11–20 of 270 posts
> hate-filled anonymous message board 8chan not as hate-filled as Twitter. I don't think people like him have actually been on these sites.
I have, a lot. Your comparison is nowhere near realistic.
In comparison, 8chan was downright comfy.
Of course everybody knows the right way to convince conspiracy theorists that they're wrong is to go after them. I don't see what's wrong with having internet trash bins. At least the trash is in a know location, it doesn't spill everywhere. I'm not from the US, the only mentions of those sites I have ever encountered was journalists making a few articles about them.
All this work to shut them down by various organizations can even accurately be described as a conspiracy. (Though more of a conspiracy-fact since they're so shameless about it)
I read 8chan and 4chan sometimes, not /b/ and not /pol/, I am more interested in the other boards that often care for or start open source projects. I am very disappointed with people that want to shut down these places, often because of false allegations (for example the attempt to shut down 8chan for child porn, that later were found out to be a false flag, the person accusing them were also the one that posted the…
I also spend a lot of time on 4chan, and visit 8chan occasionally. There is a universe of difference between them, and calls to shut down 4chan are much rarer and more ignorant of the content than calls to shut down 8chan. It's important not to conflate them.
Gosh, I'm conflicted. I upvoted the submission for the interesting HN comments that are likely to appear based on it but also so, so, soooo didn't want to upvote a Krebs article and give him the Ads revenue from the page views.
>but also so, so, soooo didn't want to upvote a Krebs article and give him the Ads revenue from the page views. what's wrong with kerbs?
Of course everybody knows the right way to convince conspiracy theorists that they're wrong is to go after them. I don't see what's wrong with having internet trash bins. At least the trash is in a know location, it doesn't spill everywhere. I'm not from the US, the only mentions of those sites I have ever encountered was journalists making a few articles about them.
The goal is not to convince conspiracy theorists that they are wrong, the goal is to prevent them from hurting people or society and, to that end, keep the dangerous ones from organizing anonymously online in large numbers (I honestly don't know if that's possible).
It's the same argument with serial killer movies (at the risk of showing my age there was a strong controversy with "Natural Born Killers" at the time): you don't kill people because you chatted on the internet or watched a movie.
You kill people because you had it in you. The things you were exposed before might color your act but that's it.
Gosh, I'm conflicted. I upvoted the submission for the interesting HN comments that are likely to appear based on it but also so, so, soooo didn't want to upvote a Krebs article and give him the Ads revenue from the page views.
In that case, you'll be glad to know that I use ad/tracking blockers, so even when I read the article, he won't get any ad revenue from me.
And I imagine that many folks around here do the same.
In my case, it's isn't because I have a problem with Brian Krebs, rather it's because I despise advertising and go to great lengths (sometimes at my own expense) to avoid it.
This move will serve to push these movements underground to Tor or other uncensorable networks where they're even harder to monitor. It also sends a message to them that they're on to something (because if the QAnon conspiracy was real, the "deep state" would indeed try to snuff it out).
I feel like this is such a bad precedent and will not end well. It will embolden the crazies. It's also not clear where this is supposed to end?
Flat earthers? 9/11 truthers? Who's next?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The goal is not to convince conspiracy theorists that they are wrong, the goal is to prevent them from hurting people or society and, to that end, keep the dangerous ones from organizing anonymously online in large numbers (I honestly don't know if that's possible).
If I'm not mistaken the NZ killer was on 8chan? It's the same argument with serial killer movies (at the risk of showing my age there was a strong controversy with "Natural Born Killers" at the time): you don't kill people because you chatted on the internet or watched a movie. You kill people because you had it in you. The things you were exposed before might color your act but that's it.
Hollywood is infamous for misunderstanding psychology. At best, Hollywood has outdated notions of psychology (favoring long outdated ideas like Freud, because such ideas are exciting). Hollywood sells movies, not understanding.
What we're discovering today is that there's a "pathway to radicalization". People are NOT born radical, they realign themselves as radical over time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I'm not mistaken the NZ killer was on 8chan? It's the same argument with serial killer movies (at the risk of showing my age there was a strong controversy with "Natural Born Killers" at the time): you don't kill people because you chatted on the internet or watched a movie. You kill people because you had it in you. The things you were exposed before might color your act but that's it.
> It's the same argument with serial killer movies Hollywood is infamous for misunderstanding psychology. At best, Hollywood has outdated notions of psychology (favoring long outdated ideas like Freud, because such ideas are exciting). Hollywood sells movies, not understanding. What we're discovering today is that there's a "pathway to radicalization". People are NOT born radical, they realign themselves as radical o…