3 ms·

That'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 pho

That'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 ago
  The 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 ago
    there'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
    - RankingMember 7y ago
      Got any proof to back up that statement? There have been numerous FBI busts of Onion sites. For example: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/11/fbi-operated-23-tor-hidden-child-porn-sites-deployed-malware-from-them/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/11/fbi-operated-23-...
      - hi5eyes 7y ago
        https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/aug/13/twitter-failure-child-pornography https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/aug/13/twitte... https://sputniknews.com/science/201905091074866833-Twitter-370K-Accounts-Suspended-Promoting-Terrorism-2018/ https://sputniknews.com/science/201905091074866833-Twitter-3... you can literally google twitter child porn theres hundreds of threads exposing how these people start group dms baiting kids https://twitter.com/xcutesannex/status/1147456947727282177 https://twitter.com/xcutesannex/status/1147456947727282177 shit in a similar format to this
        RankingMember 7y ago
        This is a weird quibble. Is your argument simply to let me know I could've used an example with more child porn? Unless you're arguing there's no CP on TOR, my point in the context of the original comment stands.
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
- raxxorrax 7y ago
  Handing the responsibility for the mass murder on a platform is not much different than blaming books, rock music or TV. There are good things and bad things on the chans. Blocking it would just be a sign of losing control and having no explanation for the deed. But yes, increasing the pressure on these kind of online spaces seems to have had a overall negative effect. If you don't know the demographic and how gripers react to pressure, you should not preach about the source of radicalization. And yes, you also will net the ire of people that like their freedom and haven't done anything.
pjc50 7y ago
Could have, but didn't, because phones are a 1-1 medium and people don't go around cold-calling others to see if they're into white supremacy and conspiracy theories. Not only that, it wasn't one person, or rather it was not one person alone. He was fed, indoctrinated and enabled by his co-conspirators who egged him on with anti-Islam material. In some sense they got off lightly: if the situation had been reversed and we were talking about an Islamic supremacist board promoting violence against Christians which resulted in a massacre, they might have been candidates for an airstrike. "We kill people based on metadata", remember? https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2014/05/10/we-kill-people-based-metadata/ https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2014/05/10/we-kill-people-base... The ban would most likely be for refusal to comply with rules regarding extremist or crime-promoting material. For example the UK has a unit pointed at the major social networks making binding takedown requests against (primarily) Daesh material: https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Counter-Terrorism_Internet_Referral_Unit https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Counter-Terrorism_Inte... There are proposals to make the terrorist takedown regime mandatory across Europe: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-45495544 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-45495544 At the moment the authorities are surprisingly un-worried about white supremacist terrorism compared to Islamist terrorism, of which there is very little on the chans. So they largely escape takedown requirements. But if the extremism escalates that may not stay that way.
mcv 7y ago
Who says it's done for 1 person? 4chan, 8chan and the like have a long history of radicalising people and fostering all sorts of hate and abuse. That mass murderer was not the first one.

That'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 ago
The 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 ago
  there'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
  - RankingMember 7y ago
    Got any proof to back up that statement? There have been numerous FBI busts of Onion sites. For example: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/11/fbi-operated-23-tor-hidden-child-porn-sites-deployed-malware-from-them/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/11/fbi-operated-23-...
    - hi5eyes 7y ago
      https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/aug/13/twitter-failure-child-pornography https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/aug/13/twitte... https://sputniknews.com/science/201905091074866833-Twitter-370K-Accounts-Suspended-Promoting-Terrorism-2018/ https://sputniknews.com/science/201905091074866833-Twitter-3... you can literally google twitter child porn theres hundreds of threads exposing how these people start group dms baiting kids https://twitter.com/xcutesannex/status/1147456947727282177 https://twitter.com/xcutesannex/status/1147456947727282177 shit in a similar format to this
      - RankingMember 7y ago
        This is a weird quibble. Is your argument simply to let me know I could've used an example with more child porn? Unless you're arguing there's no CP on TOR, my point in the context of the original comment stands.
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
raxxorrax 7y ago
Handing the responsibility for the mass murder on a platform is not much different than blaming books, rock music or TV. There are good things and bad things on the chans. Blocking it would just be a sign of losing control and having no explanation for the deed. But yes, increasing the pressure on these kind of online spaces seems to have had a overall negative effect. If you don't know the demographic and how gripers react to pressure, you should not preach about the source of radicalization. And yes, you also will net the ire of people that like their freedom and haven't done anything.

pjc50 7y ago

Could have, but didn't, because phones are a 1-1 medium and people don't go around cold-calling others to see if they're into white supremacy and conspiracy theories. Not only that, it wasn't one person, or rather it was not one person alone. He was fed, indoctrinated and enabled by his co-conspirators who egged him on with anti-Islam material. In some sense they got off lightly: if the situation had been reversed and we were talking about an Islamic supremacist board promoting violence against Christians which resulted in a massacre, they might have been candidates for an airstrike. "We kill people based on metadata", remember? https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2014/05/10/we-kill-people-based-metadata/ https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2014/05/10/we-kill-people-base... The ban would most likely be for refusal to comply with rules regarding extremist or crime-promoting material. For example the UK has a unit pointed at the major social networks making binding takedown requests against (primarily) Daesh material: https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Counter-Terrorism_Internet_Referral_Unit https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Counter-Terrorism_Inte... There are proposals to make the terrorist takedown regime mandatory across Europe: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-45495544 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-45495544 At the moment the authorities are surprisingly un-worried about white supremacist terrorism compared to Islamist terrorism, of which there is very little on the chans. So they largely escape takedown requirements. But if the extremism escalates that may not stay that way.

mcv 7y ago

Who says it's done for 1 person? 4chan, 8chan and the like have a long history of radicalising people and fostering all sorts of hate and abuse. That mass murderer was not the first one.