Voxility cut off BitMitigate because of 8chan

[Drak3]

2 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

the general news media completely ignores it.

They defend Antifa fairly often. With Ngo, they finally condemned Antifa (at threat of lawsuit) and still smeared Ngo.

 

They don't ignore it. They welcome it.

[Trik'Stari]

2 minutes ago, Majinhoju said:

The recent right wing mass shootings have me a little more worried.

Only because you aren't aware of what's actually going on in the streets. If you live in the western US and are white, you're FAR more likely to get beaten up by Antifa than you are ever likely to be shot by a right wing mass shooter.

 

Because CNN and Fox are largely ignoring Antifa for some fucking reason. And the police in these areas are being told "do not intervene or make arrests".

 

It's almost as if Fox News is, and always has been, a strawman.

[Suika]

6 minutes ago, matrix07012 said:

Yes they do. I never said they don't. I said that it was a PR stunt to calm a moral- mob and that the witch hunts are ridiculous. 

Sorry if I didn't make that clear.

It doesn't have to be a PR stunt, the vendors themselves could have disproved of the hateful content being spread on the board with little restriction. Not every business decision is driven by money.

[matrix07012]

1 minute ago, spartaman64 said:

i can tell you are from 8chan from that word lol

Not really. I barely use the chans. I just think the word is perfect. 

[SenKa]

In the other thread I talked about how much of a dangerous precedent the supreme courts rulings are about censorship and refusal of service... These companies are violating the constitutions rights to free speech and demonstration... Shame is they have an army of lawyers ready to defend them.

[Suika]

3 minutes ago, SenKa said:

These companies are violating the constitutions rights to free speech and demonstration...

They are doing nothing of the sort, they merely do not want to host a platform that does very little to moderate the illegal content that gets shared around.

[matrix07012]

2 minutes ago, Suika said:

It doesn't have to be a PR stunt, the vendors themselves could have disproved of the hateful content being spread on the board with little restriction. Not every business decision is driven by money.

Well yes and no. PR stunts aren't always about money and in the case of CloudFlare, the CEO does not agree that kicking them off will help anything. 

[Donut417]

4 hours ago, matrix07012 said:

8chan

Forgive me. But is 8chan similar to 4chan by chance? 

[SenKa]

12 minutes ago, VegetableStu said:

-snip-

Well... Fair enough there. I was unaware cloudflare was private. Though, the supreme court has upheld similar notions as Cloudflare's via the first amendment. See Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

 

I will admit this is not a perfect representation, but the wording allows itself to be upheld as such, and that is just as fair play.

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, matrix07012 said:

That doesn't address the annoying neighbors.

 

Yes it does.   If the neighbors becoming annoyed is the reason you no longer want someone yelling in your house then that is a fair enough reason.   Things change, opinions change,  just because you let someone yell before doesn't mean you can't ask them to stop when the yelling is now effecting other things you don't want to be effected.

[realpetertdm]

3 hours ago, Waffles13 said:

Horrible things go up on every website with user posting. The fact is that if you saw something actually illegal and didn't report it, then moderation likely didn't see it because there are barely any volunteers, especially for less popular boards. 

That's not our problem. If they don't have enough volunteer moderators then find more. If 8ch is getting shit for horribly moderating their boards then they should do better.

 

[realpetertdm]

2 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

It is entirely the goal of the radical leftists that are controlling hollywood, "news" media, education, and big tech here in the west.

 

"Do you embrace communist revolution? No? Then you're a Nazi and must be killed". That's where this is leading, calling it now.

We did it boys, we found the r/conspiracy user

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, CarlBar said:

So yes in absolute terms places like Facebook, Youtube, e.t.c have more moderation going on. But weather it's more effective is a very subjective judgment. I'm not going to try to provide my own answer as i don't know 8chan remotely well enough to do so. But just because the big names do more doesn't automatically mean they're doing better.

 

Even then,  The argument can't be made that lacking the resources to keep content legal is an excuse to have illegal content.   I've always said about youtube that if they can't manage the content they have then they shouldn't be hosting it. 

