4 ms·

While I can sort of see the funny side, I think this sort of crap is going to be the end of the Internet as we know it. It's just begging for the political and

While I can sort of see the funny side, I think this sort of crap is going to be the end of the Internet as we know it. It's just begging for the political and commercial powers that be to stamp down on the web with a great, big boot. Media corporations have already started demanding more control over the "distribution channel" that is the Internet. When the lobbying steps up, politicians aren't going to have to look very far for justification to give the corporations exactly what they want. </twocents>

jrockway 17y ago
It's just begging for the political and commercial powers that be to stamp down on the web with a great, big boot. No, this is the end of the ad-supported internet. Politics doesn't matter; the (US) government cannot legally censor anything, they've tried, it's been declared unconstitutional. Companies don't care what they're hosting, as long as they are getting rich. If they could legally make millions of dollars a year hosting child porn, they would. (They have no objection to polluting the environment or forcing workers to work in unsafe conditions, directly resulting in many deaths every day. Showing videos on the Internet is child's play compared to that.) However, it's the advertisers who will get upset, and then pull out. "Our product associated with porn being shown to children? Bye." With no advertising revenue, the web (as we know it) cannot exist. That means either censorship (too hard; "information wants to be free"), or actually paying money for content. FWIW, this is not unheard of. The big Japanese video sharing site, NicoNico Douga, requires everyone to pay. Even though it's not free, it's more popular than Youtube. In the end, the advertisers lose, and I think that's a good thing. I hate advertising. Media corporations have already started demanding more control over the "distribution channel" that is the Internet. They're demanding, but nobody cares about their demands. I know people whine about Hulu's restrictions, but I've never even visited Hulu and I still get all my TV online. It's called Usenet. You open your news reader, browse to alt.binaries.multimedia.tv-shows, or whatever, and download away. In 10 minutes, I have whatever show I want, in HD, with no restrictions. "Censorship is considered damage, and the Internet routes around it." The whole "let's punish file-sharers" thing has also backfired. Even governments with very weak personal protections (France, the UK) have struck down the disconnection laws. The Pirate Party has 17% of the vote in Sweeden (and large numbers in other EU countries, I think). Organizations in the US are suing the RIAA for its lawsuit intimidation campaign. The tide is shifting, and it's not towards the media industry's interests. Basically, now is not time for the media companies to demand anything. Nobody cares what they think. If creating content isn't profitable anymore, they should go into some other business and stop bothering everyone else.
- axod 17y ago
  Perhaps you mean "Advertising on UGC websites". And in that case, it's far more likely sites will just come up with better moderation tools to detect questionable content. Online advertising is crucial for the survival of the internet. I kinda like the fact most sites are free to visit. You can hate it all you like, but without it, most of the internet wouldn't exist. I hate people who hate advertising :/ It's irrational. It's like saying you hate 'money', 'commerce' or even 'information'
  - jrockway 17y ago
    I will define "hating advertising" as "liking the lack of advertising better". Fortunately, this is a decision I am free to make for myself. I can fast-forward through advertisements on television and block them on the Internet.
    - axod 17y ago
      meh. I find them really useful. Perhaps it's a hippy anti-consumerism thing I just don't understand?
  - sho 17y ago
    "Online advertising is crucial for the survival of the internet." Which internet? There was plenty of internet before ads became common. Without ads some other structure would arise. It might change a bit but the internet is here to stay. "I hate people who hate advertising :/ It's irrational." I don't see anything irrational about disliking insidious, manipulative marketing messages being shoved in your face whereever you look. In fact I find it completely rational, what are you talking about? I am guessing that you rely on advertising for your income, but surely you can see the other perspective. And saying that you "hate" people who hate advertising is pretty disturbing. update: corrected misquote
    - axod 17y ago
      OK, without ads, show me the business model for google, facebook, youtube, etc.
reedlaw 17y ago
It's already true in China where Youtube has been blocked for many weeks now. All new PCs will be required to have censorware installed by July. I enjoy using Youtube, but behavior like this helps justify the government's draconian measures, which is not so funny for the people who live here.
- gasull 17y ago
  You guys use Tor: http://tor.eff.org http://tor.eff.org And donate bandwidth if you can setting up a server (at least a middle server).
ComputerGuru 17y ago
(Update, posted here: http://bit.ly/l1Lvh http://bit.ly/l1Lvh) What funny side is that? I have never taken one of the attacks, defamations, etc. by people online personally nor felt in the least inclined to put an end to it all, but 4Chan strikes a nerve - what they do is pure, raw evil. I know I'm doing them a favor by posting this, that these are the very feelings they intend to elicit by their actions, but honestly, enough is enough. This is the 2nd time I am so appalled by their behavior, and one of the few times I am ashamed of the internet's privacy and the power of its denizens to do evil. The last time (http://bit.ly/qcWDC http://bit.ly/qcWDC) was when 4Chan attacked an epilepsy forum frequented by people susceptible to photosensitive seizures, causing a dozen epilepsy attacks by uploading rapidly-moving images and flashing colors to the forum, triggering a dozen attack. Willfully bringing about seizures in handicapped people and exposing children as young as 6 years old to wholly-explicit films of adult sex are E.V.I.L. .... and more importantly, punishable by law. I hope someone wises up in the legal community and takes action against this site. Like I said, I know this is the sort of self-righteous anger that 4Chan is looking forward to receiving after these attacks, but there's a line and they crossed it a long time ago. So, do tell, where's the funny side in this?
- cookieliaokai 17y ago
  (∩_∩)(∩_∩)♥♥__Sugarbabymeet.com__♥♥ This is the best place for looking for sexy ladies(younge&rich) dating relationship or marriage. Now,Join us totally free!(∩_∩)(∩_∩)
- sho 17y ago
  I was going to try to explain but seeing you use phrases like "pure, raw evil" to describe a couple of internet pranks makes me wonder if it's even possible. The epilepsy thing was going too far, I agree, and they haven't done anything like that since. But I don't see why this one is so bad, in fact when I saw the headline I grinned and thought "good old 4Chan, creating drama for the rest of us .." When I think "pure, raw evil" I think of nazi concentration camps and pleasure killers, etc. I cannot even begin to put these pranks into the same category. I don't see any reason whatsoever why it should be illegal. I just don't understand your reaction at all, basically. What is the problem?

