AT&T blocks img.4chan.org

[Zephira]

I really don't mind.

..actually, I would love to see a 4chan-free world!

/b/ may be the "worst" of the site, but 4chan entirely is made of the "scum of the internet".

I really don't mind getting rid of them.

In all reality, I GUESS it would be a different story from my point of view if it was just a contained place, but with all the internet-attacks they do from that site...

One thing you have to keep in mind... it's the internet. If they shut down 4chan, where will these people go? They'd either make a new site for themselves, or they'd spread out to other innocent forums and communities and start wrecking things. The way I see it, 4chan is a good dumping ground for the majority of spam, pranks, smut, and other such unwanted material. If people have something stupid, they post it on 4chan instead of somewhere more disruptive, kind of like our IRC/webchat here.
If it is the anonymous attacks they're worried about, then AT&T or FBI or whoever should contact the site owner and try to identify the individual offenders.

[IAmSerge]

without making any sort of other reply with lots of quoting other people, I'm just going to say I agree with you guys.

Because you made your points, and this time, they're all right.  So I agree.

[Truthordeal]

Well guys, I'm back. The first thing I saw was this thread, and it appealed to me. Here's my 2 cents:

4chan at the very least is a facilitator of obscenity. And this isn't regular obscenity, either; human beings can get a kick out of that, and a lot of it actually serves a vital biological function. This is the obscenity of depraved human beings that make up less than 1% of the population, and that same ratio is the only people who actually enjoy it. 4Chan is where goatse, lemonparty, tubgirl, 2g1c and meatspin got their debut.

Encyclopedia Dramatica is its sister-Wiki, and is just as bad.

At worst, 4chan is a place where cyberterrorists gather and meet. Anonymous is a criminal organization. I like their stance against Scientology, and I like what they did for the abused cat. But are the means they go by legal?

I certainly think that writing viruses, posting seizure-causing pictures on an epileptic forum, harassing people for no adequately explained reason or any reason at all, targeting a 14 year old girl with hate mail, death threats and the like, and practically everything else they've done as a group is illegal and wrong.

I personally think that the FBI or INTERPOL should swoop in and kick some of their asses. Hacking is a crime, end of story.

As for AT&T, they're a privately run business, so it's their choice whether or not to censor websites. If you want them to stop, then send letters, post complaints on their websites or switch to a different service company. The difference between a company censoring something and the government doing it is that you can actually DO something in the first case.

But as Zaichi seems to have pointed out, AT&T has backed down, so this topic is basically a moot(pun not intended) point.

[Thought]

As for AT&T, they're a privately run business, so it's their choice whether or not to censor websites.

Should AT&T also be allowed to censor who you can call? Perhaps they'll block all calls made to local news stations and papers, along with emails sent there. That would be a good PR move for them; control the flow of information to news organizations, and they can prevent bad press from going to press.

[Truthordeal]

Which leaves the alternative: switch services.

My point is, corporations cannot violently force you to accept their particular brand. If you want to eat Fritos instead of Lays, you are free to do so, until the government says that you can't eat Fritos anymore because Lays is going under.

So if you're that worried about logging into 4chan, switch to some other wireless service, or get 56k until your contract is up. And if you're that worried about censorship, make sure you get a service that assures non-interference. After this stunt, you'll be seeing a lot more of them, I'm sure.

[ZeaLitY]

\\As for AT&T, they're a privately run business, so it's their choice whether or not to censor websites. If you want them to stop, then send letters, post complaints on their websites or switch to a different service company. The difference between a company censoring something and the government doing it is that you can actually DO something in the first case.

AT&T as a telecommunications company is be "too big to fail", so free market forces can't be relied on alone. It would also unduly burden a lot of people in preexisting contracts to switch services and take penalties (especially with cell phone contracts). This is a case where government legislating net neutrality and free speech can improve civilization.

[Prince Janus]

I really don't mind.

..actually, I would love to see a 4chan-free world!

/b/ may be the "worst" of the site, but 4chan entirely is made of the "scum of the internet".

I really don't mind getting rid of them.

In all reality, I GUESS it would be a different story from my point of view if it was just a contained place, but with all the internet-attacks they do from that site...

Remember spring last year?, I have scars, and even I still think you're taking it a bit too far.

Now, a lot of people mentioned targeting the individual offenders. True this is not easily done...


...but try thinking outside of the box. It can be both a horrible thing and a wonderful thing if money truly does equate to power in this world. In this case, hornets will retaliate on AT&T (trust me, there are imbeciles amongst the hive, and plenty to form a swarm.)

