10 ms·
After New Zealand Shooting, Founder of 8chan Expresses Regrets
- hbosch 8y agohttps://outline.com/8EN9Nb https://outline.com/8EN9Nb
- __alias 8y agoamazing, thanks
- ec109685 8y agoIf he felt so strongly, why didn't he shut the site down?
- friedman23 8y agohe doesn't own it, you should read the article before posting.
- ec109685 8y agoI read the article. He founded and instead of shutting down, he “cut ties”.
- friedman23 8y agoyes he cut ties because he doesn't own it. Explain to me how he can shut down a platform he doesn't own?
- freen 8y agoThe paradox of tolerance is real. Seems like humans have to rediscover this fact every couple of generations, the hard way. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
- mindslight 8y agoIsn't fighting intolerance exactly what someone who shoots up a mosque thinks they're doing? Finding paradoxes in absolutely-defined frameworks is expected - a concept like "tolerance" can only ever serve as an imperfect heuristic. To proceed beyond its limits, you must judge by other metrics.
- Random_BSD_Geek 8y agoI don't particularly care what someone who murders a bunch of people "thinks they're doing." Perhaps that makes me intolerant.
- mindslight 8y agoYou mean that you don't care about discouraging the next one? That's the motivation to understand. The point is that this "Paradox of tolerance" meme is invokable to escalate the aggression of any viewpoint - a paradox in the common (not not A -> A) logic system means anything can be proved. We don't have a problem with the murderer and his enablers because they were intolerant, but because they committed and encouraged murder.
- bilbo0s 8y ago>You mean that you don't care about discouraging the next one?... Can't really discourage the next one at this point unfortunately. People are going to do things like this, they have been for a while and will continue to do so in the future. These ideological extremists will be arguing back and forth forever. All that said, there is the completely separate question of what our counter-terrorism infrastructure should be doing to identify and neutralize these threats. But that's not so much "discouraging" the next attack as it is attempting to keep the number of attacks to a minimum. Because I can pretty much guarantee, the counter-terrorism guys in NZ, or most other western nations, are not gonna be visiting suspected terrorists for the purposes of having a conversation in the hopes of "discouraging" them.
- zindara 8y agothank you for sharing! https://happywheels24.com https://happywheels24.com
- mindslight 8y agoAlternative narrative: A great way to create an echo chamber of people with abhorrent views is to drive them all off of general platforms.
- robbiep 8y agoThese groups all exist on ‘general platforms’ - ie Facebook and reddit. But it doesn’t help the situation- in fact, it may worsen it. People end up only connected to people that share their viewpoints; and specific discussions in groups or subreddits are not occurring on a ‘soap box’ environment where the broader community is exposed or engaging with it; so it flourishes, with sometimes toxic results
- ng12 8y agoReddit is pretty aggressive with it's censorship. In fact it used the NZ shootings as an excuse to remove several "problematic" subreddits.
- duxup 8y agoThey're randomly aggressive. There's little rhyme or reason to it. They shut down watchpeopledie after some content was posted there and got outside news attention, they have no problem with other subs posting hate and talking about race based wars, violence against minorities and immigrants and etc.
- threeseed 8y agoBut if you don't drive them off then advertisers will leave and it will cease to exist at all. Advertisers are the ones you need to keep happy not users.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- everdev 8y ago> Advertisers are the ones you need to keep happy not users Not many advertisers on sites with 0 users. You need both.
- monsterbash506 8y agohe recently put out a draft paper about decentralized imageboards, which we were discussing on 8chan. We want to make a fully p2p board without censorship, and optional curation lists (for spam and the like). We are tired of being beholden to the parties which would like us gone, so we will build something complemtely open and non-jurisdictional. There will be no censorship of the board (by governments, ISPs, DNS servers, CA authorities) and no censorship by board administrators. If the owners leave & turn off their computers, the site will continue to exist. Juan Benet used the term "open service," to describe something like this. https://t.co/xJt2dR3B7B https://t.co/xJt2dR3B7B
- tclancy 8y agoHey man, as long as you can share images. Everyone else just over here dying because white guys think it’s about their freedom to do X. And please don’t get confused. I am one too. I want to suggest if you are spending your time writing DRAFT proposals of a p2p image sharing amazing protocol that can’t be taken down by any jurisdiction man .... well that’s theoretically useful for every freedom-loving man everywhere but most likely something useful to child pornographers and there are lots of people actually suffering under boots and heels of tyrants now and what they don’t need is you writing RFPs while sipping Mountain Dew. If you can’t see all the trolling about race and gender and just people in general isn’t helpful and is actually causing people harm in meatspace, that’s something you should work on.
