Australia blocks 4chan, 8chan, Liveleak, others

ohnonotgmail

Hector Savage wrote: »

I used to use 4Chan years ago for nudey lady pics, I never even realised it had any of this ****, most of the content I saw on it was harmless.
Just like a messy reddit.

Banning it gives it the impression to the uninformed that it's some kind of seedy evil place used only by weirdos that are one step away from becoming mass killers.

the ban on 4chan was lifted before the article in the OP was published.

Boggles

Deleted User wrote: »

Again, you've hit the nail on the head. We were all saying that a video of child execution was the exact same thing as a song.

Thank heavens you are here to put us straight...

It was your nonsensical analogy.

I can't take any credit for it.

Boggles

Boggles wrote: »

It was your nonsensical analogy.

I can't take any credit for it.

The analogy made sense. I can't be held accountable for your pedantry or wilful misrepresentation.

Baggly

Mod

Lads, step away from the computer, take a breather, and come back to post without the sniping and snide comments. Both of ye.

JDD

I never understand this whole "but it's an affwont to ma fwee speech" bollocks.

You know what your right to free speech means? You won't be jailed to saying what you want to say. That's it. It doesn't mean that a private company (Telstra) has to provide you with a platform for your random musings. They can take down and put up whatever they like. They're like Penguin Books - they're under no obligation to publish your ****.

You want keep reading/posting on 4chan? Well, find a different provider and keep doing it. If there's enough of you, the free market will find a way. Will 4chan take the content down? Probably not. Australia's not a huge market in the scale of things. Their USP is non-censorship. That being said, if more providers decide to make the same choice they'll have markedly less traffic, which equals markedly less advert revenue, and given they barely break even there'd have to be lot more donations to make up for it. They may, in the end, have no choice.

jimgoose

To those crying over their weird version of "free speech" - you can have it when I have the right to give you a shot into the mouth for being a prick. That is all.

markodaly

Boggles wrote: »

I don't really see the outrage.

Take down the video showing children being executed and we will remove the temporary ban.

It's more than reasonable.

As has been pointed out, liveleak removed it within hours and it wasn't even hosted on zerohedge, yet they were blocked.

Meanwhile Facebook, the originator of the video exempt?

Boggles

markodaly wrote: »

As has been pointed out, liveleak removed it within hours and it wasn't even hosted on zerohedge, yet they were blocked.

I'm sure the ISPs would be more privy to what traffic is going between the sites, anyway they will be unblocked if they haven't been all ready.

markodaly wrote: »

Meanwhile Facebook, the originator of the video exempt?

No they weren't, the originator of the video was the scum bag who filmed it and uploaded it.

Facebook are actively trying to remove it from it's platforms, with the help of agencies including the Police.

Again the ISP are trying to get companies hosting videos or links of children been executed to remove those videos and links, when they do they will be unbanned.

I don't really see the problem. Surely it's only a good thing.

Fight the Powwwah, Fraydam of Speeeeech, cage rattling aside.

markodaly

Boggles wrote: »

Glad you find it funny. The poster in question couldn't fathom why something would be censored.

He does now.

Remind away. Good Lad.

You really dont get it, are maybe you do but want to stir the pot a bit.

This is not censoring something, this is blocking an entire website, some of whom never hosted the content in the first place.

It's like telling a newspaper it cannot go to print on a Thursday because it wrote an objectionable article defaming someone on Monday. It's taking a jackhammer to a problem.

On 4chan, if a thread falls past page 10, it disappears forever. Like if After Hours only had 10 pages of threads.

It doesn't really matter anyway. It's an anonymous site. You can't stop it being posted, just like someone could do with this site with some more effort.


And it doesn't host videos. It hosts images and links. If I posted the link to the video here, that's all 4chan does. 4chan got banned for linking to other sites basically, much like Google. Facebook actually hosts it.

Richard Hillman

Liveleak had absolutely tons of ISIS, Al Qaeda and other Islamic extremist videos of executions, tortures etc. This suddenly happens and now they are banned??? (even though they claim they do not have the video).

You do have wonder about the power shift in the world.

jmayo

RWCNT wrote: »

Looking forward to DS or Auntie Semite or another of the weird far right people that have been infesting AH over the last few months to wade in here decrying this gross act of censorship and affront to muh freeze peach.