 What do you think AT&T will do in return?

[Exodus]

I really don't mind.

..actually, I would love to see a 4chan-free world!

/b/ may be the "worst" of the site, but 4chan entirely is made of the "scum of the internet".

I really don't mind getting rid of them.

In all reality, I GUESS it would be a different story from my point of view if it was just a contained place, but with all the internet-attacks they do from that site...

How's the sun up there?

[Truthordeal]

The government has to legislate free speech? I thought we did that 230 years ago.

As such, as long as AT&T isn't being funded by the government, it's more or less immune from government interference(for the time being) outside of the FCC. And as I said before, they're a private business, and  they're providing the service, ergo, it's their right to block whatever websites they feel are improper. Just as its my and your right to say whatever we want or to criticize others we feel are wrong, it's AT&T's right to show its disfavor with 4chan by blocking it.

Just to throw an example out there, is Youtube violating free speech by not allowing porn or nudity on its site? There are times when /b/ is little more than that.

You might make the case that since you're paying for the service, you have a say in what their rules are. But if that's the case, then it's my right to bring a concealed weapon into McDonalds because I'm a paying customer. But I don't think anyone here would disagree with McDonald's right to say that I can't bring a loaded pistol into their establishment, right?

But! I will agree that since it's a contract service, if they violate the terms of the contract by doing this, then they have no recourse.

I honestly don't see this going any further than 4chan for the time being. I doubt that AT&T's gonna restrict your right to talk to the press or whatnot, because they know that the government will step in at that point. The "slippery slope" argument is not one I think applies in this case, as it won't go too much farther than sites like 4chan and Encyclopedia Dramatica.

It's not the ideal solution, but its the one they've chosen to take and its their decision to make, and they must face the consequences therein.

[Thought]

And as I said before, they're a private business, and  they're providing the service, ergo, it's their right to block whatever websites they feel are improper.

And yet, private businesses can't require women to provide sex in exchange for a promotion. Nor can they only allow employees of certain political affiliations the time off to go vote. They are required to make reasonable accommodations for the religious observances of their employees. And so on, and so forth.

Businesses are free, but they are not so free that they can oppress the rights of their employees (though curiously the rights of the customers are, admittedly, largely up for grabs).

Just to throw an example out there, is Youtube violating free speech by not allowing porn or nudity on its site? There are times when /b/ is little more than that.

Bad analogy.

Some would indeed say that restricting such things is an infringement on free speech.

[Truthordeal]

There's a large leap from blocking a particularly distasteful website and asking women to perform sexual favors for promotions.

[ONSLAUGHT]

Well this sucks.
A possible start, and even possible isn't good, to censoring too much. I've always been a protestor of censorship; even if it means going to grand lengths like being dragged off by authorities screaming and swinging a stick(ok, I didn't have a stick).

Not to mention I know my friends will be pissed and won't stop about it.

It's better to have a place to be an asshole rather than make the entire internet the grounds for them. Want to be a jerK? 4Chan! Without it, they spread. it's already bad enough spread out here, now what'll happen? Give it time and i can just see where my friends go I know THAT much.

AT&T sucks. And this isn't the first time they've pissed me off. This is just crossing multiple lines and laughing with their fingers sticking in the rifle holes. You've dug your own graves AT&T. This is it.

We will have our revenge!

[Thought]

There's a large leap from blocking a particularly distasteful website and asking women to perform sexual favors for promotions.

The premise was yours, however. I just applied it to a different field.

We agree that private business may be restricted in their actions in order to promote domestic tranquility, yes? Then all that is left is to determine in what manner businesses may be restricted. It is faulty to claim that they are immune from all such considerations merely because they are a private business.

[Lord J Esq]

Ugliness alone shouldn't be censored, but /b/ tastes like a breeding ground for domestic terrorists. I'd support any ISP who refuses to serve it up until the crimes instigated through or by /b/ can be codified...making this one of the extremely rare instances in which I'm siding with the big corporations and against the free speech crowd.

I'm probably influenced in my thinking by the ugly excesses of the French Revolution.

[Truthordeal]

I just read somewhere that AT&T shut off the tubes to /b/ and /r9k/ because of the DDoS attacks from Anontalk.com, because DDoS attacks end up costing a lot of money to ISPs.

If this is true, we really can't blame AT&T.

Ah, I said something like this as part of my original rant, but Tact beat me to it. Unfortunately, I didn't see this before, as he worded it much more effectively.