5 ms·

I'm not really that well informed of 8chan, but bringing it down, while practical, doesn't seem like the ideal solution. Isn't it just like covering your eyes a

by jolmg 7y ago

I'm not really that well informed of 8chan, but bringing it down, while practical, doesn't seem like the ideal solution. Isn't it just like covering your eyes and pretending the problem isn't there? The problem doesn't sound like it's 8chan, but rather these people and their ideologies. If 8chan was brought down, they'll just find another hub to congregate, but now we don't know where to reach them to talk. I thought the idea expressed by NearlyFreeSpeech.net in the following link was nice: https://www.nearlyfreespeech.net/about/faq#TheLongGame https://www.nearlyfreespeech.net/about/faq#TheLongGame

lancesells 7y ago
I don't really know anything about 8chan but my limited experience watching videos on YouTube leads me to believe that there are millions of people being radicalized through technology. Young, angry, possibly under-educated people can easily fall down into a rabbit hole of hate like never before. It's definitely an issue worldwide regardless of race, religion or gender and unfortunately no one has the answer. I don't know if 8chan going down really helps stop radicalization but I don't think it hurts. I also don't think it's an affront to free speech if a hosting provider stops doing business with them. If the US government started arresting posters on 8chan that's most definitely a concern but losing your Cloudflare service or hosting is not breaking any first amendment rights.
maccard 7y ago
> Isn't it just like covering your eyes and pretending the problem isn't there? Not necessarily - more like taking the megaphone away. You're right that some/many will find a hub to congregate in, but if it's discoverable by the current 8chan users, there's no reason to think it won't be discoverable by media outlets/journalists either. Like most things, obfuscation/suppression isn't going to solve the issue, but by providing spaces that allow for discussions, the views can be legitimised in the eyes of people who otherwise may not believe them. I'm for the most part against suppression of speech or views, but I do believe there is a line, and to me 4/8chan can (and do) regularly cross this line.
- leppr 7y ago
  The "megaphone" was simply a ranking of the most popular boards on the front page. There was no promotion of a particular community, it fell on the user to see a board description and think "Oh, I might find interesting content there". So the crime is mostly in allowing individuals to connect with other individuals interested in a particular topic. In that case, isn't Google a far more reaching megaphone? One can find far more vicious communities through Google. I remember browsing through racist forums as a kid because a friend had found it on Google (presumably because he looked for it). The community in there certainly matched the worst 8chan boards in their belief and conviction in hateful ideals. The only difference is 8chan is a neutral rank by popularity, while Google also filters by a user-supplied search string. The same type of communities can be found through both sites.
  - maccard 7y ago
    > The "megaphone" was simply a ranking of the most popular boards on the front page. No, the megaphone was the site facilitating the discussion, not the ranking. In fact, by anonymising the discussion, they make it even more difficult to infer whether something is "groupthink" or just a lone spammer. >In that case, isn't Google a far more reaching megaphone? This is textbook whataboutism, but yes it is. That doesn't change the discussion in any way other than to attempt to muddy the discussion. > . I remember browsing through racist forums as a kid because a friend The internet has changed hugely in the last few years, and comparing what was on Google 10+ years ago doesn't compare to the discussions that are happening in other places today.
    - leppr 7y ago
      Let me elaborate on why this argument isn't simply "whataboutism": Nobody would call for Google to be shut down for the "evil" content they mirror and link to. We all have an implicit understanding that Google is simply a tool, a neutral platform to connect people to websites. In fact, we believe the exact contrary. For us well educated folks, it's preventing access to Google on the basis of its content that is seen as a backward, deeply offensive move (China, Iran). We look at the purpose and nature of the platform itself when we judge Google. Well, the purpose of 8chan has never been to promote hate, but instead to provide an open alternative to 4chan, where everyone is welcome to open a board about any topic[1]. The reason why 8chan is ridden by "evil" content has more to do with the heavily controlled state of the giant internet networks, than the nature of 8chan in itself. Nothing about 8chan caters to hateful communities in particular. It's simply one of the few open social networks on the web, which naturally attracts the people rejected from mainstream social networks first. Were it to be more popular, the