Reports that AT&T is blocking 4chan are popping up everywhere

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Extelleron
Can't say that I'd feel bad if a worthless site like 4chan was blocked. It does more harm than good.

What religion are you? Or are you agnostic? Whatever your beliefs, I wouldnt feel bad outlawing it, because it does more harm than good. And it doesnt affect me anyway.

See where Im going here?

Well I'm not saying that we should establish the precedent that blocking sites is OK for ISPs. But how many crimes or threatened crimes come out because of 4chan. It's a bunch of worthless people with no life congregating, which is never a good thing. Hacking email accounts of politicians, "attacking" people and other sites and causing them hell, posting threats that always have to be taken seriously and end up wasting my money on a police investigation. They deserve to be taken down and prosecuted for what they have done.

And I'm not religious.

Crimes? None that Im aware of. Threats of crime? Shit man theres threats of crime on THIS site almost every day. How about we nationally block radical islamic websites hmm?

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: DLeRium

Originally posted by: blackangst1
There is a current raid thread on /b/ right now against the guy who unleashed DDoS attacks on 4chan last night after the ban was lifted. Pics, address, name, phone numbers, and IP addys. He's fucked.

edit: they just posted his SSN...

link?

Im not going to link a 4chan thread here. You have a PM

 

[MotF Bane]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
There is a current raid thread on /b/ right now against the guy who unleashed DDoS attacks on 4chan last night after the ban was lifted. Pics, address, name, phone numbers, and IP addys. He's fucked.

edit: they just posted his SSN...

rofl!

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Extelleron
Can't say that I'd feel bad if a worthless site like 4chan was blocked. It does more harm than good.

What religion are you? Or are you agnostic? Whatever your beliefs, I wouldnt feel bad outlawing it, because it does more harm than good. And it doesnt affect me anyway.

See where Im going here?

Well I'm not saying that we should establish the precedent that blocking sites is OK for ISPs. But how many crimes or threatened crimes come out because of 4chan. It's a bunch of worthless people with no life congregating, which is never a good thing. Hacking email accounts of politicians, "attacking" people and other sites and causing them hell, posting threats that always have to be taken seriously and end up wasting my money on a police investigation. They deserve to be taken down and prosecuted for what they have done.

And I'm not religious.

Crimes? None that Im aware of. Threats of crime? Shit man theres threats of crime on THIS site almost every day. How about we nationally block radical islamic websites hmm?

Hacking into a governor's email account and posting the password on the internet? Threatening to blow up a school? Indentity theft as you yourself posted above.... "There is a current raid thread on /b/ right now against the guy who unleashed DDoS attacks on 4chan last night after the ban was lifted. Pics, address, name, phone numbers, and IP addys. He's fucked.

edit: they just posted his SSN...

That is a crime if you're not aware. These kind of people are scum. Just because they do it over the Internet doesn't mean it is any better. There is a difference between association as guaranteed by the constitution and what these people are doing.

 

[SP33Demon]

4chan is like the internet's version of puberty: it's angry, full of angst, and best to just leave them the fck alone.

 

[Patranus]

Funny watching everyone get their panties in a bunch over AT&T stopping an ACK attack that degrades the service of ALL their users not only the 0.0001% that uses this '4chan' site.

Then again, just like Professor Gates and Obama, it is easy to go off the deep end and blame AT&T for "censoring" right off the bat rather than wait for all of the facts. Now the CEO has been personally attacked for a decision he probably didn't make. Good job guys, way to gain public support for your cause.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Extelleron
Can't say that I'd feel bad if a worthless site like 4chan was blocked. It does more harm than good.

What religion are you? Or are you agnostic? Whatever your beliefs, I wouldnt feel bad outlawing it, because it does more harm than good. And it doesnt affect me anyway.

See where Im going here?

Well I'm not saying that we should establish the precedent that blocking sites is OK for ISPs. But how many crimes or threatened crimes come out because of 4chan. It's a bunch of worthless people with no life congregating, which is never a good thing. Hacking email accounts of politicians, "attacking" people and other sites and causing them hell, posting threats that always have to be taken seriously and end up wasting my money on a police investigation. They deserve to be taken down and prosecuted for what they have done.

And I'm not religious.

Crimes? None that Im aware of. Threats of crime? Shit man theres threats of crime on THIS site almost every day. How about we nationally block radical islamic websites hmm?

Hacking into a governor's email account and posting the password on the internet? Threatening to blow up a school? Indentity theft as you yourself posted above.... "There is a current raid thread on /b/ right now against the guy who unleashed DDoS attacks on 4chan last night after the ban was lifted. Pics, address, name, phone numbers, and IP addys. He's fucked.

edit: they just posted his SSN...

