4Chan Flooding YouTube with Childrens' Clips Containing Porn(news.bbc.co.uk)
news.bbc.co.uk
4Chan Flooding YouTube with Childrens' Clips Containing Porn
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8061979.stm
50 comments
(Update, posted here: http://bit.ly/l1Lvh)
What funny side is that?
I have never taken one of the attacks, defamations, etc. by people online personally nor felt in the least inclined to put an end to it all, but 4Chan strikes a nerve - what they do is pure, raw evil.
I know I'm doing them a favor by posting this, that these are the very feelings they intend to elicit by their actions, but honestly, enough is enough. This is the 2nd time I am so appalled by their behavior, and one of the few times I am ashamed of the internet's privacy and the power of its denizens to do evil.
The last time (http://bit.ly/qcWDC) was when 4Chan attacked an epilepsy forum frequented by people susceptible to photosensitive seizures, causing a dozen epilepsy attacks by uploading rapidly-moving images and flashing colors to the forum, triggering a dozen attack.
Willfully bringing about seizures in handicapped people and exposing children as young as 6 years old to wholly-explicit films of adult sex are E.V.I.L. .... and more importantly, punishable by law.
I hope someone wises up in the legal community and takes action against this site. Like I said, I know this is the sort of self-righteous anger that 4Chan is looking forward to receiving after these attacks, but there's a line and they crossed it a long time ago.
So, do tell, where's the funny side in this?
What funny side is that?
I have never taken one of the attacks, defamations, etc. by people online personally nor felt in the least inclined to put an end to it all, but 4Chan strikes a nerve - what they do is pure, raw evil.
I know I'm doing them a favor by posting this, that these are the very feelings they intend to elicit by their actions, but honestly, enough is enough. This is the 2nd time I am so appalled by their behavior, and one of the few times I am ashamed of the internet's privacy and the power of its denizens to do evil.
The last time (http://bit.ly/qcWDC) was when 4Chan attacked an epilepsy forum frequented by people susceptible to photosensitive seizures, causing a dozen epilepsy attacks by uploading rapidly-moving images and flashing colors to the forum, triggering a dozen attack.
Willfully bringing about seizures in handicapped people and exposing children as young as 6 years old to wholly-explicit films of adult sex are E.V.I.L. .... and more importantly, punishable by law.
I hope someone wises up in the legal community and takes action against this site. Like I said, I know this is the sort of self-righteous anger that 4Chan is looking forward to receiving after these attacks, but there's a line and they crossed it a long time ago.
So, do tell, where's the funny side in this?
This is not evil. This is a bunch of kids sitting behind their collective computers having a giggle with their mates.
As you observed, the Internet completely disconnects them from the reality of their actions. I'd wager that -- generally speaking -- 4channers don't run around flashing their technicolour LCDs at epileptics or showing porn to their mate's six year old. They're a little power-drunk on sweet, sweet anonymity juice.
The porn thing isn't a huge deal in my personal opinion. Of course, I say this without being a parent. So I don't know, perhaps I'd feel differently if that were the case. What I do know is that you and I are different people with different opinions and apparently different senses of humor, and hey -- that's cool. Sorry you found my comments about seeing the funny side to be so outrageous, I meant no offense.
I'd prefer a cultural change in 4chan rather than a legal smackdown. You can shut down a site, but the 4channers will still be around. This, in turn, will only lead to Internet censorship for the rest of us.
And it really would be shit if the Internet's dying words were "Oh, but think of the children." -- but imagine the good 4chan could do if this sort of energy were channeled elsewhere? Maybe I'm just being excessively optimistic. :)
As you observed, the Internet completely disconnects them from the reality of their actions. I'd wager that -- generally speaking -- 4channers don't run around flashing their technicolour LCDs at epileptics or showing porn to their mate's six year old. They're a little power-drunk on sweet, sweet anonymity juice.
The porn thing isn't a huge deal in my personal opinion. Of course, I say this without being a parent. So I don't know, perhaps I'd feel differently if that were the case. What I do know is that you and I are different people with different opinions and apparently different senses of humor, and hey -- that's cool. Sorry you found my comments about seeing the funny side to be so outrageous, I meant no offense.