 

But in addendum to this comparison to facebook,  we quite often see facebook being questioned and dragged through parliamentary committee's. So it's not like facebook get a free pass, they are being scrutinized fairy closely.

[Drak3]

17 minutes ago, realpetertdm said:

We did it boys, we found the r/conspiracy user

Do you have a counter argument, or...

[realpetertdm]

10 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Do you have a counter argument, or...

I would like to see how I can counter an argument that already has no basis in facts or reality.

 

Do I just say "Your comment is bullshit"?

[Drak3]

8 minutes ago, realpetertdm said:

would like to see how I can counter an argument that already has no basis in facts or reality.

@Trik'Stari's argument is based in reality. Media treatment of Antifa prior to the Andy Ngo attack.

[realpetertdm]

10 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

@Trik'Stari's argument is based in reality. Media treatment of Antifa prior to the Andy Ngo attack.

Nope.avi

 

I really don't have time to answer baseless claims and weak conspiracy theories, so I'll ask you this:

 

If the media is actually controlled by "far left radicals" then why did WaPo report on Warren criticizing Antifa?

Why did Vox, a liberal biased news outlet, publish this: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/29/16216346/antifa-violence

Why did WSJ publish this:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/portlands-antifa-impunity-11564348707

 

Andy Ngo got assaulted. That's bad. And how does that prove that the media is controlled by radical leftists? Fox, WSJ, NYT and many other news outlets reported on it after it occured, and many media outlets already reported on antifa before. Andy Ngo's situation does not prove anything.

 

 

Any more conspiracy theories?

[Kisai]

27 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

Even then,  The argument can't be made that lacking the resources to keep content legal is an excuse to have illegal content.   I've always said about youtube that if they can't manage the content they have then they shouldn't be hosting it. 

 

But in addendum to this comparison to facebook,  we quite often see facebook being questioned and dragged through parliamentary committee's. So it's not like facebook get a free pass, they are being scrutinized fairy closely.

One site I manage, would occasionally get emails from large banks security companies sent via the colocation center who would alert us to a user-generated site that had been compromised, and hosting phishing/trademark infringement stuff. The warnings in these emails actually say "resolve the issue immediately or your service will be terminated." User generated content like image boards are like a good 50%+ copyright infringement by volume, by design.  I would not really expect *chan sites to be able to catch 100% of the infringing material because who knows every single IP out there, but I would expect that if a certain board attracts nothing but illegal activity, shut it down immediately. One of the other chan sites hosted by voxility had a problem with people posting CP and that took the site down at least once. The "/b" type part of 4chan is extremely notorious for anything goes, but has very fast turn-over if people don't start posting to a thread, like any part of the *chan sites. So yes, these sites are absolutely aware of bad stuff happening, because it bumps those threads to the top of the the respective boards. That is, unless they use the moderation tools to prevent a thread from being bumped.

 

Regardless, contacts from the data center are supposed to be taken as "24 hours to solve or goodbye", and most law-abiding ISP's don't care what's on the machine, if a notice is sent, the machine gets unplugged if you don't respond. I imagine voxility probably had one of it's peers threaten to de-peer them if nothing was done for them to take action this quickly.  I can't imagine any transit carrier in the world would want to peer with an ISP that would accept 8chan or daily stormer as a customer.

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, Kisai said:

One site I manage, would occasionally get emails from large banks security companies sent via the colocation center who would alert us to a user-generated site that had been compromised, and hosting phishing/trademark infringement stuff. The warnings in these emails actually say "resolve the issue immediately or your service will be terminated." User generated content like image boards are like a good 50%+ copyright infringement by volume, by design.  I would not really expect *chan sites to be able to catch 100% of the infringing material because who knows every single IP out there, but I would expect that if a certain board attracts nothing but illegal activity, shut it down immediately. One of the other chan sites hosted by voxility had a problem with people posting CP and that took the site down at least once. The "/b" type part of 4chan is extremely notorious for anything goes, but has very fast turn-over if people don't start posting to a thread, like any part of the *chan sites. So yes, these sites are absolutely aware of bad stuff happening, because it bumps those threads to the top of the the respective boards. That is, unless they use the moderation tools to prevent a thread from being bumped.