jrockway 17y ago

It's just begging for the political and commercial powers that be to stamp down on the web with a great, big boot. No, this is the end of the ad-supported internet. Politics doesn't matter; the (US) government cannot legally censor anything, they've tried, it's been declared unconstitutional. Companies don't care what they're hosting, as long as they are getting rich. If they could legally make millions of dollars a year hosting child porn, they would. (They have no objection to polluting the environment or forcing workers to work in unsafe conditions, directly resulting in many deaths every day. Showing videos on the Internet is child's play compared to that.) However, it's the advertisers who will get upset, and then pull out. "Our product associated with porn being shown to children? Bye." With no advertising revenue, the web (as we know it) cannot exist. That means either censorship (too hard; "information wants to be free"), or actually paying money for content. FWIW, this is not unheard of. The big Japanese video sharing site, NicoNico Douga, requires everyone to pay. Even though it's not free, it's more popular than Youtube. In the end, the advertisers lose, and I think that's a good thing. I hate advertising. Media corporations have already started demanding more control over the "distribution channel" that is the Internet. They're demanding, but nobody cares about their demands. I know people whine about Hulu's restrictions, but I've never even visited Hulu and I still get all my TV online. It's called Usenet. You open your news reader, browse to alt.binaries.multimedia.tv-shows, or whatever, and download away. In 10 minutes, I have whatever show I want, in HD, with no restrictions. "Censorship is considered damage, and the Internet routes around it." The whole "let's punish file-sharers" thing has also backfired. Even governments with very weak personal protections (France, the UK) have struck down the disconnection laws. The Pirate Party has 17% of the vote in Sweeden (and large numbers in other EU countries, I think). Organizations in the US are suing the RIAA for its lawsuit intimidation campaign. The tide is shifting, and it's not towards the media industry's interests. Basically, now is not time for the media companies to demand anything. Nobody cares what they think. If creating content isn't profitable anymore, they should go into some other business and stop bothering everyone else.

