Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The 20-year-old at heart of web's most anarchic and influential site

guardian.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 54 posts

Re: The 20-year-old at heart of web's most anarchic and influential site

#21

Post by DaniFong »

vaksel wrote: post #15
DaniFong wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's okay to be disgusted by what spoken of somewhere, and aware of the harm it can potentially cause, yet guard fiercely the ability to say it. I don't think freedom of speech should be axiomatic, though. Firstly, I take a realist stance -- it isn't treated that way by the world, there are some things you could say that would make your life much worse. Second, it seems that freedom of speech is a good heuris…

You can be disgusted all you want, nobody is forcing you to visit that site though. Going to sites where you disagree completely with their philosophy is called trolling. You want a moral 4chan style site, go to christchan(real site btw)...thats the thing with the internet, sites that people want will always stay alive. I mean look at 4chan stats: "Current users: 29,989", that's almost 30,000 users using the site at…

I disagree pretty strongly here. The data point I want to pick out are the existence of trolls: people who end up destroying enlightened discussion and replacing it with a bigot firefight.

There are many ways to reduce freedom of speech. One can be coerced, or one can be denied access to the time required to think of and say something useful. But there's another kind of denial -- when a conversation turns ugly, many types of speech simply disappear. /b/tards actively inhibit other types of conversation. So freedom of speech can't be axiomatic: it is internally inconsistent.

When the founding fathers penned the bill of rights, speech meant speech [edit: though, as pg has pointed out, they intended to include the printed word in their discussion.]. Not intrusive speech, and not published, internationally accessible works. They were not so clairvoyant as to see how powerful small publishing houses and studios could become.

One important type of freedom of speech I disagree with is that which impinges on someone else's freedom of speech. Everyone should have a place for their voice, but I am unwilling to protect any right to intrude.

Re: The 20-year-old at heart of web's most anarchic and influential site

#22

Post by DaniFong »

vaksel wrote: post #3
JayNeely wrote: post #2

Creative at what cost? The racism, sexism, and willful callousness of 4chan doesn't seem to be getting a lot of discussion in the latest round of media coverage (outside of FOX News "HACKER-PEDOPHILES ON THE INTERNETS" hysteria). "TITS OR GTFO" (said to anyone presenting themselves as female), "be an hero" (encouragement to commit suicide)... maybe these could be considered jokes in bad taste. But the racist pics and…

Personally I don't mind the inappropriate jokes/posts, sure some are racist, some are sexist, some are just plain disgusting, but that's the whole point, in the age of political correctness its actually refreshing. Step outside your comfort bubble. And hey...if you don't like it, nobody is forcing you to go there. Everyone likes to talk about freedoms we get in this country, yet these same people who wave the flag, h…

One cannot simply escape the influence of 4chan by not going there. It is a cesspool, and the memes that breed there spread elsewhere. Do you think the players of Habbo wanted the influence of /b? And the violent culture there was shared by meankids.org when they started to frighten Kathy Sierra -- it was only a short jump from there to the death threats, and now they've inflicted harm. She will never be the same.

Re: The 20-year-old at heart of web's most anarchic and influential site

#23

Post by pg »

DaniFong wrote: post #21
vaksel wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can be disgusted all you want, nobody is forcing you to visit that site though. Going to sites where you disagree completely with their philosophy is called trolling. You want a moral 4chan style site, go to christchan(real site btw)...thats the thing with the internet, sites that people want will always stay alive. I mean look at 4chan stats: "Current users: 29,989", that's almost 30,000 users using the site at…

I disagree pretty strongly here. The data point I want to pick out are the existence of trolls: people who end up destroying enlightened discussion and replacing it with a bigot firefight. There are many ways to reduce freedom of speech. One can be coerced, or one can be denied access to the time required to think of and say something useful. But there's another kind of denial -- when a conversation turns ugly, many…

Though I agree with your point about freedom of speech being internally inconsistent, the founding fathers definitely meant speech to include the printed word.

Re: The 20-year-old at heart of web's most anarchic and influential site

#24

Post by vaksel »

DaniFong wrote: post #21
vaksel wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can be disgusted all you want, nobody is forcing you to visit that site though. Going to sites where you disagree completely with their philosophy is called trolling. You want a moral 4chan style site, go to christchan(real site btw)...thats the thing with the internet, sites that people want will always stay alive. I mean look at 4chan stats: "Current users: 29,989", that's almost 30,000 users using the site at…

I disagree pretty strongly here. The data point I want to pick out are the existence of trolls: people who end up destroying enlightened discussion and replacing it with a bigot firefight. There are many ways to reduce freedom of speech. One can be coerced, or one can be denied access to the time required to think of and say something useful. But there's another kind of denial -- when a conversation turns ugly, many…

a) There is more to trolling than "bigot firefights". That's amateur hour. Real trolling is coming to say a PC forum and calling them retards for not owning a mac

b) And I would hardly call 4chan a big firefight either. Its not like its stormfront, its not like the site is only about racism. That's the whole point of the site, everything that is not illegal goes. And who are you to impose your morality on other people?

c)You can run your site however you want, you have the freedom.Like I said, if you don't like it, stop your bitching, close your browser, and move on with your life.

d)Like I said thats the whole point of freedom of speech, its not there to protect "not intrusive" speech, its there to protect the speech that makes religious zealots like you, bitch and moan about, like video games, just because the main characters uses the word fuck. "THINK OF THE CHILDREN! WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN!"

e) There you go again selectively choosing which rights people should have. Ok I'll play your little game, we aren't allowed to use freedom of speech about published content that people can see(even though if you read this wiki entry it specifically talks about it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech#The_Internet). But then using your distorted view of the bill of rights, we can then use the freedom of the press to justify keeping the speech on the internet free. f) Yet this is EXACTLY what you are doing, you want to deny other people their freedom of speech, just because you disagree with what they say. Calling someone a bitch does not intrude on their freedom of speech, they can call you a faggot right on back.

