[Bobboau]

graph of  MP-Ryan's recent contempt of 4chan:

                             _________
________            /
                \_____/

at least you looked into it.

[MP-Ryan]

You have waaaaaay too much time spent on the bottom of that graph. Frankly, that downtrend would be better represented as a |

[666maslo666]

Yes.

4chan - and the fact that it hosts /b/ in the first place - is a cesspool.  It is, in fact, the greatest argument in favour of anti-anonymity measures and censorship on the Internet.  Fortunately, those of us who fight for civil liberties don't use one example as a case for draconian measures, but it certainly is tempting some days.

8chan is, of course, even worse, not that anyone really thought that was possible until someone managed to go and do it.

4chan is not a good argument for censorship. There are sporadic credible terrorist threats or posts directly connected to serious criminal activity (tough this happens to a lesser degree on every major forum). But 99.9% of 4chan content, while often objectionable, does not warrant any anti-anonymity measures or censorship. 4chan grew to be one of the biggest sites on the internet, moderation is more strict than it used to be years ago, and I believe its reputation is now a lot worse than reality.

The best argument for anti-anonymity measures are sites where actual terrorists and their extremist friends tend to communicate.

[Bobboau]

**** like silk road

[MP-Ryan]

All of the things maslo just mentioned are already illegal and have [significant] law enforcement and intelligence resources aimed at them.  They are not an argument for anti-anonymity measures and censorship because they are already prohibited by law.  Notice the fellow [allegedly] responsible for Silk Road is presently on trial?

By contrast, and with the exception of the occasional child porn, most of the things posted on 4chan are perfectly legal, if abhorrent.  Ergo, it IS an argument in favour of anti-anonymity measures and censorship (even if it's an argument with which I happen to ultimately disagree).

[Bobboau]

they got what they deserved?

[666maslo666]

All of the things maslo just mentioned are already illegal and have [significant] law enforcement and intelligence resources aimed at them.  They are not an argument for anti-anonymity measures and censorship because they are already prohibited by law. 

But the point and justification of most proposed anti-anonymity measures (like dragnet surveillance, no warrant surveillance and data retention) is to help law enforcement enforce these existing laws. Terrorism being the biggest target. I dont see any reason why someone would use 4chan as a justification of those laws. As I said, most of the content, while objectionable, is usualy legal, so it doesnt make sense when there is much more serious stuff out there.

[Polpolion]

But the point and justification of most proposed anti-anonymity measures (like dragnet surveillance, no warrant surveillance and data retention) is to help law enforcement enforce these existing laws. Terrorism being the biggest target. I dont see any reason why someone would use 4chan as a justification of those laws. As I said, most of the content, while objectionable, is usualy legal, so it doesnt make sense when there is much more serious stuff out there.

The point of anti-anonymity measures is to not preclude the social consequences of your actions. If you want anonymous discussion (which is a perfectly good thing to want) the quality of discussion will generally turn to **** without real moderation.

Ergo, it IS an argument in favour of anti-anonymity measures and censorship (even if it's an argument with which I happen to ultimately disagree).

You seem have very little problems with the quality of content on HLP and I don't see any fundamental problems with censorious moderation here, what would be so bad about having moderation on 4chan as strict as here at HLP?

[Bobboau]

if you want to talk about lack of moderation, Twitter. Twitter is actually far less moderated than anything on 4chan. removing a post that has a racial slur in it is different than removing a bad post.

[MP-Ryan]

But the point and justification of most proposed anti-anonymity measures (like dragnet surveillance, no warrant surveillance and data retention) is to help law enforcement enforce these existing laws. Terrorism being the biggest target. I dont see any reason why someone would use 4chan as a justification of those laws. As I said, most of the content, while objectionable, is usualy legal, so it doesnt make sense when there is much more serious stuff out there.

4chan is used as a justification for making things that are presently legal into things that should be illegal. It is an argument *for* censorship - the most common example being rampant, unmoderated hate speech.  Again, not something I personally agree with but I see where proponents are coming from

You seem have very little problems with the quality of content on HLP and I don't see any fundamental problems with censorious moderation here, what would be so bad about having moderation on 4chan as strict as here at HLP?

