Has the **** hit the fan?

[GorgeousGabe]

http://www.nowpublic.com/tech-biz/t-blocks-4chan-org-prepares-will

My friend is organizing a small protest in NYC. Anyone else hear about this? Anyone else doing anything?

[Mr. Ron]

wait, people are actually upset that 4chan was down?

[Meatplow]

i clicked on this thread fully expecting this to be the topic

apart from questions of censorship i couldn't give a damn about the "asshole of the internet" as it is affectionately known

[GorgeousGabe]

It's more about network neutrality to me

I don't like the idea that a service provider should have the power to censor public access to the internet

[Against Miik!]

Well the internet is technically a product. I mean, the average user cannot access the internet from home w/o a service provider. So I guess the providers should be able to package the product any way they please. However, as long as the government steers clear with regulations, and as long as the various ISPs compete instead of collaborate like cell phone companies, then the market should take over on this one.

FWI I'm not talking about the 4chan thing specifically. I don't really care about that. I'm talking about an unfortunate inevitability seen here:

http://skeptisys.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/5z6vt4n3.jpg

[iamtherobots]

I never thought of that. If that ever happens I am going to cry.

[Against Miik!]

I would cry if caps became common place in the US. The average is like 40 gb a month. Jeez I would breeze through that I think (rhyme lol)

[siva_chair]

Well the internet is technically a product. I mean, the average user cannot access the internet from home w/o a service provider. So I guess the providers should be able to package the product any way they please.

This.

/thread

[PunkItUp]

i have att and just tried it. its vv slow. i wouldn't know if its ordinarily slow bcuz i don't use 4chan

seems silly if true with all the 1000's of other offensive sites out there. i think maybe 4chan is becoming a bit more "mainstream" or accepted and some in politics and churches are starting to draw the line. or trying to make an example or statement. and maybe att has recieved some complaints. still not their responsibility to censor. and what of the other "chan" sites out there? some with highly questionable content so far as legality is concerned?

seems wacky. i have att but i won't call them on it. now if i used the site i would have to. but otherwise, meh

hold on brb

k back

phew that was close. they got 4chan but good 'ol fapchan is up and running strong. so i'm good :)

[Against Miik!]

I think people have serious misconceptions about the freedoms we have in the United States. As far as I understand it, the 1st amendment refers to government persecution (not sure if thats the right word but you get the idea). If the federal government was restricting access to 4chan via the ISPs, then we'd have a different story. That is obviously not the case though. AT&T banned it, and in theory, if someone doesn't like it, they can go to another provider. In practice, however, people can't do that, because ISPs tend to dominate certain markets, which is unfortunate. For example, there is no legitimate service provider in my area besides Time Warner.

[PunkItUp]

i think some of the MX staff should apply for jobs at att. they would agree on many things!

[LostChild]

lolol

[iamtherobots]

The concept of blocking access to a specific site completely contradicts the concept of network neutrality...

[Against Miik!]

Yes net neutrality is a good thing

[Against Miik!]

Net neutrality means free of restrictions, so we don't have crap like this or that picture I posted.

[Aaron]

protip: the first amendment doesn't apply to private property
protip: the internet is international

[PunkItUp]

protip: www

ok i just wanted to use the phrase protip

[Against Miik!]

The US is kind of the de facto "controller" of the internet. Theres been a bit of debate about that last few years actually.

[PunkItUp]

well al gore invented it so yeah

[suspect device]

4chan just needs to pay at&t to provide access

[lukeskywalkertakingadump6]

Hmm I can't get on 4chan either (in texas.)

[lukeskywalkertakingadump6]

no net neutrality means providing an equal quality of service without discriminating against certain subsets of websites or types of traffic

are you really this stupid? They are discriminating againt 4chan you moron.

[GorgeousGabe]

I'm afraid of the internet turning into TV

Once the flow of information is controlled, the public is forced to consume information straight out of the hands of corporations who clearly have agendas. If you disagree with me, then start asking yourself- why 4chan?

I don't think AT&T will win. I honestly believe that 4chan is more powerful than AT&T and will sabotage this plan to high heavens within the week.

But AT&T has pretty much started the network neutrality battle with this move. And what if other service providers go down the same road? And what if they win?? What if they establish that they absolutely CAN get away with blocking or restricting access to any content that they wish?

And then there's the next step. . . which is providing faster access to certain websites over others, and giving faster access to certain customers over others.

Access to the internet shouldn't be allowed to be regulated- service providers are allowing you access to an entity that they do not own, and thus they should not be able to control it either.

[Anglachel]

jesus **** why is gabe allowed to post its hurting my eyes

[Meatplow]

I heard they didn't block the website due to its content though, it was allegedly blocked because the site is a constant target of DDoS attacks that were routed through AT&T servers and their bandwidth was spiraling out of control.

Is this just smart business sense in practice and not censorship? Maybe smart isn't the right word given 4chan and its notoriety but y'know what I mean.

[lukeskywalkertakingadump6]

I'm afraid of the internet turning into TV

Once the flow of information is controlled, the public is forced to consume information straight out of the hands of corporations who clearly have agendas. If you disagree with me, then start asking yourself- why 4chan?

I don't think AT&T will win. I honestly believe that 4chan is more powerful than AT&T and will sabotage this plan to high heavens within the week.

