30 replies to this topic

[Wizard]

http://stormen.wordp...t-blocks-4chan/

Not that I am concerned that it's /b/, but a worrying move in the [serious] world of the webs.

[Alias]

Sort of pointless considering:

Quote

UPDATED 8: According to CentralGadget, 4chan is now UNBLOCKED by AT&T. AT&T says they were «following the practices of their policy department», but that they have restored network-wide access to all areas of 4chan. Shitstorm averted? Also, according to CentralGadget, 4chan is currently down «due to a large DDOS attack, affecting most of 4chan’s servers.» This appears unrelated to the AT&T blockade, but may have been triggered by the high-profile attention that 4chan has received during the past 24 hours.

[Wizard]

How pointless? A major ISP actually blocks something, shits a brick and reverses it's decision..... oh no, you're totally right, that isn't interesting at-fucking-all is it?

[Pav:3d]

Wow I would love to see what would have happened if they actually went through with it. Shitstorm averted indeed...

[Wizard]

I wonder exactly how they came to the decision to reverse their position? Was it "oops we've alienated our customers" or "let's avoid getting raped by /b/ members". Wouldn't happen to many other sites I bet.

[Sgt. Nuker]

The mere fact that those /b/tards would lash out because "hey we've been blocked, better come up with some stupid retaliation tactic double-quick pronto!", is just ridiculous. Oh well, AT&T blocked you, what you gonna do? Apparently the only thing they could think of was "oh let's RAID! (because those are cool)"

I was about to applaud AT&T, but now I'm scratching my head wondering why their balls fell off and they reversed their decision.

[Wizard]

Warboss Nooka, on 27 Jul 2009, 16:22, said:

I was about to applaud AT&T, but now I'm scratching my head wondering why their balls fell off and they reversed their decision.

Sorry, you'd appauld an ISP for blocking a website? Preventing you as a paying customer from accessing it? What if they "felt" that FS wasn't appropriate? I mean I know it's 4chan, but a unilateral action like that? Wrong on soo many levels imo.

[NergiZed]

Heh, the first thing I thought when I saw the title was 'Holy Shit, This Is Serious Business!". Thankfully AT&T were smart enough to not give the craziest denizens of the net an excuse to cast fury in their general direction, shitstorm averted indeed.

In other news, this news is now as relevant as a fart in the wind.

[Wizard]

NergiZed, on 27 Jul 2009, 16:45, said:

In other news, this news is now as relevant as a fart in the wind.

If you think of it as "ZOMG I didn't know this", then yes, it's happened, it's over, but this much more about the fact that they did it and backed out without a backlash, and I'm not talking about some 'tards from /b/ sending AT&T poo through the post, but the actual legality and economy of it. An ISP blocked access to a very popular (God knows why) website. They restricted their customers rights to access something. This should be about consumer rights and net neutrality, not really about /b/

[Sgt. Nuker]

Wizard, on 27 Jul 2009, 11:42, said:

Sorry, you'd appauld an ISP for blocking a website? Preventing you as a paying customer from accessing it? What if they "felt" that FS wasn't appropriate? I mean I know it's 4chan, but a unilateral action like that? Wrong on soo many levels imo.

I believe I never really stated why I'd applaud clearly enough. I'd applaud AT&T for banning access to the /b/ section because in all actuality, what good comes from going there in the first place? It's a rather regrettable spot on the internet. Of course, take also into consideration that I don't frequent the /b/ section of 4chan, or 4chan as a whole, so I honestly couldn't care less what happens to that site. /bias

Now an ISP arbitrarily blocking something (if we remove the /b/ section of 4chan and substitute a random site), just because, well that is wrong.

[Alias]

Warboss Nooka, on 28 Jul 2009, 2:21, said:

I believe I never really stated why I'd applaud clearly enough. I'd applaud AT&T for banning access to the /b/ section because in all actuality, what good comes from going there in the first place?

http://forum.falloutstudios.net/index.php?...st&p=669743?

Warboss Nooka, on 28 Jul 2009, 2:21, said:

Now an ISP arbitrarily blocking something (if we remove the /b/ section of 4chan and substitute a random site), just because, well that is wrong.

The subject matter is irrelevant unless it is illegal. A website for an Islamic "extremist" group has as much reason to be blocked as the Hello Kitty website. I'm sure you could find at least one person for each of those two who finds the subject matter offensive.

[Brad]

An ISP attempting to block a website is indeed worrying. This small test shows that ISPs might well go and block more, which is just wrong. If you block one part of the internet, no matter what it contains (Of course there will be exceptions, like

Spoiler

child pornography

) then you might aswell block it all.

Edit: My habit of creating massive sentences using commas D:

Edited by Brad, 27 July 2009 - 18:59.

[WNxMastrefubu]

if they wouldvedone that i cant imagin what the /b/tards wouldve done. not all of 4chan is bad anyway. just /b/

[D.K.]

Since I came onto FS, all I kept hearing was "/b/ ZOMG, shitstorm, grouse" and stuff.

For a week now, I've been spending 2-3 hours on /b/ trying to see what is it all about. I still can't see nothing wrong there...
Am I shit-resistant?

[Dauth]

Apparently, tbh I don't care that they blocked /b my feelings towards /b are probably fairly obvious. The fact they think they can ban a site without consultation or explanation is rather distressing.

[Brad]

Dauth, on 27 Jul 2009, 20:51, said:

Apparently, tbh I don't care that they blocked /b my feelings towards /b are probably fairly obvious. The fact they think they can ban a site without consultation or explanation is rather distressing.

Its not that it is /b/, although that probably plays some part in it.
It is the fact that the ISP thought it could block the site, which, is an entirely different matter.

Imagine the power the ISP's would hold if they blocked whichever sites they wished.

[Nid]

/b/ itself is rather overestimated by some people here.
I have seen some pretty disturbing threads on /b/ before, but I can remember a number of far more horrid websites on the internet.
/b/ only gets picked on because of it's popularity, and it's popular because anything goes there, the only limit is illigalities which mods attempt to deal with while wading through an endless stream of threads. It's not /b/ that you all hate, it's the people that post there.

Now that I've cleared my feelings towards /b/ up, blocking a website that, itself, attempts to stay well within law is indeed, somewhat disturbing, but their decision to withdraw that block has been far more relieving.
Whatever the reason for withdrawing, I cant see them blocking the site again without a very good reason, and the same goes for any other ISP.

[RaiDK]

/b/ is on the Australian Blocklist (Yet to be implemented), so this is nothing surprising for me.

[Kalo]

RaiDK, on 28 Jul 2009, 1:59, said:

/b/ is on the Australian Blocklist (Yet to be implemented), so this is nothing surprising for me.

And that's the only reason I'd never move to Australia. .

[Alias]

The blocklist has been cancelled, RaiDK.
There wasn't enough votes for it in the senate.

[RaiDK]

Grood.

It was pretty poor tbh, blocking things like megaupload links and youtube channels...

[Major Fuckup]

RaiDK, on 28 Jul 2009, 8:59, said:

/b/ is on the Australian Blocklist (Yet to be implemented), so this is nothing surprising for me.

doesn't worry me there would be ways to get round it

[Nid]

Alias, on 28 Jul 2009, 4:21, said:

The blocklist has been cancelled, RaiDK.
There wasn't enough votes for it in the senate.

The majority of the senate visits /b/?

[Destiny]

Somehow Nid's sentence seems feasible

[BeefJeRKy]

I don't see the attraction to /b/ but it doesn't mean AT&T has the right to barge all over peoples' right to free access to information.