That is a crime if you're not aware. These kind of people are scum. Just because they do it over the Internet doesn't mean it is any better. There is a difference between association as guaranteed by the constitution and what these people are doing.

You, sir, are an idiot. Palins email was not hacked by 4chan. It was hacked by ONE person, who may or may not be a posted on 4chan. 4chan, or "anon", has not been implicated in the hacking. Unless theres another incedent your talking about?

How many people on AT have commited a crime? 4chan is a message board for Christ's sake. It's members make the site, but it stands as a messageboard. Do you think AT should be censored by ISP's because a few of its members are pedophiles? Or rapists? Or murderers? Hmm?

Sure. There is some sick stuff posted on /b/. But you know what? If anything illegal (illegal being the key word) is posted, its removed. You obviously have no clue what free speech is. People like you would be great directors in a country like China. Or Iran.

edit: and BTW...posting a SSN is NOT illegal.

 

[Extelleron]

edit: and BTW...posting a SSN is NOT illegal.

So.... i'm the idiot here? If you honestly think that what you just said is true, then I don't know what to tell you. If you don't think obtaining someone's SSN and posting it on the internet for everyone to see, with clear intent for the SSN to be misused, is illegal, then you are beyond help.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Extelleron

edit: and BTW...posting a SSN is NOT illegal.

So.... i'm the idiot here? If you honestly think that what you just said is true, then I don't know what to tell you. If you don't think obtaining someone's SSN and posting it on the internet for everyone to see, with clear intent for the SSN to be misused, is illegal, then you are beyond help.

The dude is a Swede. In Sweden, SSN is public record. Tell me whats illegal about it? What law specifically has been broken? Tell us oh wise one.

If I found out what your name was, and payed for an intellisearch, and posted YOUR SSN (which I would never, ever, do), tell me what law Ive broken? What would I be arrested and tried for?

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Patranus
Funny watching everyone get their panties in a bunch over AT&T stopping an ACK attack that degrades the service of ALL their users not only the 0.0001% that uses this '4chan' site.

Then again, just like Professor Gates and Obama, it is easy to go off the deep end and blame AT&T for "censoring" right off the bat rather than wait for all of the facts. Now the CEO has been personally attacked for a decision he probably didn't make. Good job guys, way to gain public support for your cause.

Thanks for proving once again that you're a pathetic hack. Go back under your bridge.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: Extelleron
... These kind of people are scum. ...

They just don't respect authority. Probably the result of a lack of religious values. We'll have to beat it into them.

 

[blackangst1]

Already on major news outlets:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,534941,00.html

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1357...sLatestHeadlinesArea.0

http://twitter.com/#search?q=%23ATTCensorship

http://news.google.com/news?um...rrb=q&cf=all&scoring=n

http://timesonline.typepad.com...eryone-stand-back.html

 

[Patranus]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Patranus
Funny watching everyone get their panties in a bunch over AT&T stopping an ACK attack that degrades the service of ALL their users not only the 0.0001% that uses this '4chan' site.

Then again, just like Professor Gates and Obama, it is easy to go off the deep end and blame AT&T for "censoring" right off the bat rather than wait for all of the facts. Now the CEO has been personally attacked for a decision he probably didn't make. Good job guys, way to gain public support for your cause.

Thanks for proving once again that you're a pathetic hack. Go back under your bridge.

Huh? How does that make me a "pathetic hack"? Both Obama and Gates assumed the worst (racial profiling) and it backfired. Many here accused AT&T of the worst (censoring) and that was also shown to be false. Just used it as an example that even the president can jump to conclusions sometimes and it is usually a bad thing (unless you have a mat).

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Patranus
Funny watching everyone get their panties in a bunch over AT&T stopping an ACK attack that degrades the service of ALL their users not only the 0.0001% that uses this '4chan' site.

Then again, just like Professor Gates and Obama, it is easy to go off the deep end and blame AT&T for "censoring" right off the bat rather than wait for all of the facts. Now the CEO has been personally attacked for a decision he probably didn't make. Good job guys, way to gain public support for your cause.

Thanks for proving once again that you're a pathetic hack. Go back under your bridge.

Huh? How does that make me a "pathetic hack"? Both Obama and Gates assumed the worst (racial profiling) and it backfired. Many here accused AT&T of the worst (censoring) and that was also shown to be false. Just used it as an example that even the president can jump to conclusions sometimes and it is usually a bad thing (unless you have a mat).

Just face it, you are. One of the 12 steps about admission comes to mind. Probably the most embarrassing action would be attempting to explain it away.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Patranus
Funny watching everyone get their panties in a bunch over AT&T stopping an ACK attack that degrades the service of ALL their users not only the 0.0001% that uses this '4chan' site.