ratio of "evil" to "decent" communities would trend towards the ratio found in other social networks. So why do we call for it to be shut down, when its only real fault is to be too small? If you were the user of an 8chan community about cooking cupcakes (or furries, or BDSM), you certainly wouldn't want 8chan to be shut down just because some people are using the site differently. ___ Now I don't disagree with the reality that intellectually vulnerable people can be influenced by hateful communities in sites like 8chan, and that this is a problem to solve. But in my opinion, the solution is to go in the total opposite direction of what you propose. The urge to seek out and enter fringe communities is healthy, and at least a necessary step in one's intellectual development. People will from time to time look to escape out of controlled environments, into the bigger space of possibilities. This won't change for as long as we keep teaching kids that freedom is good. The problem is that, as conventional social networks get more and more controlled, and havens of diversity suppressed (Tumblr, ...), the only remaining places of freedom are those where all the "evil" has been funneled in. That's how people wanting to escape oppression or simply discover new possibilities, get shoved in places where "evil" looks like the norm. Therefore, the solution is not to shut down one of the last places of diversity on the internet, Instead, we should try to make diversity and openness of thought as widespread as possible, so that "evil" doesn't seem like the only option to a lost, vulnerable individual. [1]: the Al-Jazeera documentary about its founder is pretty nice even if skewed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REnlB3631Nw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REnlB3631Nw
beefield 7y ago
> but rather these people and their ideologies. I think it is rather strong[1] implied assumption here that places like 8chan can't change peoples' ideologies. [1] If you ask me, the assumption is wrong.
- jolmg 7y ago
  I realized that seemed to be implied so I made an edit: "to reach them to talk".
spookthesunset 7y ago
8chan never got brought down. They just got dumped by their ISP and CDN. They are free to start their own CDN and ISP to host their content. And if they cannot find a private business willing to peer with them, they are free to offer alternative access methods (dialup?). They can even go set up a booth downtown and hand out flyers with access numbers. No free speech rights were trampled on, and no censorship took place.
- jolmg 7y ago
  I think no free speech right was trampled because it wasn't the government that acted, not because the reasons you stated. I mean, going by your logic, it's impossible to trample the free speech of someone unless you make it physically impossible for them to express anything ever again.
  - spookthesunset 7y ago
    I have zero qualms about private businesses or private citizens stopping nazis from shouting their hate to the world. Nazis are free to shout as much as they want, and I'm free to tell them to shut the fuck up.
    - jolmg 7y ago
      Yeah. We both agree. I thought you were arguing with me about something, but I guess not.
- stale2002 7y ago
  Hey, if you want to know the definition of censorship, it is right here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship "Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient". Censorship can be conducted by a government,[5] private institutions, and corporations." This is the wikipedia definition of censorship, so that makes your definition wrong.
anigbrowl 7y ago
they'll just find another hub to congregate, but now we don't know where to reach them to talk You don't.
JansjoFromIkea 7y ago
To me its more like closing the bar they hang out in, almost all of them will find other bars to go to instead almost immediately but it'll cause at least a temporary fracture and even when they all do find themselves back to the same place (asides from the ones who just got on with their lives), it'll take a while to build up the same kind of feedback loop. Honestly, as a teen (over a decade ago now...), there were forums I was on that totally died due to a week or two of downtime, sometimes just breaking someone away from their familiar habits is enough to get them out of a bad routine. The notion that we could reach them on 8chan is a bit idealistic, the only thing we're able to reach is the manifestos within seconds of the news breaking as far as I can see. If your goal is to _reach_ them, then do it in reality.
opportune 7y ago
The whole point of bringing 8chan down is to make it harder for them to congregate and fracture their community. It also makes it harder for new people to be indoctrinated. Reddit found that banning hate subreddits reduced the overall usage of hate speech on the website. Even though the most dedicated users probably moved to voat, now some clueless kid who just wants to see look at memes is much less likely to just stumble upon that content.
- zzzcpan 7y ago
  If you ban specific people from using your website, why would they use it?

