AT&T Blocks 4chan

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JONJONAUG

So I come home from vacation and this pops up in my face.

And nothing of value was lost

Seems to be just the img server (/b/ and /r9k/).

4chan has since replied to this extremely stupid move by posting personal information of company execs and harassing the CEO of AT&T.
 
S

Steven Soderburgin

Yes, lol 4chan and all that shit, but this kind of thing makes me very nervous.
 
C

crono1224

Sounds like this could get ugly really fast, and that AT&T has no idea what they are up against, granted probably 90% of what 4channers will do will be illegal.

Lets see, if AT&T did this on purpose its a dick move and could have probably been slightly eased into if they warned.

4channers will more than likely make the arguements harder by giving AT&T a 'reason' to have this stuff blocked.
 

JONJONAUG said:
4chan has since replied to this extremely stupid move by posting personal information of company execs and harassing the CEO of AT&T.
Click to expand...
:eyeroll: Yes, because that's a perfectly rational, legal and mature response. Typical for 4chan, of course.

Honestly, it's tactics like that that colours me unsurprised by AT&T's move. Good on them.
 
Nile

Nile

Yes, censor the internet! God forbid the children see something harmful! Protect the children!

:facepalm: I don't like 4chan, but this is wrong.
 
Denbrought

Denbrought

Heh, read about this earlier today.

If AT&T wanted to start testing the net neutrality waters, I don't think they could've chosen many worse targets. I sense an ensuing shitstorm -_-
 
doomdragon6

doomdragon6

Staff member
"Hi, AT&T? I went to this website the other day. 4chan? I... don't really wanna go there again. Can you help me?"

"Sure, ma'am, we'll just block the website completely."

"Oh, thank you! Oh! Wait! What about all the other despicable sites on the internet? I mean, 4chan really is just a bunch of 14 year olds trying to look cool."

"Eh."
 
North_Ranger

North_Ranger

Staff member
bhamv3 said:
I don't use AT&T and I don't go to /b, but this makes me uncomfortable nonetheless.
Click to expand...
Admittedly, I'm feeling like this as well. I think it's a slippery slope when a service provider gets to nanny your Internet habits. Today it's 4chan, tomorrow the porn sites, the day after tomorrow... I dunno, people who think Dick Cheney's first name is oddly prophetic?
 
C

Chibibar

AT&T is testing the waters now and setting precedents. I mean it is 4chan so probably not going to be "too hard" to defend itself on that motion, but then that open the doors for all kinds of stuff AT&T CAN do later.....

Censorship across the board per AT&T rules.
 
Tress

Tress

I hate 4chan as much as anyone. I think their retaliation plans are retarded, and serving to prove AT&T's point.

...

Having said that, this is completely unacceptable on AT&T's part. I don't like 4chan, SO I CHOOSE NOT TO GO THERE. It's that simple. Blocking access to a place because you don't like it is inexcusable. I hope 4chan doesn't go too far, but AT&T really needs to be stopped on this one. Legally, of course. I don't condone illegal behavior on the part of 4chan users.
 
Nile

Nile

It's a short step from blocking generally offensive material to blocking politically offensive material. AT&T needs to undo this, or they're setting a monstrous precedent.

And good on the leaders telling them to keep it legal... They're at least trying to keep things clean.
 
@Li3n

@Li3n

HoboNinja said:
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/AT%26T_Blocks_4chan

They are telling people not to DDoS and do other stupid shit, they are trying to do it all legal. The CEO's contact info was posted so people can complain directly to him.
Click to expand...


“
AT&T has declared war on the internet
„


—Walter Cronkite after God asked what the latest news was.

:rofl:
 

Nile said:
Yes, censor the internet! God forbid the children see something harmful! Protect the children!

:facepalm: I don't like 4chan, but this is wrong.
Click to expand...
Agree. The furthest any ISP should be going along these lines is providing information or the tools themselves for parents to set up blocking at home, on an individual basis.
 
J

JONJONAUG

ZenMonkey said:
Nile said:
Yes, censor the internet! God forbid the children see something harmful! Protect the children!

:facepalm: I don't like 4chan, but this is wrong.
Click to expand...
Agree. The furthest any ISP should be going along these lines is providing information or the tools themselves for parents to set up blocking at home, on an individual basis.
Click to expand...
According to AT&T, they're blocking 4chan because the site gets DDoSed all the god damn time to the point where it's creating a major drag on everything else.
 
M

Mr_Chaz

ZenMonkey said:
Nile said:
Yes, censor the internet! God forbid the children see something harmful! Protect the children!

:facepalm: I don't like 4chan, but this is wrong.
Click to expand...
Agree. The furthest any ISP should be going along these lines is providing information or the tools themselves for parents to set up blocking at home, on an individual basis.
Click to expand...
I'm very conflicted about this one. I agree that ISPs have a duty to be neutral, and I stand by that. However they also have a duty to remove sources of illegal material such as paedophilia. So if the source is a mixed forum, where some of the content is illegal they start to have a problem, and they will have to look into new ways of combating it. I still think they've done the wrong thing, blocking the server is not the same as arranging for the material to be removed, especially on a mixed use site. But I also think that just saying "Censorship is wrong" is a bit too simplistic. I agree, but there are special cases. They just need to be very carefully regulates special cases, with specific protocols to follow to deal with them.
 
