Seems these days the second option is always the preferred one. It's easier to ask forgiveness (and make money while you do) than it is to get permission.
Not on the internet, no. The 2/4/8/whatever-chans are alive and kicking. Ditto the good old IRC. There's plenty of other services that are more rough-and-tumble than milktoasty. Any of the new social media like Mastodon, Minds, BitChute have rather hands-off moderation - any lawfull content has rather good chances of staying there undisturbed.
The difference is one of perception - namely, which ones get favorable opinions in the media as family safe, and which ones get condemned as the seedy, scary underbelly.
I doubt media has that much influence on platform choice today.
These places are almost like art. Fully dependent on the goodwill of a handful of patrons that regard them as valuable while many would prefer to see them dissapear.
I don't think it's as many as some think. A lot of this censorship banter comes from a very vocal minority who appear to be a majority only in their own minds.
The point was placing profits over the protection makes sense from their perspective. They take a big risk whatever option they choose, might as well make money doing it. And they will certainly be forgiven because on the internet memory is very short. Or perhaps many people just don't care. Facebook's user numbers have been steadily increasing for years.
I feel it's only a matter of time before they get blocked at the router or at least DNS level in a western European country. They were blocked in New Zealand for a while after the chan-radicalized mass murder there.
I assume this person could have gotten radicalized by talking to other radicals on the phone, so you ban phones?
But they didn't, that's a detail you can't just conveniently drop to argue in the abstract.
Because there was a more convenient option. I think they'll just run their own alternative, especially as domains are cheap. Also, what about that namecoin thing? Seems like a workaround.
edit: nice meme bc who actually uses TOR? theres so much more cp on surface web liek chans, tumblr used to be a pedos dream, twitter etc.
no one uses tor zzz
https://sputniknews.com/science/201905091074866833-Twitter-3...
you can literally google twitter child porn
theres hundreds of threads exposing how these people start group dms baiting kids
https://twitter.com/xcutesannex/status/1147456947727282177 shit in a similar format to this
But yes, increasing the pressure on these kind of online spaces seems to have had a overall negative effect. If you don't know the demographic and how gripers react to pressure, you should not preach about the source of radicalization.
And yes, you also will net the ire of people that like their freedom and haven't done anything.
Not only that, it wasn't one person, or rather it was not one person alone. He was fed, indoctrinated and enabled by his co-conspirators who egged him on with anti-Islam material. In some sense they got off lightly: if the situation had been reversed and we were talking about an Islamic supremacist board promoting violence against Christians which resulted in a massacre, they might have been candidates for an airstrike. "We kill people based on metadata", remember? https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2014/05/10/we-kill-people-base...
The ban would most likely be for refusal to comply with rules regarding extremist or crime-promoting material. For example the UK has a unit pointed at the major social networks making binding takedown requests against (primarily) Daesh material: https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Counter-Terrorism_Inte...
There are proposals to make the terrorist takedown regime mandatory across Europe: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-45495544
At the moment the authorities are surprisingly un-worried about white supremacist terrorism compared to Islamist terrorism, of which there is very little on the chans. So they largely escape takedown requirements. But if the extremism escalates that may not stay that way.
This thinking will lead to following: that you will simultaneously alienate people by random nonsensical moderation while being accused of placing profits over the protection of kids. And the both accusations will be right simultaneously.