by jolmg 7y ago

lancesells 7y ago

I don't really know anything about 8chan but my limited experience watching videos on YouTube leads me to believe that there are millions of people being radicalized through technology. Young, angry, possibly under-educated people can easily fall down into a rabbit hole of hate like never before. It's definitely an issue worldwide regardless of race, religion or gender and unfortunately no one has the answer. I don't know if 8chan going down really helps stop radicalization but I don't think it hurts. I also don't think it's an affront to free speech if a hosting provider stops doing business with them. If the US government started arresting posters on 8chan that's most definitely a concern but losing your Cloudflare service or hosting is not breaking any first amendment rights.

maccard 7y ago

> Isn't it just like covering your eyes and pretending the problem isn't there? Not necessarily - more like taking the megaphone away. You're right that some/many will find a hub to congregate in, but if it's discoverable by the current 8chan users, there's no reason to think it won't be discoverable by media outlets/journalists either. Like most things, obfuscation/suppression isn't going to solve the issue, but by providing spaces that allow for discussions, the views can be legitimised in the eyes of people who otherwise may not believe them. I'm for the most part against suppression of speech or views, but I do believe there is a line, and to me 4/8chan can (and do) regularly cross this line.

leppr 7y ago
The "megaphone" was simply a ranking of the most popular boards on the front page. There was no promotion of a particular community, it fell on the user to see a board description and think "Oh, I might find interesting content there". So the crime is mostly in allowing individuals to connect with other individuals interested in a particular topic. In that case, isn't Google a far more reaching megaphone? One can find far more vicious communities through Google. I remember browsing through racist forums as a kid because a friend had found it on Google (presumably because he looked for it). The community in there certainly matched the worst 8chan boards in their belief and conviction in hateful ideals. The only difference is 8chan is a neutral rank by popularity, while Google also filters by a user-supplied search string. The same type of communities can be found through both sites.
- maccard 7y ago
  > The "megaphone" was simply a ranking of the most popular boards on the front page. No, the megaphone was the site facilitating the discussion, not the ranking. In fact, by anonymising the discussion, they make it even more difficult to infer whether something is "groupthink" or just a lone spammer. >In that case, isn't Google a far more reaching megaphone? This is textbook whataboutism, but yes it is. That doesn't change the discussion in any way other than to attempt to muddy the discussion. > . I remember browsing through racist forums as a kid because a friend The internet has changed hugely in the last few years, and comparing what was on Google 10+ years ago doesn't compare to the discussions that are happening in other places today.
  - leppr 7y ago
    Let me elaborate on why this argument isn't simply "whataboutism": Nobody would call for Google to be shut down for the "evil" content they mirror and link to. We all have an implicit understanding that Google is simply a tool, a neutral platform to connect people to websites. In fact, we believe the exact contrary. For us well educated folks, it's preventing access to Google on the basis of its content that is seen as a backward, deeply offensive move (China, Iran). We look at the purpose and nature of the platform itself when we judge Google. Well, the purpose of 8chan has never been to promote hate, but instead to provide an open alternative to 4chan, where everyone is welcome to open a board about any topic[1]. The reason why 8chan is ridden by "evil" content has more to do with the heavily controlled state of the giant internet networks, than the nature of 8chan in itself. Nothing about 8chan caters to hateful communities in particular. It's simply one of the few open social networks on the web, which naturally attracts the people rejected from mainstream social networks first. Were it to be more popular, the ratio of "evil" to "decent" communities would trend towards the ratio found in other social networks. So why do we call for it to be shut down, when its only real fault is to be too small? If you were the user of an 8chan community about cooking cupcakes (or furries, or BDSM), you certainly wouldn't want 8chan to be shut down just because some people are using the site differently. ___ Now I don't disagree with the reality that intellectually vulnerable people can be influenced by hateful communities in sites like 8chan, and that this is a problem to solve. But in my opinion, the solution is to go in the total opposite direction of what you propose. The urge to seek out and enter fringe communities is healthy, and at least a necessary step in one's intellectual development. People will from time to time look to escape out of controlled environments, into the bigger space of possibilities. This won't change for as long as we keep teaching kids that freedom is good. The problem is that, as conventional social networks get more and more controlled, and havens of diversity suppressed (Tumblr, ...), the only remaining places of freedom are those where all the "evil" has been funneled in. That's how people wanting to escape oppression or simply discover new possibilities, get shoved in places where "evil" looks like the norm. Therefore, the solution is not to shut down one of the last places of diversity on the internet, Instead, we should try to make diversity and openness of thought as widespread as possible, so that "evil" doesn't seem like the only option to a lost, vulnerable individual. [1]: the Al-Jazeera documentary about its founder is pretty nice even if skewed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REnlB3631Nw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REnlB3631Nw