Then again, just like Professor Gates and Obama, it is easy to go off the deep end and blame AT&T for "censoring" right off the bat rather than wait for all of the facts. Now the CEO has been personally attacked for a decision he probably didn't make. Good job guys, way to gain public support for your cause.

Thanks for proving once again that you're a pathetic hack. Go back under your bridge.

Huh? How does that make me a "pathetic hack"? Both Obama and Gates assumed the worst (racial profiling) and it backfired. Many here accused AT&T of the worst (censoring) and that was also shown to be false. Just used it as an example that even the president can jump to conclusions sometimes and it is usually a bad thing (unless you have a mat).

A. This story has absolutely nothing to do with Obama or politics.

B. You have a recent history of anti-Obama posts.

A + B = C

There's plenty of anti-Obama threads - some created by you. Quick check... Yep, three on the front page alone. Why not stick to bashing in them? Or does every thread have to become anti-Obama?

/this place sucks anymore... :disgust:

 

[JS80]

what is "/b/"?

 

[MotF Bane]

Originally posted by: JS80
what is "/b/"?

Go to 4chan, then Random. Highly NSFW.

Alternatively -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4chan
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/B/ NSFW.

 

[Patranus]

Originally posted by: Robor
Or does every thread have to become anti-Obama?

I guess every other thread has to become anti corporation/big business with little pissy internet hacks bitching about having a web site "censored" when in fact it wasn't being censored and getting into a tizzy over really nothing. In fact, what was occurring against 4chan that caused AT&T to block access was a direct result of the culture promoted by 4chan...but hey...it is all the big bad evil corporations.

 

[gevorg]

I'm afraid the possible hacking 4chan will do against AT&T will fuel debate against net neutrality.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: dammitgibs

Originally posted by: Patranus
If you don't like the service that AT&T provides than switch internet providers. Nothing is forcing you to have an AT&T service.

What if AT&T and Comcast are the only two offering service in my area and they both censor? Is that how this will end?

Bingo. As far as I know, most areas have only one real land-line phone and cable provider. There might be other service providers in name, but they piggyback off of the phone lines owned by the main provider and are sometimes more expensive and even then there aren't too many of them. I certainly don't think there's much competition for broadband Internet access in my area.

 

[dguy6789]

4chan is such a joke.

 

[manowar821]

First shots? You're kidding, right? Nanny-state mother fuckers have been screwing with free-speech rights and fair-use rights for more than a decade.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: dammitgibs

Originally posted by: Patranus
If you don't like the service that AT&T provides than switch internet providers. Nothing is forcing you to have an AT&T service.

What if AT&T and Comcast are the only two offering service in my area and they both censor? Is that how this will end?

Bingo. As far as I know, most areas have only one real land-line phone and cable provider.

Most areas have more than one choice for phone service. Most cable systems are offering phone service now. Then you have voip services and wireless. Lots choices for most people. My landline bill has been cut in 1/2 at this point and thinking about parking my homephone on magicjack and going all wireless.

The telcos are rapidly getting into the video business. Lots of competition in this market.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: dammitgibs

Originally posted by: Patranus
If you don't like the service that AT&T provides than switch internet providers. Nothing is forcing you to have an AT&T service.

What if AT&T and Comcast are the only two offering service in my area and they both censor? Is that how this will end?

Bingo. As far as I know, most areas have only one real land-line phone and cable provider.

Most areas have more than one choice for phone service. Most cable systems are offering phone service now. Then you have voip services and wireless. Lots choices for most people. My landline bill has been cut in 1/2 at this point and thinking about parking my homephone on magicjack and going all wireless.

The telcos are rapidly getting into the video business. Lots of competition in this market.

If physical geography is considered, "most" areas don't have cable alternatives and won't for years (hopefully, population growth slows). This is why a couple of companies took the risk of spending big bucks on satellites.

I couldn't get dsl in rural georgia until a couple of years ago since it was a relatively large capital outlay for the phone company and there was no guarantee that they would get customers since they have to share their physical lines with other phone companies. In fact, we still wouldn't have it if not for a new, wealthy neighbor who 'knew' someone in atlanta.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: seemingly random

If physical geography is considered, "most" areas don't have cable alternatives and won't for years (hopefully, population growth slows). This is why a couple of companies took the risk of spending big bucks on satellites.

I couldn't get dsl in rural georgia until a couple of years ago since it was a relatively large capital outlay for the phone company and there was no guarantee that they would get customers since they have to share their physical lines with other phone companies. In fact, we still wouldn't have it if not for a new, wealthy neighbor who 'knew' someone in atlanta.

I meant most as in population wise. I do agree the rural 15% are going to be stuck more expensive and slower options. My folks have fiber running though their front yard, but it will never be tapped because the population density is so low. Trying to convince them to go with a 3g card right now.