Australia blocks 4chan, 8chan, Liveleak, others

is_that_so · 20-03-2019 10:28AM

Hector Savage wrote: »

Yeah Good .... until it becomes something you value.

You might want to revisit your definition of "value" if internet sites figure highly on your list of what's important to you.

ohnonotgmail · 20-03-2019 10:28AM

... and nothing of value was lost.

Hector Savage · 20-03-2019 10:29AM

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.

RWCNT wrote: »

Bravo. Shame that your beloved freedom of expression extends to cesspits of fascist propaganda that radicalise young men and cause them to murder people. I applaud your liberal bull**** though all the same, great work.

Frightening.

Irony is this user doesn't see the authoritarian outlook they have.

Would you be so fast to have mosques closed down that host radical preachers that also "radicalise young men and cause them to murder people" ??

Boggles · 20-03-2019 10:29AM

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.

20-03-2019 10:38AM

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.

Liveleak already removed it.

They didn't remove the ban.

You can still see it on Facebook.

They haven't been banned.

It's selective censorship for the sake of "seeing-to-be-doing-something"

raze_them_all_ · 20-03-2019 10:47AM

Billy86 wrote: »

It seems to be in response to websites refusing to take down footage of the white supremacist terror attack by an Aussie in New Zealand a few days ago.

A little click baity to say Australia in general, though if I recall from living there a few years back, Telstra essentially control the network. It is unclear which have been blocked as of yet, by other providers.

So far, the self anointed 'as*hole of the internet' (4Chan), it's own as*hole (8Chan), far right social media outlet Voat, far right news outlet Zero Hedge, and Liveleak have been blocked, unclear if others refusing to take down are also coming.

https://amp.9news.com.au/article/128de87c-0fba-4bac-9e14-d3a1cfbbc6d4

What a pointless gesture if you use those sites you know what a vpn is

Hector Savage · 20-03-2019 10:50AM

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.

Hector Savage · 20-03-2019 10:52AM

is_that_so wrote: »

You might want to revisit your definition of "value" if internet sites figure highly on your list of what's important to you.

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

Wibbs · 20-03-2019 10:53AM

Hector Savage wrote: »

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.

and make it more attractive to many who want to see what the taboo is all about. There will certainly be an element of the Streisand effect to it.

Hector Savage · 20-03-2019 10:53AM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

... and nothing of value was lost.

lots of harmless content is lost, It's been years I admit since I was on 4Chan , but I was totally unaware of any extreme material on it.

Sure look at some sub reddits ....

Hector Savage · 20-03-2019 10:56AM

Wibbs wrote: »

and make it more attractive to many who want to see what the taboo is all about. There will certainly be an element of the Streisand effect to it.

Exactly reminds me of the time Salmon Rushdie was against a ban on some film that promoted his killing, they were going to block its release but he really really stepped out to allow it's release.

He knew if it were banned it would become iconic, cult like status being shown in the back rooms of dodgy mosques in Birmingham (his words).

He knew - as the film was so so bad - if they didn't ban it it would pass into oblivion - which it did.

Boggles · 20-03-2019 10:56AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Liveleak already removed it.

They didn't remove the ban.

Relax, I'm sure they will be unblocked if they haven't been all ready.

Deleted User wrote: »

You can still see it on Facebook.

They haven't been banned.

They are actively working with the police and within their own systems to remove it.

Were the sites in question doing that?

Deleted User wrote: »

It's selective censorship for the sake of "seeing-to-be-doing-something"

No it isn't. It's telling content providers to remove videos of children been shot in the head.

It's no different to any other sick child abuse video, unless you think making sites remove them is censorship, do you?

Silly outrage over what is essentially a good thing.

Thrashssacre · 20-03-2019 10:59AM

This is pointless, just an exercise so politicians can be seen to be doing something. These people won’t just cease to exist, they’ll just move to another forum or to the deep web which will make them even harder to track.

suicide_circus · 20-03-2019 10:59AM

censorship is good when its stuff i dont like.

are people really this short sighted?

Boggles · 20-03-2019 11:00AM

suicide_circus wrote: »

censorship is good when its stuff i dont like.

are people really this short sighted?

You advocating for pedophiles?

suicide_circus · 20-03-2019 11:01AM

Boggles wrote: »

You advocating for pedophiles?

that was you on the MJ thread

Boggles · 20-03-2019 11:03AM

suicide_circus wrote: »

that was you on the MJ thread

Answer the question, do you think child abuse videos should be censored?

suicide_circus · 20-03-2019 11:03AM

Boggles wrote: »

Answer the question, do you think child abuse videos should be censored?

not for michael jackson

Boggles · 20-03-2019 11:06AM

suicide_circus wrote: »

not for michael jackson

Good lad, so you do agree with censorship in certain circumstances.

Didn't think one through did you?

As you were.

20-03-2019 11:06AM

Boggles wrote: »

You advocating for pedophiles?

Jesus Christ. The definition of a straw man argument.

That was not what he was advocating and it is baffling that your mind would go straight there.

Boggles · 20-03-2019 11:08AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Jesus Christ. The definition of a straw man argument.

That was not what he was advocating and it is baffling that your mind would go straight there.

It was done to make a point, a point I'm sure he has reflected on.

Jobs a good'un.

Feisar · 20-03-2019 11:09AM

Does banning this vid constitute censorship though? I don't believe it does. To me it's like the nudes and stuff of Irish ladies that was removed from reddit.

Wibbs · 20-03-2019 11:10AM

suicide_circus wrote: »

are people really this short sighted?

Yes.

20-03-2019 11:11AM

Feisar wrote:

Does banning this vid constitute censorship though? I don't believe it does. To me it's like the nudes and stuff of Irish ladies that was removed from reddit.

I think the issue is not the banning of the video, but the banning of the sites. As someone said earlier, it's like banning the radio because you don't like a song.

20-03-2019 11:24AM

Boggles wrote: »

You advocating for pedophiles?

Holy moly that is hilarious.

"Advocating for pedophiles." Oh man, I shall be periodically reminding you that you came out the with the most whack strawman I've ever seen. Gold.

Feisar · 20-03-2019 11:25AM

Deleted User wrote: »

I think the issue is not the banning of the video, but the banning of the sites. As someone said earlier, it's like banning the radio because you don't like a song.

Sorta similar however I believe there is a distinction. I'd be like a radio station playing hate speech on a loop. it'd be banned. A website essentially plays all it's content at once, one just needs to tune/click in.

Feisar · 20-03-2019 11:26AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Holy moly that is hilarious.

"Advocating for pedophiles." Oh man, I shall be periodically reminding you that you came out the with the most whack strawman I've ever seen. Gold.

I'm reminded of the Chewbacca defense.

Boggles · 20-03-2019 11:26AM

Deleted User wrote: »

I think the issue is not the banning of the video, but the banning of the sites. As someone said earlier, it's like banning the radio because you don't like a song.

A video showing child execution is not a song though is it?

Boggles · 20-03-2019 11:28AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Holy moly that is hilarious.

"Advocating for pedophiles." Oh man, I shall be periodically reminding you that you came out the with the most whack strawman I've ever seen. Gold.

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

He does now.

Remind away. Good Lad.

20-03-2019 11:29AM

Boggles wrote: »

A video showing child execution is not a song though is it?

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...

Australia blocks 4chan, 8chan, Liveleak, others

Comments