This is a hackjob article. "Expresses regret", really now? According to this google doc https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vNye_et1JZQquT9Oiz1wVnikEGU8zUZ7/view

This 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.