Moderation is not censorship. I have no issue with moderation and community standards.  These things do not impede freedom of expression/thought/association.

if you want to talk about lack of moderation, Twitter. Twitter is actually far less moderated than anything on 4chan. removing a post that has a racial slur in it is different than removing a bad post.

Twitter has its issues, but they are working to improve the levels of moderation and eliminate harassment.  4chan.... not so much.

[Bobboau]

that's the thing though, 4chan does in fact have moderation, not a lot, but it's there. twitter is almost completely unmoderated.

[Mr. Vega]

that's the thing though, 4chan does in fact have moderation, not a lot, but it's there. twitter is almost completely unmoderated.

Because they're completely identical in degree of difficulty to moderate.

And I've seen with my own eyes that twitter is making a real effort to improve. There are also 3rd party anti-harrassment tools being created for it as well.

[Bobboau]

ok, so then we do not disagree in any meaningful way.

[666maslo666]

4chan is used as a justification for making things that are presently legal into things that should be illegal. It is an argument *for* censorship - the most common example being rampant, unmoderated hate speech.  Again, not something I personally agree with but I see where proponents are coming from

Frankly, as long as hate speech laws exist, I consider the existence of a huge forum with rampant hate speech almost an act of civil disobedience. 4chan (and 8chan) is a canary in a coal mine of our freedoms. It also makes the enforcement of such laws much harder in practice.

Not everything on the net needs to be moderated. There is a niche for sites with little moderation.

[The E]

Not everything on the net needs to be moderated. There is a niche for sites with little moderation.

As long as what happens on those boards stays confined to them, I have no problem with their existence. However, once it crosses the line and spills over into the world outside of the channer community (doxxing, swatting) it's much harder for me to agree with the stance that these places are somehow necessary for freedom of speech.

[karajorma]

4channer: This site needs to exist because of freedom of speech.
Sensible person: So why are you doxxing and swatting people?
4channer: They said something I didn't like!

[FrikgFeek]

Come now, you don't go around swatting people who say something you don't like, you only do it if you think their reaction might be really amusing. And if you want to talk about stuff like that, then TorChan is much worse than 4chan or 8chan.
4Chan really isn't as bad as it's reputation is, as long as you steer clear of /b/. I mean, nobody's forcing you to browse it. The anonymity means that all posts are judged only by their content, not some bs like "Karma" or how famous you are.

[The E]

Come now, you don't go around swatting people who say something you don't like, you only do it if you think their reaction might be really amusing.

Recent events seem to paint a different picture. Also, swatting in the US has turned from "annoying prank" to "potentially life-threatening situation", so claiming to do it only for the lulz makes it a bit disturbing, to say the least.

And if you want to talk about stuff like that, then TorChan is much worse than 4chan or 8chan.
4Chan really isn't as bad as it's reputation is, as long as you steer clear of /b/. I mean, nobody's forcing you to browse it. The anonymity means that all posts are judged only by their content, not some bs like "Karma" or how famous you are.

See, this is what I can't comprehend. This idea that attributability and recognition are bad or undesirable (and the entire variety of memes that spring from this) is completely alien to me.

[666maslo666]

4channer: This site needs to exist because of freedom of speech.
Sensible person: So why are you doxxing and swatting people?
4channer: They said something I didn't like!

Swatting people is illegal and has nothing to do with internet forum permissivness (its an action that happens in real life, not on the forums, it cannot be prevented by moderating forums more). But indeed, supporting such a thing as a revenge for speech would not be consistent with supporting freedom of speech.

When it comes to doxxing, its not logically inconsistent to support doxxing and freedom of speech at the same time, doxxing is nothing else than just releasing information on the forums after all (speech) - as long as you are okay with it in principle, not just when your opponents are the target, there is no double standard.

[The E]

When it comes to doxxing, its not logically inconsistent to support doxxing and freedom of speech at the same time, doxxing is nothing else than just releasing information on the forums after all (speech) - as long as you are okay with it in principle, not just when your opponents are the target, there is no double standard.

Doxxing is more than "just releasing information". The person posting the doxx shares responsibility for the actions of those using those doxx, whatever they may be.