J

JCM

crono1224 said:
Sounds like this could get ugly really fast, and that AT&T has no idea what they are up against, granted probably 90% of what 4channers will do will be illegal.

Lets see, if AT&T did this on purpose its a dick move and could have probably been slightly eased into if they warned.

4channers will more than likely make the arguements harder by giving AT&T a 'reason' to have this stuff blocked.
Click to expand...
Cant say it wont be entertaining to see what anonymous does this time.

As long as they dont change the ringtone of AT&AT telephones to "Never let you down", that is.
 
Denbrought

Denbrought

Mr_Chaz said:
I'm very conflicted about this one. I agree that ISPs have a duty to be neutral, and I stand by that. However they also have a duty to remove sources of illegal material such as paedophilia. So if the source is a mixed forum, where some of the content is illegal they start to have a problem, and they will have to look into new ways of combating it. I still think they've done the wrong thing, blocking the server is not the same as arranging for the material to be removed, especially on a mixed use site. But I also think that just saying "Censorship is wrong" is a bit too simplistic. I agree, but there are special cases. They just need to be very carefully regulates special cases, with specific protocols to follow to deal with them.
Click to expand...
When CP gets posted on 4chan it gets deleted, along with a ban for everyone that wrote in the thread, normally. If suddenly a handful of trolls with proxies started posting child pornography here, and the mods were moving against it, would it justify blocking halforum off the internet? If not, the whole "mixed forum" argument rings hollow. Besides, the police should be handling this, not the isp.
 
M

Mr_Chaz

Denbrought said:
Mr_Chaz said:
I'm very conflicted about this one. I agree that ISPs have a duty to be neutral, and I stand by that. However they also have a duty to remove sources of illegal material such as paedophilia. So if the source is a mixed forum, where some of the content is illegal they start to have a problem, and they will have to look into new ways of combating it. I still think they've done the wrong thing, blocking the server is not the same as arranging for the material to be removed, especially on a mixed use site. But I also think that just saying "Censorship is wrong" is a bit too simplistic. I agree, but there are special cases. They just need to be very carefully regulates special cases, with specific protocols to follow to deal with them.
Click to expand...
When CP gets posted on 4chan it gets deleted, along with a ban for everyone that wrote in the thread, normally. If suddenly a handful of trolls with proxies started posting child pornography here, and the mods were moving against it, would it justify blocking halforum off the internet? If not, the whole "mixed forum" argument rings hollow. Besides, the police should be handling this, not the isp.
Click to expand...
Well yes I agree, as I said, they did the wrong thing, and there are third parties responsible for the protocols to follow. (And the deleting and banning is news to me, thanks!). I'm just questioning the general "censorship is wrong" statement, even though I agree with it. A slight devil's advocate I guess.
 
Denbrought

Denbrought

Mr_Chaz said:
Well yes I agree, as I said, they did the wrong thing, and there are third parties responsible for the protocols to follow. (And the deleting and banning is news to me, thanks!). I'm just questioning the general "censorship is wrong" statement, even though I agree with it. A slight devil's advocate I guess.
Click to expand...
Eh, for me it's more of a logical way of dealing with it. By aiming to a very hard to accomplish ideal, we may get the shots closer to a nicer place than if we were apathetic about it. And with ISPs... Grant 'em a yard and they'll pave a mile.
 
Covar

Covar

doomdragon6 said:
"Hi, AT&T? I went to this website the other day. 4chan? I... don't really wanna go there again. Can you help me?"

"Sure, ma'am, we'll just block the website completely."

"Oh, thank you! Oh! Wait! What about all the other despicable sites on the internet? I mean, 4chan really is just a bunch of 14 year olds trying to look cool."

"Eh."
Click to expand...
thats absurd.


AT&T doesn't have customer service that helpful.
 
MindDetective

MindDetective

I've no intention of defending AT&T here, but the question remains as to whether they are allowed to filter their service or not. In my opinion if there were decent alternatives to AT&T, then I'd say it doesn't matter and they can all duke it out for customer business by blocking or not blocking sites as they see fit. If AT&T is basically the only game in town for high speed internet, then it seems a bit unreasonable for them to decide what their customers want.
 
PatrThom

PatrThom

No. Just...no. Words can't describe just how dangerous of a precedent this could set. It's like saying, "Because Chavez is such a pain, all telephone service to Venezuela will be cut off," or "Since Cuba is a big hotbed of nasty Communism, all mail/FedEx/UPS/commerce will be stopped." It's not just censorship, it's a full-on Internet embargo. I don't care if they feature pics of a mighty sequoia pleasuring itself with a busload of pre-schoolers...if I don't want to see 'em, I just won't visit. It's not like you can 'accidentally' stumble over 4chan. Geez.

Let's see what the market thinks of this over the next week, hmm?

--Patrick
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top