beefield 7y ago

> but rather these people and their ideologies. I think it is rather strong[1] implied assumption here that places like 8chan can't change peoples' ideologies. [1] If you ask me, the assumption is wrong.

jolmg 7y ago
I realized that seemed to be implied so I made an edit: "to reach them to talk".

spookthesunset 7y ago

8chan never got brought down. They just got dumped by their ISP and CDN. They are free to start their own CDN and ISP to host their content. And if they cannot find a private business willing to peer with them, they are free to offer alternative access methods (dialup?). They can even go set up a booth downtown and hand out flyers with access numbers. No free speech rights were trampled on, and no censorship took place.

jolmg 7y ago
I think no free speech right was trampled because it wasn't the government that acted, not because the reasons you stated. I mean, going by your logic, it's impossible to trample the free speech of someone unless you make it physically impossible for them to express anything ever again.
- spookthesunset 7y ago
  I have zero qualms about private businesses or private citizens stopping nazis from shouting their hate to the world. Nazis are free to shout as much as they want, and I'm free to tell them to shut the fuck up.
  - jolmg 7y ago
    Yeah. We both agree. I thought you were arguing with me about something, but I guess not.
stale2002 7y ago
Hey, if you want to know the definition of censorship, it is right here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship "Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient". Censorship can be conducted by a government,[5] private institutions, and corporations." This is the wikipedia definition of censorship, so that makes your definition wrong.

anigbrowl 7y ago

they'll just find another hub to congregate, but now we don't know where to reach them to talk You don't.

JansjoFromIkea 7y ago

To me its more like closing the bar they hang out in, almost all of them will find other bars to go to instead almost immediately but it'll cause at least a temporary fracture and even when they all do find themselves back to the same place (asides from the ones who just got on with their lives), it'll take a while to build up the same kind of feedback loop. Honestly, as a teen (over a decade ago now...), there were forums I was on that totally died due to a week or two of downtime, sometimes just breaking someone away from their familiar habits is enough to get them out of a bad routine. The notion that we could reach them on 8chan is a bit idealistic, the only thing we're able to reach is the manifestos within seconds of the news breaking as far as I can see. If your goal is to _reach_ them, then do it in reality.

opportune 7y ago

The whole point of bringing 8chan down is to make it harder for them to congregate and fracture their community. It also makes it harder for new people to be indoctrinated. Reddit found that banning hate subreddits reduced the overall usage of hate speech on the website. Even though the most dedicated users probably moved to voat, now some clueless kid who just wants to see look at memes is much less likely to just stumble upon that content.

zzzcpan 7y ago
If you ban specific people from using your website, why would they use it?