If AH ever became a board dedicated to nothing but crypto-fashy memes and a ticking timebomb for radicalising neckbeards Id want it taken down as well. This **** cant be called "just a joke" anymore.

WTF
And what about posters who would have said they agree with suicide bombers ?
And yes there were some on this site in the past.

ChikiChiki wrote: »

Despite having a savage quality of life Australia compensates for that by being the ultimate nanny state. There a laws and rules for everything. This is ironic for a country founded by convicts.

Ever think that is why they have had so many laws and rules ?

BTW it wasn't really founded by convicts.
A lot of them were just normal people who were a threat to the British in Ireland or poor people in Britain.

Wibbs wrote: »

Not really F. Always follow the money. Nothing will happen with Google either and you can use them to search for this kinda stuff and more. Ditto for WhatsApp where apparently this video of this horror is being shared. Plus the general public will be grand with censorship of sites they've likely never heard of and think somebody's doing something, but will baulk at not being able to upload their cat pics to their granny on Facebook.

This is what gets me.
The real offenders here are Facefook, youtube, whatsapp and no they target sites that are less used and less well known.

I do agree that internet social media sites need to be brought into line.
They have gotten away with facilitating bullying of children, dissemination of horrific videos by the likes of ISIS and nothing was done about them.
And even now nothing is being done to them.

Yeah lets pick on a few outliers and leave the big guys alone.

Hector Savage wrote: »

I used to use 4Chan years ago for nudey lady pics,

And here was me always thinking it was just for neo nazis or white supremacists.

I must do some research into this 4chan.

Boggles

markodaly wrote: »

It's like telling a newspaper it cannot go to print on a Thursday because it wrote an objectionable article defaming someone on Monday. It's taking a jackhammer to a problem.

It's not though is it, it's not even close.

If the paper had published child abuses images then I imagine you would have no problem with enforced censorship?

http://www.4chan.org


It's really not hard to see how it works. Go to Misc and Click Random. That's the famed /b/. NSFW.

markodaly

Boggles wrote: »

I'm sure the ISPs would be more privy to what traffic is going between the sites, anyway they will be unblocked if they haven't been all ready.

Ah, nothing to see folks.

There was a link posted on AH linking to this shooters manifesto. As a former mod, would you think it would then OK if an ISP decided to block all traffic to the entire boards.ie website for a number of days because of that link?

No they weren't, the originator of the video was the scum bag who filmed it and uploaded it.

Livestreamed it.... on facebook...

Again the ISP are trying to get companies hosting videos or links of children been executed to remove those videos and links, then they do they will be unbanned.

I posted a tweet from the founder of liveleak giving you some facts about this. They removed the video within hours on Friday, yet on Tuesday night, the ISP's decided to block them...
Facebook still has content on its platform.

I don't really see the problem. Surely it's only a good thing.

If you want to live in some totalitarian state perhaps.

Fight the Powwwah, Fraydam of Speeeeech, cage rattling aside.

Ah, you are a troll. Well, carry on so.

Cienciano

Wibbs wrote: »

Not really F. Always follow the money. Nothing will happen with Google either and you can use them to search for this kinda stuff and more. Ditto for WhatsApp where apparently this video of this horror is being shared. Plus the general public will be grand with censorship of sites they've likely never heard of and think somebody's doing something, but will baulk at not being able to upload their cat pics to their granny on Facebook.

Exactly. They go and ban Liveleak who won't show the video and ban people who upload it. But leave the guys who live streamed it. Go after a few easy targets to keep the Australian version of Joe Duffy listeners happy.

The fact that more people on boards are happy about this is slightly worrying. An ISP deciding what you can and can't access? Fúck that.

markodaly

Boggles wrote: »

It's not though is it, it's not even close.

If the paper had published child abuses images then I imagine you would have no problem with enforced censorship?

Newspaper publish all kinds of photos. Remember the photos of Alan Kurdi?

This was plastered on newspapers all around the world. But when its a newspaper that does it, it's OK I guess.

MOD: Picture edited out.

Baggly

Mod

I understand the context but no need to put that picture up. Frankly its distressing at least and also not really conducive to this discussion continuing. Make your points without insults please, and leave out the distressing pics from separate incidents.

