8 ms·

A guy that has been using 4chan and other anonymous messageboards since he was 12 acts and thinks like a 4chan user. What a shock. I know it's not the same to

A guy that has been using 4chan and other anonymous messageboards since he was 12 acts and thinks like a 4chan user. What a shock. I know it's not the same to you, but if you look at the top 15 boards on 8chan, that list includes a board that Fredrick likely has no interest in (gay porn), boards full of users that he probably disagrees strongly with (/leftypol/, a left wing version of /pol/, and /christian/, iirc he is an athiest), and a community full of people that he personally cannot stand (/furry/). Maybe you wouldn't pay to provide a home for "gamergate jerks", but he doesn't seem to have a problem providing a home for a lot of people he dislikes or disagrees with. What is the difference between "enabling" and "not stopping" something? Is he "enabling" GamerGate because he supports it on his personal twitter account, or is he "enabling" it just for refusing to censor it on his site? Is he "enabling" /baphomet/ because he made some improvements to the site software that happened to fix a spam/flooding problem they had? Then is he not also "enabling" the /furry/ board that he developed a CAPTCHA option specifically for, due to the constant attacks of one dedicated spammer that board received? Or does "enabling" just mean "allowing something I dislike"?

pjc50 12y ago
I would say "enabling" applies to all of those examples apart from supporting it on twitter, which counts as "supporting".
vertex-four 12y ago
If you own a media site (or, let's say, a newspaper), you're very much responsible for what's on it. If you believe in free speech to the point that you'll publish anything anyone wants to say to your audience, then you're very much enabling them and responsible for anything that happens as a result of publishing that.
- current_call 12y ago
  Image boards aren't like newspapers or blogs. All content is user generated.
  - vertex-four 12y ago
    You're still giving them a platform to do so - it doesn't matter the exact details of how much is user-generated and how much isn't. If you allowed anybody in the world to put an ad in your newspaper, for example, you would be responsible when ISIS use it as a recruitment or propaganda tool - they wouldn't have that reach otherwise. Same with imageboards, reddit, or HN.
    - marvin 12y ago
      Same with VPS servers. Same with internet infrastructure; hubs, switches and fiber. Or ultimately any physical area in which people uttering heresy and atrocious opinions stay while uttering them (the latter point would ultimately be of concern to any owner of private property, or the state itself in the case of common public property). How are these distinct from imageboards, forums or reddit? This is a very slippery slope which implies censorship from the very beginning. Are you prepared to follow your reasoning all the way to its conclusion and stop people from having any platform for speaking their mind? Once you go there, you no longer have freedom of speech, which I agree with Hitchens et al. has to be protected even when it is uncomfortable. I agree that there is a very tricky ethical case when it comes to harrassment or terrorism, but I have no good ideas on how to resolve it. We should err on the side of not censoring stuff we don't like.
      - vertex-four 12y ago
        > Are you prepared to follow your reasoning all the way to its conclusion and stop people from having any platform for speaking their mind? No, that's not the conclusion. The conclusion is that the providers are responsible for it and are definitely enabling it, but sometimes that's better than the alternative. Not everything's black and white, unfortunately. I'm not entirely certain that unrestricted use of a popular destination is the same thing as unrestricted use of a transport, though, to try and figure out a place where the line should be put. If you have an audience and allow people to reach that audience with dangerous and harmful ideas, that's likely worse than giving them the transport to build their own audience.
- vinalia 12y ago
  If you want to create an analogy, I think chans are more like user group meetings that happen in public spaces (e.g. a public park). Nobody would kick members out of the park because they heard that they're pro-ISIS (that's just their opinion). However, display of illegal content or illegal actions would get members removed via someone calling the cops. Off topic comments that detract from the spirit of the group could also get members suspended or kicked out of the group permanently. Is it up to park police to monitor the user groups? Sure, but they cannot take action unless it violates the law.

pjc50 12y ago

I would say "enabling" applies to all of those examples apart from supporting it on twitter, which counts as "supporting".

vertex-four 12y ago

If you own a media site (or, let's say, a newspaper), you're very much responsible for what's on it. If you believe in free speech to the point that you'll publish anything anyone wants to say to your audience, then you're very much enabling them and responsible for anything that happens as a result of publishing that.

current_call 12y ago
Image boards aren't like newspapers or blogs. All content is user generated.
- vertex-four 12y ago
  You're still giving them a platform to do so - it doesn't matter the exact details of how much is user-generated and how much isn't. If you allowed anybody in the world to put an ad in your newspaper, for example, you would be responsible when ISIS use it as a recruitment or propaganda tool - they wouldn't have that reach otherwise. Same with imageboards, reddit, or HN.
  - marvin 12y ago
    Same with VPS servers. Same with internet infrastructure; hubs, switches and fiber. Or ultimately any physical area in which people uttering heresy and atrocious opinions stay while uttering them (the latter point would ultimately be of concern to any owner of private property, or the state itself in the case of common public property). How are these distinct from imageboards, forums or reddit? This is a very slippery slope which implies censorship from the very beginning. Are you prepared to follow your reasoning all the way to its conclusion and stop people from having any platform for speaking their mind? Once you go there, you no longer have freedom of speech, which I agree with Hitchens et al. has to be protected even when it is uncomfortable. I agree that there is a very tricky ethical case when it comes to harrassment or terrorism, but I have no good ideas on how to resolve it. We should err on the side of not censoring stuff we don't like.
    - vertex-four 12y ago
      > Are you prepared to follow your reasoning all the way to its conclusion and stop people from having any platform for speaking their mind? No, that's not the conclusion. The conclusion is that the providers are responsible for it and are definitely enabling it, but sometimes that's better than the alternative. Not everything's black and white, unfortunately. I'm not entirely certain that unrestricted use of a popular destination is the same thing as unrestricted use of a transport, though, to try and figure out a place where the line should be put. If you have an audience and allow people to reach that audience with dangerous and harmful ideas, that's likely worse than giving them the transport to build their own audience.
vinalia 12y ago
If you want to create an analogy, I think chans are more like user group meetings that happen in public spaces (e.g. a public park). Nobody would kick members out of the park because they heard that they're pro-ISIS (that's just their opinion). However, display of illegal content or illegal actions would get members removed via someone calling the cops. Off topic comments that detract from the spirit of the group could also get members suspended or kicked out of the group permanently. Is it up to park police to monitor the user groups? Sure, but they cannot take action unless it violates the law.