4 ms·

As someone who browses 8chan I'd rather the entire site doesn't take the hit, since not the entire site partakes in this. It's only /pol/ that needs to be remov

As someone who browses 8chan I'd rather the entire site doesn't take the hit, since not the entire site partakes in this. It's only /pol/ that needs to be removed.

odessacubbage 8y ago
8ch is jim's ego project now, it'll continue to exist as long as it amuses him or is regulated out of existence. removing /pol/ wont remove /pol/ users. however, removing places like /pol/ or /baph/ would fundamentally kill 8ch as it would no longer be a free speech site. nor would such a move appease the disingenuous opportunists who use tragedies like this for their own personal gain.
- faissaloo 8y ago
  Modern 8ch has been overrun by /pol/, they've been a consistent problem that's only gotten worse. 8ch already isn't a free speech site, /pol/ will ban you for even questioning their rhetoric. Sure you can create a new board, but almost no one ever browses those except to stash CP when they eventually get abandoned. Removing /pol/ would certainly remove /pol/ users, they would need to find another place and it takes time for these sorts of communities to regroup.
robocat 8y ago
New Zealand simply doesn't have the censorship infrastructure in place to do that. We are ineffectively blocking websites through very crude technical means that are not designed for censorship. I am just saying you are requesting something that has deeper implications... My opinions on censorship are not relevant to that.
- faissaloo 8y ago
  Crude technical means are often enough to get the brunt of it out of the way, just look at what happened to /r/incels which at its height had 42000 users, the place the ones that cared enough moved to has only 9155, the rest of them by and large have successfully been deplatformed. I used to be very much on the side of 'free speech', but it's become increasingly clear to me that deplatforming and censoring, while indeed unpleasant, is effective and necessary.

As someone who browses 8chan I'd rather the entire site doesn't take the hit, since not the entire site partakes in this. It's only /pol/ that needs to be removed.

odessacubbage 8y ago

8ch is jim's ego project now, it'll continue to exist as long as it amuses him or is regulated out of existence. removing /pol/ wont remove /pol/ users. however, removing places like /pol/ or /baph/ would fundamentally kill 8ch as it would no longer be a free speech site. nor would such a move appease the disingenuous opportunists who use tragedies like this for their own personal gain.

faissaloo 8y ago
Modern 8ch has been overrun by /pol/, they've been a consistent problem that's only gotten worse. 8ch already isn't a free speech site, /pol/ will ban you for even questioning their rhetoric. Sure you can create a new board, but almost no one ever browses those except to stash CP when they eventually get abandoned. Removing /pol/ would certainly remove /pol/ users, they would need to find another place and it takes time for these sorts of communities to regroup.

robocat 8y ago

New Zealand simply doesn't have the censorship infrastructure in place to do that. We are ineffectively blocking websites through very crude technical means that are not designed for censorship. I am just saying you are requesting something that has deeper implications... My opinions on censorship are not relevant to that.

faissaloo 8y ago
Crude technical means are often enough to get the brunt of it out of the way, just look at what happened to /r/incels which at its height had 42000 users, the place the ones that cared enough moved to has only 9155, the rest of them by and large have successfully been deplatformed. I used to be very much on the side of 'free speech', but it's become increasingly clear to me that deplatforming and censoring, while indeed unpleasant, is effective and necessary.