Thanks.

Boggles

markodaly wrote: »

Ah, nothing to see folks.

There was a link posted on AH linking to this shooters manifesto. As a former mod, would you think it would then OK if an ISP decided to block all traffic to the entire boards.ie website for a number of days because of that link?

Former Mod?

It's not a manifesto, it's ****é spewed from a cowardly racist.

Again, big difference between that level of delusion and video and audio of children been executed.

markodaly wrote: »

Livestreamed it.... on facebook...

Exactly, so they weren't the "originator".

markodaly wrote: »

I posted a tweet from the founder of liveleak giving you some facts about this. They removed the video within hours on Friday, yet on Tuesday night, the ISP's decided to block them...

Like I said to you, ISPs would have a hell of a lot more data indicating what is contained in traffic.

markodaly wrote: »

Facebook still has content on its platform.

Report it so.

markodaly wrote: »

If you want to live in some totalitarian state perhaps.

I don't think forcing companies to remove child execution videos is totalitarian, what a bizarre thing to say.

markodaly wrote: »

Newspaper publish all kinds of photos. Remember the photos of Alan Kurdi?

This was plastered on newspapers all around the world. But when its a newspaper that does it, it's OK I guess.

That poor child drowned, he wasn't executed.

markodaly

Boggles wrote: »

I don't think forcing companies to remove child execution videos is totalitarian, what a bizarre thing to say.

Even if this content was either not hosted on the site, or removed from the site.

markodaly

Boggles wrote: »

That poor child drowned, he wasn't executed.

Is it not a photo of child abuse?
The Irish Times can put a photo like that on its front page without censure, you call it journalism.

Yet a website which had links to another site that hosted the video, you welcome that censorship and call it a good thing.

markodaly

Boggles wrote: »

Exactly, so they weren't the "originator".

.

You are dancing on a pinhead.

Facebook was the original platform and publishing method where this content was uploaded to and distributed from.

ohnonotgmail

markodaly wrote: »

You are dancing on a pinhead.

Facebook was the original platform and publishing method where this content was uploaded to and distributed from.

and FB took action to remove his account and any shared videos as soon as it became aware of what happened. Can the others say the same?

is_that_so

Hector Savage wrote: »

You miss the point completely.

Facebook aren't down yet they are the ones that originally broadcast it.
Liveleak are banned yet they take it down.

Literally any site/forum that isn't mega big tech could be next

Nope, not what I was talking about at all. You should be clearer with your "points". You certainly give the impression that a lot of websites have genuine value in your life.

Cienciano

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

and FB took action to remove his account and any shared videos as soon as it became aware of what happened. Can the others say the same?

Yes, liveleak won't host it and made a statement saying they won't host it. Apparently it can still be found on facebook. But not on liveleak.

markodaly

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

and FB took action to remove his account and any shared videos as soon as it became aware of what happened. Can the others say the same?

Yes. Perhaps you need to re-read the thread as it will give you more insight into what Facebook didn't do and what other websites, did do.

ohnonotgmail

markodaly wrote: »

Yes. Perhaps you need to re-read the thread as it will give you more insight into what Facebook didn't do and what other websites, did do.

The thread is more than a 100 posts of bitching and bellyaching and very little actualy information. It is my understanding that FB deleted the account of the murderer and actively deleted copies of the video that were being shared. Is that not what happened?

Boggles

markodaly wrote: »

Yet a website which had links to another site that hosted the video, you welcome that censorship and call it a good thing.

Are you saying they should be allowed to link and host videos that show child execution?

ohnonotgmail

Cienciano wrote: »

Yes, liveleak won't host it and made a statement saying they won't host it. Apparently it can still be found on facebook. But not on liveleak.

I'm sure FB will be playing whack-a-mole with the video for a while and hopefully banning those who share it. I'm not 100% of the timeline for Liveleaks involvement but they did host the video for a time.

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

The thread is more than a 100 posts of bitching and bellyaching and very little actualy information. It is my understanding that FB deleted the account of the murderer and actively deleted copies of the video that were being shared. Is that not what happened?

We're talking about Liveleak. They did that, and got banned. And apparently, it is still on FB.