- ng12 8y ago8chan is not the problem. People are the problem. If he never made 8chan they would have congregated somewhere else. I think this idea that unsavory websites breed their unsavory bits is pretty close to blaming school shootings on video games.
- daeken 8y agoPlatforms that explicitly enable harmful things (child pornography, racism, and much, much more in the case of 8chan) make the world a worse place. And sure, if this person hadn't created 8chan those horrible people may have just congregated somewhere else, but that next person could also decide not to create/support a hateful platform, and the next person, etc. Are they always going to exist? Of course. But we are all responsible for ensuring that they don't come into existence or continue to exist once they do.
- ng12 8y ago> horrible people may have just congregated somewhere else, but that next person could also decide not to create/support a hateful platform, and the next person, etc. But realistically how likely is this? For every sub Reddit bans a new one appears on Voat.
- daeken 8y agoAnd how many people know about Voat versus Reddit? With each ban, the reach drops dramatically. C.f. 4chan vs 8chan.
- flukus 8y agoNot many, but one of the arguments going around is that self reinforcing bubbles have helped create this problem, so forcing people into a smaller more self reinforcing community seems counter-productive.
- ng12 8y agoIf a sub you're on gets banned I'm sure you find out about it pretty quick.
- yardstick 8y agoAs an aside, I wish the WSJ didn’t name the terrorist in their article and instead followed the NZ PM on leaving him nameless. If people really want to know it they can go to Wikipedia.
- dv_dt 8y agoI wonder if being owned by Murdoch made any difference in that decision.
- HumanDrivenDev 8y agoI found it incredibly childish that she did that. Like she's trying to stick her fingers in her ears and sing "LA LA THIS DIDN'T HAPPEN". He's not Voldemort.
- asutekku 8y agoLeaving them nameless doesn’t give them the “fame” they want. It’s a really good practice.
- HumanDrivenDev 8y agoAccording to his manifesto he expected this wouldn't make him famous, and used the example that very few people can remember the names of the 9/11 hijackers. What he wanted - again according to the manifesto - is exactly what he's getting: further division and a clamping down on gun laws. She also legally has to do it I believe, as Tarrant is still the "suspect" and has not been formally found guilty. She's opportunistically trying to turn this restriction into some epic "I un-name thee!" cringe fest.
- duxup 8y ago>She also legally has to do it I believe What makes you think that?
- HumanDrivenDev 8y ago
- charlesism 8y agoThe internet, as a whole, doesn't learn lessons easily. Edgelords grow up, younger edgelords come online and replace them. It's always September.
- patientplatypus 8y agoIn other news Putin signed into law more internet censorship bills this week. For all of the people claiming they desire more censorship, who gets to decide? You? The democratically elected Congress/Legislature/President (ruhroh)? If you want to fix this problem, the focus should be on helping those in society who have fallen through the cracks and would desire to harm others in the first place. Which requires real work and effort put into job placement programs and social safety net legislation. Instead what we'll probably do is start banning websites because most people are stupid and reactionary while real work takes effort. Sigh.
- crankylinuxuser 8y agoThis is a hackjob article. "Expresses regret", really now? According to this google doc https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vNye_et1JZQquT9Oiz1wVnikEGU8zUZ7/view https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vNye_et1JZQquT9Oiz1wVnikEGU... Title: Towards a peer-to-peer imageboard: essential elements thereof and approaches compared Author: Fredrick R. Brennan Date: March 16, 2019 If someone who wants "more censorship" as the WSJ article espouses, along with “I have no desire to ever be involved in the image-board world again,” he said. “A lot of these sites cause more misery than anything else.” .... Why would you work on a P2P censorship resistant, completely anonymous imageboard? Page 5 of that document puts it best: "The Christchurch massacare adds new urgency, with publications like The Verge floating the idea of shuttering 8chan, Forbes flat out asking whether or not 8chan should be “wiped from the web”, and the ever poorly researched Daily Dot offering its attempting to instigate action against 8chan and imageboards more widely." I don't believe the WSJ in their reporting. They either got duped, or wrote an intentionally false article.
- HNLurker2 8y agoHis manifesto isn't even worth thinking about. Why I mentioned it? I give the benefit of the doubt because Ted Kaczynski one was even mentioned on hacker news and influenced the tech scene. But its not even 1% of that level.