Re: The 20-year-old at heart of web's most anarchic and influential site

#25

Post by mynameishere »

DaniFong wrote: post #21
vaksel wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can be disgusted all you want, nobody is forcing you to visit that site though. Going to sites where you disagree completely with their philosophy is called trolling. You want a moral 4chan style site, go to christchan(real site btw)...thats the thing with the internet, sites that people want will always stay alive. I mean look at 4chan stats: "Current users: 29,989", that's almost 30,000 users using the site at…

I disagree pretty strongly here. The data point I want to pick out are the existence of trolls: people who end up destroying enlightened discussion and replacing it with a bigot firefight. There are many ways to reduce freedom of speech. One can be coerced, or one can be denied access to the time required to think of and say something useful. But there's another kind of denial -- when a conversation turns ugly, many…

One important type of freedom of speech I disagree with is that which impinges on someone else's freedom of speech.

[eye roll]

Re: The 20-year-old at heart of web's most anarchic and influential site

#26

Post by [deleted] »

vaksel wrote: post #24
DaniFong wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree pretty strongly here. The data point I want to pick out are the existence of trolls: people who end up destroying enlightened discussion and replacing it with a bigot firefight. There are many ways to reduce freedom of speech. One can be coerced, or one can be denied access to the time required to think of and say something useful. But there's another kind of denial -- when a conversation turns ugly, many…

a) There is more to trolling than "bigot firefights". That's amateur hour. Real trolling is coming to say a PC forum and calling them retards for not owning a mac b) And I would hardly call 4chan a big firefight either. Its not like its stormfront, its not like the site is only about racism. That's the whole point of the site, everything that is not illegal goes. And who are you to impose your morality on other peopl…

[deleted]

Re: The 20-year-old at heart of web's most anarchic and influential site

#27

Post by mcescher »

DaniFong wrote: post #21
vaksel wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can be disgusted all you want, nobody is forcing you to visit that site though. Going to sites where you disagree completely with their philosophy is called trolling. You want a moral 4chan style site, go to christchan(real site btw)...thats the thing with the internet, sites that people want will always stay alive. I mean look at 4chan stats: "Current users: 29,989", that's almost 30,000 users using the site at…

I disagree pretty strongly here. The data point I want to pick out are the existence of trolls: people who end up destroying enlightened discussion and replacing it with a bigot firefight. There are many ways to reduce freedom of speech. One can be coerced, or one can be denied access to the time required to think of and say something useful. But there's another kind of denial -- when a conversation turns ugly, many…

> When the founding fathers penned the bill of rights, speech meant speech. Not intrusive speech, and not published, internationally accessible works.

First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Not sure how "intrusive speech" isn't a subset of "speech".

And if something is published here legally, what's the objection to it being "internationally accessible"? Modulo "munitions" (e.g. encryption).

Re: The 20-year-old at heart of web's most anarchic and influential site

#28

Post by adrianwaj »

4Chan guys think it's cool to promote the Swastika: is it to offend, to shock, or do they see nothing wrong about the Nazis? Is it both?

Western society has gone awry in many ways, and 4Chan is a manifestation of this, and a mirror of it.

They've had a dig at Scientology but is there any discretion as to what's cut down? If none, then it's just vandalism.

It's all in such bad taste. Even its creator in his personal private life has distanced himself from it.

That all being said, a site like this has a degree of freedom and spirit that in a different environment, say North Korea or China, could spearhead a revolution - however for a forum to lead a revolution, even the participants need to be identified, if not in name then at least persona. Also, what would the end product of such a revolution result in? I predict self-destruction if 4Chan was the source.

Re: The 20-year-old at heart of web's most anarchic and influential site

#30

Post by adrianwaj »

vaksel wrote: post #15
DaniFong wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's okay to be disgusted by what spoken of somewhere, and aware of the harm it can potentially cause, yet guard fiercely the ability to say it. I don't think freedom of speech should be axiomatic, though. Firstly, I take a realist stance -- it isn't treated that way by the world, there are some things you could say that would make your life much worse. Second, it seems that freedom of speech is a good heuris…

You can be disgusted all you want, nobody is forcing you to visit that site though. Going to sites where you disagree completely with their philosophy is called trolling. You want a moral 4chan style site, go to christchan(real site btw)...thats the thing with the internet, sites that people want will always stay alive. I mean look at 4chan stats: "Current users: 29,989", that's almost 30,000 users using the site at…

Dude, I wouldn't defend Hitler for having the right to publish Mein Kamp. At the end of the day, you've got to use your discretion as to who you're defending. And in your defense, are you merely attacking the attacker? If so, then you can expect a counter attack, and you are being a hypocrite.
Post reply on HN