 

Regardless, contacts from the data center are supposed to be taken as "24 hours to solve or goodbye", and most law-abiding ISP's don't care what's on the machine, if a notice is sent, the machine gets unplugged if you don't respond. I imagine voxility probably had one of it's peers threaten to de-peer them if nothing was done for them to take action this quickly.  I can't imagine any transit carrier in the world would want to peer with an ISP that would accept 8chan or daily stormer as a customer.

So its fair to say they all experience a similar amount of scrutiny at some level. 

[Drak3]

2 minutes ago, realpetertdm said:

Why did WSJ publish this:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/portlands-antifa-impunity-11564348707

Ngo's lawyer was actively setting up to sue journalists that were slandering Ngo.

 

2 minutes ago, realpetertdm said:

Why did Vox, a liberal biased news outlet, publish this: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/29/16216346/antifa-violence

You might want to actually read that one.

 

It doesn't condemn Antifa for the use of violence. It actually argues that there is somehow a false equivalence between the far right enacting violence and the """tolerant""" left enacting violence.

 

 

A good video from a near center 'Liberal.'

 

[realpetertdm]

15 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Ngo's lawyer was actively setting up to sue journalists that were slandering Ngo.

 

You might want to actually read that one.

 

It doesn't condemn Antifa for the use of violence. It actually argues that there is somehow a false equivalence between the far right enacting violence and the """tolerant""" left enacting violence.

 

 

A good video from a near center 'Liberal.'

 

You still haven't proven how the media is controlled by radical leftists.

And this is from the first sentence of the Vox article:

"The anti-fascist movement often deploys violence in its protests — and that could seriously backfire."

 

Suggestion: If you're going to claim conspiracy theories then at least have the decency to bring actual evidence instead of empirical easily proven "evidence".

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, realpetertdm said:

You still haven't proven how the media is controlled by radical leftists.

If you're not going to even read through your own sources, don't waste my time with disingenuous arguments.

 

And don't put words in my mouth. I never claimed radical.

[realpetertdm]

12 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

If you're not going to even read through your own sources, don't waste my time with disingenuous arguments.

 

And don't put words in my mouth. I never claimed radical.

You said that someone else's opinion on radical leftists controlling the media is based on reality. That's agreeing with him/her, no? 

 

Again, you haven't shown any proof and you haven't explained how my sources prove anything else.

If you're going to argue then do know that explaining your argument works well.

 

Fact 1: Fox News is the most watched cable news channel in the US.

Fact 2: Fox News has a severe right wing bias.

I would like to see how Fox is now considered as a media outlet operated by radical leftists.

[Suika]

2 hours ago, SenKa said:

Though, the supreme court has upheld similar notions as Cloudflare's via the first amendment. See Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

The Supreme Court's ruling was that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission evaluation did not employ religious neutrality, it has virtually no impact on the discussion of online vendors supporting customers that allow hateful content to be posted on their boards.

[Drak3]

8 minutes ago, realpetertdm said:

you haven't explained how my sources prove anything else.

One of your sources does not condemn Antifa's violence. Hell, it softly legitimizes it:

Quote

The argument for antifa activists is that the current crop of right-wing protesters — which are partly but not entirely made up of neo-Nazis, KKK members, and other white supremacists and nationalists — are so extreme that they must be stopped swiftly and even violently. Antifa supporters worry that if these groups’ views aren’t completely robbed of any kind of platform, they could gain legitimacy — and take advantage of democratic ideals like free speech to, ironically, promote their undemocratic messages. Violence is one way to get them off the stage.

The next paragraph, and the rest of the article, does not talk about it being morally or legally wrong. All it does is talk about how this reinforces (what Vox libelously claims are Neo-Nazis' and KKK members') wrongthink.

 

 

The other source exists after Ngo's lawyer announced lawsuits against those responsible for the attack and any potential libel/slander. It's also locked behind a pay wall. I'm not wasting money on that rag.

 

 

And that still ignores Tim Poole's video on it.