Hacker News Reader

Comment by eli_gottlieb | Hacker News Reader

It's like publicly admitting you spend your spare time in a crack house: much of what goes on there is illegal, and a substantial portion is immoral or malicious.

View on HN

>much of what goes on there is illegal, and a substantial portion is immoral or malicious.

Wrong, but thanks for playing.

With all respect, moot, 4chan breaks a huge number of laws about copyright protection (half of which were made specifically to illegalize file-sharing, of course). Raiding is certainly malicious, even if you enjoy it.

And I don't think debating morality with the founder of 4chan is productive; if you have a moral sense it must be almost entirely libertarian.

* * (censored to protect feelings)

Over 90% of the boards on 4chan are nothing but discussions about the particular subject. The most illegal stuff that happens on these boards is uploading images without permission, yes, it's that bad.

Most people who speak of 4chan in this way, are really just talking about /b/.

No, actually. I don't go to /b/. I can't even follow /b/; I try to keep track of a single thread or meme and it completely gets away from me. But as I said, there are some boards filled with blatant neo-Nazis, some filled with some of the world's more disgusting pornography, blah blah blah.

Now, if you want to call it "the last bastion of freedom [to spread hate ideologies, post loli hentai, etc]", go ahead. However, be clear that you are defending the freedom to commit immoral acts.

4chan is the Mal Reynolds of the internet, not Luke Skywalker.

At various times in history the ACLU has defended the KKK.

I see no problem with defending freedom of horrible people. Both from an ethical standpoint, and from a pragmatic standpoint (I would rather those people communicate in a way that has some visibility/oversight. You are not going to stop them, only push them underground; I think most would agree that would be a bad thing.)

At various times in history the ACLU has defended the KKK.

Yes, and? If you actually believe in free speech, calling someone a Horrible Person is not a disguised argument for shutting them down.

4chan is full of really horrible people. Sometimes I am one of them. This doesn't mean they should be shut down by the government or something. However, it also doesn't mean they're Glorious Heroes Fighting For Righteousness.

I think that less people would have problems with your comment if you stated that you were an oldfriend right off the bat.

File: 0000000.png-(327 KB, 187×155, donald-sutherland-body-snatchers.jpg)

> oldfriend

Hey wait a minute ...

CENSORSHIP

But I'm not an oldfriend. I've only been making intermittent visits to 4chan for a couple of years now.

> However, it also doesn't mean they're Glorious Heroes Fighting For Righteousness.

Who is arguing that?

Seemingly everyone here who claims, against all evidence, that 4chan has a good moral character.

Now surely everyone is going to yell that they're just protecting their beloved web from censorship. However, since I never proposed censorship, that means most of them are arguing against the evil, censorious Congressman in their own heads, rather than against anything I actually said.

I think you fail to understand something : There are all kinds of people on 4chan. And dont come saying "laws about copyright protection" cause that is not a "crack house" .

You should listen to Moot's talks on the subject of 4chan and free speech, which I will link below. As to "raiding," there are exactly zero boards on 4chan where raiding is allowed in the rules: it is globally banned on all boards, even /b/, which is the "no-rules" board.

Many of the 4chan communities are totally moral, from any standards: the cooking board (http://boards.4chan.org/ck) is my favourite board on 4chan, and it's just discussion of tasty eats.

As to copyrighted content, 4chan is the same as any other online message board that allows the embedding of images. 4chan has a staff of volunteer janitors to remove copyrighted content, and a smaller team of moderators to deal with repeat offenders.

Moot talks:

http://www.ted.com/talks/christopher_m00t_poole_the_case_for...

http://schedule.sxsw.com/2011/events/event_IAP000001

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtTR7hbR3tM

>much of what goes on there is illegal, and a substantial portion is immoral or malicious.

Most, if not all, of your so called "illegal", "immoral or malicious" behavior comes from a certain handful of boards, of which there are over fifty. For most, the only illegal/immoral stuff they engage in is piracy and just generally being assholes, both of which can be found on almost any online congregation.

In short, lel.

Ok, here's the thing: I don't even have huge moral problems with piracy, but it is very illegal. And "just generally being assholes" should damn well be labeled as a guilty pleasure, at least as it regards 4chan's interaction with the world outside 4chan.

Likewise, many people have no actual problem with smoking crack. That doesn't mean it's not illegal, and it doesn't mean there's no good reason people don't want to live next to a crack house. Or even a dive bar, for that matter.

Consistent cross-site raids conducted by sites like 4chan and SomethingAwful (and worse: hate groups are some of Reddit's most regular raiders) definitely do create the effect of having a virtual "bad neighbor".

I enjoy 4chan too, after having finally getting over being a newfriend (printing the polite version of that term) since half my IRL friends are anons. This doesn't mean I don't know damn well the site is a guilty pleasure and I shouldn't actually let myself get sucked into the Internet Hate Machine.

> I don't even have huge moral problems with piracy, but it is very illegal

Why should this make people concerned about admitting to going to 4chan anymore than piracy would make people concerned about using IRC, usenet, torrents, or even thepiratebay in particular?

I spent the rest of the post describing the things I have actual moral concerns about.

My objection applies to all of the things that you mentioned, particularly IRC and "raiding". In fact almost all "raiding" that is associated with 4chan is actually planed/organized/orchestrated on IRC.

And? I would certainly say much of IRC is a "bad neighborhood" ethics-wise. It's half the fun of the internet that we can hang out in the worst neighborhoods of all, the very dens of crime and iniquity and blah blah blah, and yet stand no risk whatsoever of actually being mugged.

My point is that I would not expect a comment expressing surprise that people admit to using IRC, even though all the reasons you cite for your surprise at people admitting to using 4chan apply as well or better to IRC.

> Ok, here's the thing: I don't even have huge moral problems with piracy, but it is very illegal.

Ehm. Yes, piracy, as in armed robbery on the high seas, is indeed "very illegal" [sic]. Copy-pasta culture with images is arguably very close to fair use, so close that various aspects (sampling for music, being the most prolific) have been deemed legal.

Are you saying that you know of 4chan boards dedicated to (actual) piracy?

I would think hate speech is generally held to be "more" illegal than digital piracy in most countries. Copyright infringement is largely a civil matter, not a criminal matter.

By the way, I still want that word: "piracy" back. I do not, will not, accept that the copyright lobby has gotten away with stealing it.

Reading the things you say is like reading to what Senator Ted Stevens from Alaska said about the internet. The phrase 'newfriend' and anon, out of your mouth, made me cringe much the same way as when I receive tech support requests from tech-illiterate friends and relatives.

You're so out of touch it's ridiculous

Since you're not exactly telling me what I'm missing other than "newfag is faggot, gtfo", there's really only one thing to say: http://images.t-nation.com/forum_images/1/8/185e5_ORIG-cool_...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com