6 ms·
>Seems these days the second option is always the preferred one. Not on the internet, no. The 2/4/8/whatever-chans are alive and kicking. Ditto the good old IR
by dexen 7y ago
>Seems these days the second option is always the preferred one.
Not on the internet, no. The 2/4/8/whatever-chans are alive and kicking. Ditto the good old IRC. There's plenty of other services that are more rough-and-tumble than milktoasty. Any of the new social media like Mastodon, Minds, BitChute have rather hands-off moderation - any lawfull content has rather good chances of staying there undisturbed.
The difference is one of perception - namely, which ones get favorable opinions in the media as family safe, and which ones get condemned as the seedy, scary underbelly.
- raxxorrax 7y agoChans are seen as integration tests for censorship. I doubt media has that much influence on platform choice today.
- 1337biz 7y ago> Not on the internet, no. The 2/4/8/whatever-chans are alive and kicking. These places are almost like art. Fully dependent on the goodwill of a handful of patrons that regard them as valuable while many would prefer to see them dissapear.
- stronglikedan 7y ago> many would prefer to see them dissapear. I don't think it's as many as some think. A lot of this censorship banter comes from a very vocal minority who appear to be a majority only in their own minds.
- giancarlostoro 7y agoWhile the actual majority is mostly busy with their jobs and lives. ....and probably blowing off steam on some image board or news / link aggregator website after work.
- 1337biz 7y agoFree speech has the same issue as data security or privacy have. For most people it does not feel to be a problem in their daily lifes so the active players can push for whatever is the most profitable option.
- close04 7y agoThe difference is actually that Facebook/Instagram, Google/Youtube dwarf anything else by a wide margin. So when they choose to do something it's representative and certainly relevant "on the internet". The chans or IRC are a spec in this picture. The point was placing profits over the protection makes sense from their perspective. They take a big risk whatever option they choose, might as well make money doing it. And they will certainly be forgiven because on the internet memory is very short. Or perhaps many people just don't care. Facebook's user numbers have been steadily increasing for years.
- pjc50 7y ago> The 2/4/8/whatever-chans are alive and kicking I feel it's only a matter of time before they get blocked at the router or at least DNS level in a western European country. They were blocked in New Zealand for a while after the chan-radicalized mass murder there.
- nkkollaw 7y agoThat's so stupid, though. A whole service gets blocked for 1 person? I assume this person could have gotten radicalized by talking to other radicals on the phone, so you ban phones?
- Sahhaese 7y ago> could have But they didn't, that's a detail you can't just conveniently drop to argue in the abstract.
- mises 7y ago> But they didn't Because there was a more convenient option. I think they'll just run their own alternative, especially as domains are cheap. Also, what about that namecoin thing? Seems like a workaround.
- RankingMember 7y agoThe point remains that crime/radicalization can occur over any site/medium. Banning a site or medium seems heavy-handed unless it exists expressly to facilitate crime/radicalization, in my opinion. TOR, for example, has been a known avenue for the spread of child pornography, yet we don't shut it down.
- hi5eyes 7y agothere's more CP on twitter than TOR but nice meme edit: nice meme bc who actually uses TOR? theres so much more cp on surface web liek chans, tumblr used to be a pedos dream, twitter etc. no one uses tor zzz
- neonate 7y agoYou say "no" but that is the second option the GP was talking about.