If you applied the same standard of guilt by association that the post is invoking to other fora, there would be little left. A is "linked to" B. A "perpetuate

If you applied the same standard of guilt by association that the post is invoking to other fora, there would be little left. A is "linked to" B. A "perpetuates" B. A is "known to influence" B. These are all weasel words meant to hide the fact that there is no actual consistent objection. Usually there are plenty of other, similar examples to be named, with the salient difference only being whether OP feels the site is on their side and whether they can have influence over it or not. The objection with 4chan has always been that it is unbashfully tolerant to the right wing, which is why it is considered a high crime by some to associate with it. When doxing and incitement is in service of left wing goals instead, such objections evaporate like snow, and even major news outlets and papers happily indulge. Even the charge of "copium" is shameless projection, and the common response of accusing critics of "whataboutism" is typically meant to deflect that there is no salient difference between two similar situations, and no underlying principle guiding the value judgement being made, other than partisanship masquerading as empathy. 4chan's influence is an order of magnitude less than YouTube, TikTok, Reddit, etc. In Reddit's case in particular, it is easy to observe that major subreddits are ideologically captured and that the site is unrecognizable to those who remember its early days. By and large, this is allowed and encouraged. Under such hypocrisy, these progressive objections cannot be taken seriously.