But AT&T has pretty much started the network neutrality battle with this move. And what if other service providers go down the same road? And what if they win?? What if they establish that they absolutely CAN get away with blocking or restricting access to any content that they wish?

And then there's the next step. . . which is providing faster access to certain websites over others, and giving faster access to certain customers over others.

Access to the internet shouldn't be allowed to be regulated- service providers are allowing you access to an entity that they do not own, and thus they should not be able to control it either.

I agree.

[GorgeousGabe]

Well it is censorship. Regardless of whether you think it's good business or not- it is also censorship

[Jude]

There will always be a market for unrestricted internet and therefore there will always be a supplier for it

Even if the big companies get together to restrict it, it only takes once defector to start selling internet to everyone who doesn't like that

[PunkItUp]

this is true. it would take major FCC regulation or some crap to cap the internet. i can't see that happening but American's are kinda stupid these days so you never know

i have att and will now travel to 4chan to investigate

[TerranYouApart]

at&t unblocked it. it's over.

[PunkItUp]

NOW ALL OF YOU CENSORSHIP ALARMISTS STFU

From 4Chan....


For the past three weeks, 4chan has been under a constant DDoS attack. We were able to filter this specific type of attack in a fashion that was more or less transparent to the end user.

Unfortunately, as an unintended consequence of the method used, some Internet users received errant traffic from one of our network switches. A handful happened to be AT&T customers.

In response, AT&T filtered all traffic to and from our img.4chan.org IPs (which serve /b/ & /r9k/) for their entire network, instead of only the affected customers. AT&T did not contact us prior to implementing the block. Here is their statement regarding the matter.

In the end, this wasn't a sinister act of censorship, but rather a bit of a mistake and a poorly executed, disproportionate response on AT&T's part. Whoever pulled the trigger on blackholing the site probably didn't anticipate [nor intend] the consequences of doing so.

We're glad to see this short-lived debacle has prompted renewed interest and debate over net neutrality and internet censorship—two very important issues that don't get nearly enough attention—so perhaps this was all just a blessing in disguise.

Aside from that, I'll also add that there is some big news due later this week. Keep an eye on the News page, Twitter, and global message for updates.

As always, I can be reached at moot@4chan.org.

---

PS: If any companies would like to hook us up with some better hardware, feel free! The architecture we've got powering this large and influential beast is really quite embarrassing. ( ._.)

[Meatplow]

Well it is censorship. Regardless of whether you think it's good business or not- it is also censorship

I don't think so somehow. It feels blown out of proportion as some symbolic suppression of freedom when really it would seem the business has no concerns on this matter apart from their bandwidth being taken away causing problems for their business practices and other customers.

They blocked one troublesome page of a completely tasteless website to attempt to meet this end. Personally, why anybody would be desperate to be able to access it is beyond me. I would understand if it was preventing google results or a controversial website such as wikileaks where filtering its content would make freedom of speech a real concern, but in this matter its a bunch of pedobear pictures, that stupid ****ing dog spinning with the flashing colours and a bunch of guys jacking it requesting nudes.

You could argue that this is going to lead on to other, more important battles against these fascist tyrants for online freedom, foot in the door etc. well maybe. We'll cross that bridge when we come to it, as for now it seems to be completely misinterpreted and another excuse for a bunch of people who evidently like to cause trouble to find something to justify their bullpoop with. Just with the support of y'know, people who actually think they are fighting a good cause this time.

In any case hardcore 4channer's know how to use a proxy I am sure. Also, PunkItUp's post just edged in before mine.

[Maxibon]

its their network they can do whatever they want you dont have a right to the internet and you shouldnt have one

[TerranYouApart]

it is the principle, meatplow.

[Meatplow]

it would seem sticking to your guns out of "principle", "pride", and any other related concepts that seem to denote a blind persistence just bcuz can get people stuck on some decidedly loopy arguments at times

[P13]

This is will be a good thing for most of the posters

[DeckerDontPlay]

communism

[suspect device]

isps will buy all the content aggregators and the question will if you want 4chan to appear as a line item on your telco bill.

[GorgeousGabe]

its their network they can do whatever they want you dont have a right to the internet and you shouldnt have one

Well that's where I disagree... I think I should have that right; it is up to a particular website itself to grant or deny access to its content

The internet as a whole should absolutely be public and free.

A service provider has to charge me for bandwidth but what I'm paying them isn't a ****ing toll to enter the internet.

ISPs do not own the internet

And nobody should have the right to censor things that they do not own or control

[Maxibon]

oh so you think you should have the right to force someone to give you stuff i see

[GorgeousGabe]

No. . . I pay for access to the internet.

I should not have to pay for the specifics of the content on it. It is publicly accessible information

[siva_chair]

No. . . I pay for access to the internet.

I should not have to pay for the specifics of the content on it. It is publicly accessible information

I pay for a bus ticket. The places I want to go aren't on the bus route but are publicly accessible places. Therefore, I have the right to force the bus company to take me to those places.

[Maxibon]

No. . . I pay for access to the internet.
No you pay for the service outlined in your contract with your ISP. Maybe you should read it.

I should not have to pay for the specifics of the content on it. It is publicly accessible information
It's not publicly accessible if it's on private property, or if you have to go through private property to get to it.

[DBoons Ghost]

Holy crap is Gabe stupid.