axod 17y ago
Perhaps you mean "Advertising on UGC websites". And in that case, it's far more likely sites will just come up with better moderation tools to detect questionable content. Online advertising is crucial for the survival of the internet. I kinda like the fact most sites are free to visit. You can hate it all you like, but without it, most of the internet wouldn't exist. I hate people who hate advertising :/ It's irrational. It's like saying you hate 'money', 'commerce' or even 'information'
- jrockway 17y ago
  I will define "hating advertising" as "liking the lack of advertising better". Fortunately, this is a decision I am free to make for myself. I can fast-forward through advertisements on television and block them on the Internet.
  - axod 17y ago
    meh. I find them really useful. Perhaps it's a hippy anti-consumerism thing I just don't understand?
- sho 17y ago
  "Online advertising is crucial for the survival of the internet." Which internet? There was plenty of internet before ads became common. Without ads some other structure would arise. It might change a bit but the internet is here to stay. "I hate people who hate advertising :/ It's irrational." I don't see anything irrational about disliking insidious, manipulative marketing messages being shoved in your face whereever you look. In fact I find it completely rational, what are you talking about? I am guessing that you rely on advertising for your income, but surely you can see the other perspective. And saying that you "hate" people who hate advertising is pretty disturbing. update: corrected misquote
  - axod 17y ago
    OK, without ads, show me the business model for google, facebook, youtube, etc.

reedlaw 17y ago

It's already true in China where Youtube has been blocked for many weeks now. All new PCs will be required to have censorware installed by July. I enjoy using Youtube, but behavior like this helps justify the government's draconian measures, which is not so funny for the people who live here.

gasull 17y ago
You guys use Tor: http://tor.eff.org http://tor.eff.org And donate bandwidth if you can setting up a server (at least a middle server).

ComputerGuru 17y ago

(Update, posted here: http://bit.ly/l1Lvh http://bit.ly/l1Lvh) What funny side is that? I have never taken one of the attacks, defamations, etc. by people online personally nor felt in the least inclined to put an end to it all, but 4Chan strikes a nerve - what they do is pure, raw evil. I know I'm doing them a favor by posting this, that these are the very feelings they intend to elicit by their actions, but honestly, enough is enough. This is the 2nd time I am so appalled by their behavior, and one of the few times I am ashamed of the internet's privacy and the power of its denizens to do evil. The last time (http://bit.ly/qcWDC http://bit.ly/qcWDC) was when 4Chan attacked an epilepsy forum frequented by people susceptible to photosensitive seizures, causing a dozen epilepsy attacks by uploading rapidly-moving images and flashing colors to the forum, triggering a dozen attack. Willfully bringing about seizures in handicapped people and exposing children as young as 6 years old to wholly-explicit films of adult sex are E.V.I.L. .... and more importantly, punishable by law. I hope someone wises up in the legal community and takes action against this site. Like I said, I know this is the sort of self-righteous anger that 4Chan is looking forward to receiving after these attacks, but there's a line and they crossed it a long time ago. So, do tell, where's the funny side in this?

cookieliaokai 17y ago
(∩_∩)(∩_∩)♥♥__Sugarbabymeet.com__♥♥ This is the best place for looking for sexy ladies(younge&rich) dating relationship or marriage. Now,Join us totally free!(∩_∩)(∩_∩)
sho 17y ago
I was going to try to explain but seeing you use phrases like "pure, raw evil" to describe a couple of internet pranks makes me wonder if it's even possible. The epilepsy thing was going too far, I agree, and they haven't done anything like that since. But I don't see why this one is so bad, in fact when I saw the headline I grinned and thought "good old 4Chan, creating drama for the rest of us .." When I think "pure, raw evil" I think of nazi concentration camps and pleasure killers, etc. I cannot even begin to put these pranks into the same category. I don't see any reason whatsoever why it should be illegal. I just don't understand your reaction at all, basically. What is the problem?