3 ms·

> You seem to be making a slippery slope argument, but I don't really see the start of the slope. Okay, so you ban 8chan. Now they move to another chan... ther

> You seem to be making a slippery slope argument, but I don't really see the start of the slope. Okay, so you ban 8chan. Now they move to another chan... there's about 5 different "bunkers" running the same or similar software to what powered 8chan and with many of the same users that various boards have moved to right now. Some of the larger of those bunker chans are actually on distributed networks. So now what? You have to ban distributed networks? You shrug your shoulders and say "oh well, we tried"? This is where the slope comes in. There's no good ending to it. Worse, as we've seen with 8chan, the farther you push people from the mainstream, the more extreme they seem to become.

frereubu 7y ago
The argument in the linked article, which I found compelling, is that by doing this you significantly raise the bar for participation. That cuts out the casual audience, reduces the audience size for these grandiose manifestos (which seems key to them being posted there), and sends a signal that this hateful content isn't generally acceptable. Of course there will always be truly horrible people but, on balance, I think the benefits outweigh the costs. As I said in another comment, I'm conflicted about this, as everyone should be, and will keep reading about the pros and cons. But at the moment I'm convinced that this was the right move.
- buildzr 7y ago
  > you significantly raise the bar for participation. This simply isn't true, it's trivial to set up clearnet proxies into such services and they can be easily treated as disposable. The message you send them seems more to be that they need to hunt and hide more for "the truth". The need for that further contributes to extremeified views. It turns out pushing people into deeper and darker recesses doesn't improve their sociability. You can see this difference from communities that used to exist for the content that spawned these on reddit, Twitter to 4chan leading to the spawning of Voat, Gab, 8chan and others. The farther down the line you go the more extreme you get.

frereubu 7y ago

The argument in the linked article, which I found compelling, is that by doing this you significantly raise the bar for participation. That cuts out the casual audience, reduces the audience size for these grandiose manifestos (which seems key to them being posted there), and sends a signal that this hateful content isn't generally acceptable. Of course there will always be truly horrible people but, on balance, I think the benefits outweigh the costs. As I said in another comment, I'm conflicted about this, as everyone should be, and will keep reading about the pros and cons. But at the moment I'm convinced that this was the right move.

buildzr 7y ago
> you significantly raise the bar for participation. This simply isn't true, it's trivial to set up clearnet proxies into such services and they can be easily treated as disposable. The message you send them seems more to be that they need to hunt and hide more for "the truth". The need for that further contributes to extremeified views. It turns out pushing people into deeper and darker recesses doesn't improve their sociability. You can see this difference from communities that used to exist for the content that spawned these on reddit, Twitter to 4chan leading to the spawning of Voat, Gab, 8chan and others. The farther down the line you go the more extreme you get.