6 ms·

I think 4chan has gone too far on this one. They should ban neonazi propaganda. There is a big difference between allowing non-PC talk and allowing outright neo

I think 4chan has gone too far on this one. They should ban neonazi propaganda. There is a big difference between allowing non-PC talk and allowing outright neonazi/terrorist propaganda. Besides, it is ruining the experience on all boards for all people.

StreamBright 8y ago
You are mixing up 8chan and 4chan.
- burk96 8y ago
  8chan is much much worse, but 4chan is certainly infested with that stuff as well
- happytoexplain 8y ago
  As somebody who has - embarrassingly - been on 4chan nearly every day since 2004, trust me, the parent post's assertion is a perfectly arguable one.
  - StreamBright 8y ago
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2019/03/15/after-the-new-zealand-terror-attack-should-8chan-be-wiped-from-the-web/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2019/03/15/after...
beatgammit 8y ago
Isn't their policy basically "anything goes"? Locking things down seems counter to their goals. I know they have "some" moderation in "some" parts of their site, but moderating too much will just drive people away since many are there for "free speech" reasons. I think they'd be happier with the policy of, "if you don't like it, leave" than trying to appease others.
- bduerst 8y ago
  No, they specifically censor content like child pornography, torrent links (AFAIK), and some other material. There are situations where the expression of certain speech, like the generation and propagation of child pornography, harms others and should not be allowed. Even the original FS philosophers mostly agreed on this type of censorship.
  - claudiawerner 8y ago
    They do not at all censor torrent links. In fact, the /t/ board is dedicated to sharing torrent and magnet links of all kinds of content, almost all of it to copyright-protected content. Child pornography is censored and will earn you an immediate perma-ban as soon as your post is found by a mod.
  - mooseburger 8y ago
    Generation of CP harms others yes, but propagation does not. Always did regard the criminalization of possession and propagation of CP as a censorious overreach.
    - apta 8y ago
      The argument is that propagation (and consumption) encourages those who generate such things to keep on going since they see there is a market for them. I guess kind of similar to banning sales of ivory to kill the market, and in turn, reduce or wipeout the incentive for the hunters.
    - dragonsngoblins 8y ago
      I'd argue spreading it harms others as the people in it didn't consent to it being created or shared and is associated with trauma for them. Knowing that it was perfectly legal for people to share footage of them getting raped as children probably wouldn't be good for their mental health
  - 101001001001 8y ago
    Child porn hurts people?
kbenson 8y ago
You're either for free speech or you're not, and as much as I would like to have some absolute reference of good and bad, it's all culturally defined. I mean, I think it's horrible, but I can envision lots of functional and useful societies that are horrible based on my principles (how would you like to to be part of a hize mind?), but that doesn't make them bad in an absolute sense. Scaled down, freedom of speech is to protect us from changing cultural and mob rule running roughshod over what we consider good and bad to the detriment of all. The law would basically just lag internet outrage by a few months or years. Edit: This is meant to be interpreted in context, where a platform has taken a stance that it doesn't censor, and a government blocking that platform. I'm also not making a stance that anything goes, as speech inciting direct action against the law (or meant to cause a situation which is immediately and obviously unsafe) is problematic, and under what I take free speech to embody, which is freedom of thought and to express those thoughts. As absolutist as the first words sound, it's not really meant to be interpreted that way, but more as a call to acknowledge that good and bad are relative to the farthest degree, which is about as far from absolutist as you can get. Edit 2: From closer reading, it wasn't actually a government request. The article notes that the government often issues these through the courts, but the ISPs acted on their own in this case.
- happytoexplain 8y ago
  >You're either for free speech or you're not Absolutism is poison.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - staticautomatic 8y ago
    Absolutism isn't an "ism" in the sense you think it is.
  - spangry 8y ago
    The irony of this statement.
- root_axis 8y ago
moate 8y ago
>>I think 4chan has gone too far I don't believe 4chan will ever share this sentiment with you.

StreamBright 8y ago

You are mixing up 8chan and 4chan.

burk96 8y ago
8chan is much much worse, but 4chan is certainly infested with that stuff as well
happytoexplain 8y ago
As somebody who has - embarrassingly - been on 4chan nearly every day since 2004, trust me, the parent post's assertion is a perfectly arguable one.
- StreamBright 8y ago
  https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2019/03/15/after-the-new-zealand-terror-attack-should-8chan-be-wiped-from-the-web/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2019/03/15/after...

beatgammit 8y ago

Isn't their policy basically "anything goes"? Locking things down seems counter to their goals. I know they have "some" moderation in "some" parts of their site, but moderating too much will just drive people away since many are there for "free speech" reasons. I think they'd be happier with the policy of, "if you don't like it, leave" than trying to appease others.

bduerst 8y ago
No, they specifically censor content like child pornography, torrent links (AFAIK), and some other material. There are situations where the expression of certain speech, like the generation and propagation of child pornography, harms others and should not be allowed. Even the original FS philosophers mostly agreed on this type of censorship.
- claudiawerner 8y ago
  They do not at all censor torrent links. In fact, the /t/ board is dedicated to sharing torrent and magnet links of all kinds of content, almost all of it to copyright-protected content. Child pornography is censored and will earn you an immediate perma-ban as soon as your post is found by a mod.
- mooseburger 8y ago
  Generation of CP harms others yes, but propagation does not. Always did regard the criminalization of possession and propagation of CP as a censorious overreach.
  - apta 8y ago
    The argument is that propagation (and consumption) encourages those who generate such things to keep on going since they see there is a market for them. I guess kind of similar to banning sales of ivory to kill the market, and in turn, reduce or wipeout the incentive for the hunters.
  - dragonsngoblins 8y ago
    I'd argue spreading it harms others as the people in it didn't consent to it being created or shared and is associated with trauma for them. Knowing that it was perfectly legal for people to share footage of them getting raped as children probably wouldn't be good for their mental health
- 101001001001 8y ago
  Child porn hurts people?

kbenson 8y ago

You're either for free speech or you're not, and as much as I would like to have some absolute reference of good and bad, it's all culturally defined. I mean, I think it's horrible, but I can envision lots of functional and useful societies that are horrible based on my principles (how would you like to to be part of a hize mind?), but that doesn't make them bad in an absolute sense. Scaled down, freedom of speech is to protect us from changing cultural and mob rule running roughshod over what we consider good and bad to the detriment of all. The law would basically just lag internet outrage by a few months or years. Edit: This is meant to be interpreted in context, where a platform has taken a stance that it doesn't censor, and a government blocking that platform. I'm also not making a stance that anything goes, as speech inciting direct action against the law (or meant to cause a situation which is immediately and obviously unsafe) is problematic, and under what I take free speech to embody, which is freedom of thought and to express those thoughts. As absolutist as the first words sound, it's not really meant to be interpreted that way, but more as a call to acknowledge that good and bad are relative to the farthest degree, which is about as far from absolutist as you can get. Edit 2: From closer reading, it wasn't actually a government request. The article notes that the government often issues these through the courts, but the ISPs acted on their own in this case.

happytoexplain 8y ago
>You're either for free speech or you're not Absolutism is poison.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- staticautomatic 8y ago
  Absolutism isn't an "ism" in the sense you think it is.
- spangry 8y ago
  The irony of this statement.
root_axis 8y ago

moate 8y ago

>>I think 4chan has gone too far I don't believe 4chan will ever share this sentiment with you.