As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
AT&T Blocked 4chan - Censorship?
Glyph
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
It's been reported that AT&T, along with Cogent Communications, have begun blocking the popular internet website known as 4chan.org. The exact reasons behind this ban are as of yet unknown, although AT&T has confirmed that they are “currently blocking portions of the internet site 4chan.org,” but states that they are “following the practices of their policy department.”
http://www.centralgadget.com/att-blocking-access-to-portions-of-4chan-2336/
Could this be the beginning of the end for the final bastion of free speech worldwide that is the internet? Is anyone safe? Could you be next? Is freedom truly free? Only time will be the ultimate determinant variable.
UPDATE: Some boards have been restored while others remain inaccessible.
UPDATE: Not censorship.
http://www.centralgadget.com/att-blocking-access-to-portions-of-4chan-2336/
Could this be the beginning of the end for the final bastion of free speech worldwide that is the internet? Is anyone safe? Could you be next? Is freedom truly free? Only time will be the ultimate determinant variable.
UPDATE: Some boards have been restored while others remain inaccessible.
UPDATE: Not censorship.
Glyph on
0
Posts
damnit
I dunno. It may be the internet's Mos Eisley, but I'm not hot on restricting access to internet sites. I'm not aware how valid the "slippery slope" concept is in this situation, but I'd be wary of it coming to fruition.
Sigh.
To say nothing of the assumption that 4chan is one monolithic entity, "I do not like this" is not valid grounds for censorship.
Also, as far as I hear, this was done due to there being a DDoS using AT&T connections, causing large congestion.
Edit: http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1315881&cid=28833573 describes another ISP that's blocked connections from 4chan, quite likely due to an attack against 4chan meaning the site's servers flooding AT&T's pipes.
Old PA forum lookalike style for the new forums | My ko-fi donation thing.
That just wreaks of censorship. Censorship that they should have no control over.
What justification do they have for doing that? I'm guessing that their reasoning is that users sometimes put offensive, or illegal content onto the website. But by that logic, every website should be blocked due to the occasional troll.
Congratulations sir, you've described the Internet in general.
I've seen people spam beastiality, amputee pornography, and other horrors on the Penny Arcade forums. By your reasoning, we should be blocked as well. I don't think a forum, a place that relies on users to generate all content, should be judged based on the actions of a few unsavory individuals.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Yup. All will be well in a day or two.
Though, if that's the case, I don't know why AT&T didn't just disconnect the services of the people performing the DDOS.
Edit: Damn, was a few minutes too late.
That's because 4chan is indirectly the problem.
Well, it's inconvenient, but the point stands. If, of course, this is actually being done to block the website, and not for other reasons.
On the other hand, if the reports of it being a response to DDOS attacks are true then is there anything about this that could be about censorship?
There is nothing I would rather see than that website being cast into the eight circle of hell.
No? I said it wasn't surprising that they were blocked.
There's a difference between dumb people posting shit (which happens everywhere on the 'net), and sites dedicated to dumb people posting shit (certain areas of 4chan). Note that they aren't blocking the entire site.
Also, as has been pointed out, AT&T are in their full right to ban something if they consider it against their policy. This is not a cease & desist letter. I don't agree with internet censorship at all, but I absolutely think it is to be expected from several of the major ISPs.
It's just bad PR, is all. If this is genuine censorship, then AT&T is in the wrong. I just wish the argument didn't entail justifying 4chan to people.
O RLY?
The entire internet hates each other. If a million votes could destroy a website forever, no popular website would ever exist.
And what if they feel like Skype takes too much traffic that they don't get paid for by Skype and decide to block that traffic unless you pay an extra 5 dollars per month?
This is why it is so very important that we support 4chan here.
Yes, because you're either with the epic lulz or against them. Clearly these are the only possible opinions to have.
look, we all know 4chan is for bad people, but!
Than AT&T costumers will hopefully realise that AT&T, in this scenario, are being idiots and hop over to another ISP which would hopefully be smart enough to reel them in to their non restricted internet.
On the other hand, while this isn't what you're going for, I imagine they couldn't legally charge people money to use what is normally a free service brought out by another company.
