murder manifestos posted. But they were within the context of the larger community supporting such a viewpoint, and encouraging it.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, but you got to have some nuance that i just don't expect from a webhost.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Qanon's crime is to raise a "blood libel" charge against POTUS' opponents.
It happens in almost every political fight and it has been happening for over two thousand years.
Whenever rational arguments fail, accuse your opponent of killing/eating babies. Works wonders. The best tricks are the tried and true ones.
Further context on Ralph Northam's comments.... (Score:2)
Context is everything...and not what you want it to be.
https://www.factcheck.org/2020... [factcheck.org]
Re: (Score:3)
> are talking about killing babies
So...really, no babies have been done in - it's only your political rhetoric, which is clearly debunked by the "Further context..." sibling post by leelapolis in this thread.
True story: Despite the best efforts of my mother and her doctors, my younger brother was still-born. Who voted for that?
Bible says "Choose life," (look it up), which implies that independent actors be left free to choose. Pro-lifer's pretend that they have a better idea than God. They do not.
"Bl
Re: (Score:2)