It is simple, it's their service that they are providing to you. If they want to restric their service, then they have every right to. Just as you, the costumer, have every right to go to a non-restricted ISP. Granted, through contracts and agreements there are limitations to what they and you can do. As well, it would be a horrible businiess decision to do this for the intent of mandating what is or is not seen by their customer's on their service.
I find it highly unlikely that any ISP would seriously consider blocking websites, as it is really easy to get around it and going after a group like 4chan just spells disaster. The last thing the internet needs is for 4chan.org and all it's glory to be put on the 5-o-clock news.
What? 'An R18 site where you post what you want anonymously'? I can understand being offended with what it has become, but there's not much wrong with the site in and of itself, it's the userbase.
kpop appreciation station i also like to tweet some
I think the obvious conclusion is if they were they blocking 4chan because they didn't like the site, that would be one thing. Temporarily blocking them to stop DDOS attacks is what a company should do in that situation.
If they do this they lose their legal protection as a common carrier. Which is why the postal service doesn't go through your mail to throw away stuff they don't like.
The postal service is a government office, not a business. I mean I get what you're getting at but they're held to higher standards.
So? Businesses are still held to that standard.
Have you ever been on 4chan? I'm sure that something on that site violates the AT&T terms of service. they're will within their legal rights to block whatever they want.
This is exactly the kind of thinking that is absolutely wrong.
4chan is atrocious horseshit to you, but to the people that frequent it, it's interesting, fun, and a way of life.
By way of analogy, what if an extremist religious group were to take notice of the amount of conversation regarding sex/birth control/etc that goes on in penny-arcade's H/A section and were able to secure a block to all penny-arcade related domain names on grounds of moral outrage?
I realize it wouldn't happen here, but I think the fucking cliche in this instance is as such for a good reason;
You can't mail illegal drugs, bombs, etc etc can you? that would be there argument.
This is exactly what popped up in my mind when the "oh, you can just switch to a different provider" and "oh, it's easy to bypass anyway" arguments appeared.
Vo1taire: I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Anonymous: homo.
Anonymous: lulz
Anonymous: Pedobear approves
Anonymous: EPIC lulz
Anonymous: ur gay
Anonymous: French people suck
Anonymous: EPIC FAILZORZ
Anonymous: 1st
Terms of service? Websites aren't the costumers.
There is a definite difference between "Our rights are being impaired, our freedom of speech is being repressed and we need to do something about it" and "AT&T has decided to excersize their rights as a service provider (whether they actually have those rights or not)".
If a business decided to do this, in our market, there are always alternatives. It is not always as simple as just calling up another service provider and getting your uncensored internets again, but a company that hinders its customers in unneccesarry ways will not be a company for long. It is just business suicide to not try to become a better/cheaper service when there are other brands who will sweep in for you costumers in an instant if the difference between them becomes big enough.
Something I'm not sure on though. I know in other areas that internet laws are very very far behind the times, so how are the laws regarding this sort of thing? Say, in the scenario, they claim it is because of DDOS attacks yet is simply just because they want to block 4chan.org, are we still at a stage that trying to deal with this could just be a big clusterfuck of "So... we don't have any laws for this... what next?"
This brings up the question of if the consumer is responsible for what they view and download or not, and how this relates to the ToS.
If AT&T owned the servers 4chan's database is stored on, I can see them calling the tune of their site being okay or not. They don't get to call the tune of who can access the site though. An ISP provides connectivity to the net and some sort of email service that nobody uses 'cause they're gonna go with gmail anyway. That's it. If anyone is going to say they can regulate what sites people access due to content (and not a matter of copyright issues) they can post up the legalize from AT&T itself.
I recognize a slippery slope when I see one, and I fight any attempt to even tread down that path as soon as it's suggested.
This is the USA we're talking about. When it comes to IT infrastructure, it's practically a third-world country. There aren't always alternatives. Around these parts I can hook my network up to the hole in the wall and get a menu in my browser and pick any of a dozen providers with various plans and have them activate my connection within five minutes, but the US is packed full of areas where there's only one single service provider available.
And what if all the big companies are talking about doing it together, precisely because customers might jump ship? They have been talking about it. For a long time.
I'm pretty sure their ToS doesn't say anything about not being able to look at hentai or whatever else they've got on there.
And "going without internet for a few years in hopes that the company will learn to change its ways or that another company will set up in your region that doesn't do the same thing" is not a working alternative.