I'd prefer a cultural change in 4chan rather than a legal smackdown. You can shut down a site, but the 4channers will still be around. This, in turn, will only lead to Internet censorship for the rest of us.
And it really would be shit if the Internet's dying words were "Oh, but think of the children." -- but imagine the good 4chan could do if this sort of energy were channeled elsewhere? Maybe I'm just being excessively optimistic. :)
4channers
These actions come from the 4chan channel /b/. Their users call themselves "/b/tards".
These actions come from the 4chan channel /b/. Their users call themselves "/b/tards".
Pure, raw evil? Get a grip.
It's not E.V.I.L. It's mean, and nasty. But E.V.I.L. to me resembles means more on the lines of the rape, torture, murder variety.
The reason the law shouldn't get involved in cases like this is the damage done to citizens in enforcing the law is higher than the result of letting it go free. Any parent who lets their kids under 13 browse around youtube unsupervised is responsible for the result of what the kid sees.
It's not E.V.I.L. It's mean, and nasty. But E.V.I.L. to me resembles means more on the lines of the rape, torture, murder variety.
The reason the law shouldn't get involved in cases like this is the damage done to citizens in enforcing the law is higher than the result of letting it go free. Any parent who lets their kids under 13 browse around youtube unsupervised is responsible for the result of what the kid sees.
How exactly can you put causing epilepsy attacks and exposing children to porn on the same level? I may be liberal, but to be honest I am more offended by your remark then about what 4chan did.
So which one do you think is more severe?
Causing mental and physical pain and suffering with the possibility of death to people, including children; or causing mental pain and suffering to children?
Causing mental and physical pain and suffering with the possibility of death to people, including children; or causing mental pain and suffering to children?
When I first found a porn movie on TV one night as a kid, my father watched about 5 minutes with me and went to bed. There was remarkably little mental pain and suffering :D. Not all cultures are so scared by sex.
I was going to try to explain but seeing you use phrases like "pure, raw evil" to describe a couple of internet pranks makes me wonder if it's even possible.
The epilepsy thing was going too far, I agree, and they haven't done anything like that since. But I don't see why this one is so bad, in fact when I saw the headline I grinned and thought "good old 4Chan, creating drama for the rest of us .."
When I think "pure, raw evil" I think of nazi concentration camps and pleasure killers, etc. I cannot even begin to put these pranks into the same category. I don't see any reason whatsoever why it should be illegal. I just don't understand your reaction at all, basically. What is the problem?
The epilepsy thing was going too far, I agree, and they haven't done anything like that since. But I don't see why this one is so bad, in fact when I saw the headline I grinned and thought "good old 4Chan, creating drama for the rest of us .."
When I think "pure, raw evil" I think of nazi concentration camps and pleasure killers, etc. I cannot even begin to put these pranks into the same category. I don't see any reason whatsoever why it should be illegal. I just don't understand your reaction at all, basically. What is the problem?
This: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Rose_Bowl_Hoax
is a prank that's actually funny and clever. Most of the 4chan things aren't particularly clever or entertaining, and things like targeting people with an illness, or children, are just lame, and not funny. Things that make for entertaining pranks are focusing on the powerful, the famous, and especially those who are full of themselves.
is a prank that's actually funny and clever. Most of the 4chan things aren't particularly clever or entertaining, and things like targeting people with an illness, or children, are just lame, and not funny. Things that make for entertaining pranks are focusing on the powerful, the famous, and especially those who are full of themselves.
Honestly, I found that prank (précis: college A sabotages college B's materials to mistakenly spell college A's name at a football game) to be quite profoundly un-funny, reminiscent of those awful "kids at camp" movies where the "hero" kids would do something to make the "enemy" kids all fall into the water, or something.
I guess my idea of funny pranks would be something like The Chaser (Australian TV Show), not sure what the US equivalent would be.
I guess my idea of funny pranks would be something like The Chaser (Australian TV Show), not sure what the US equivalent would be.
I don't see how you can call it a prank.
Personally, I feel that singling out handicapped people on the web and posting images specifically tailored to bring about possible-fatal seizures in them is the very behavior of pleasure killers.
At least many of the Nazi soldiers that participated in the holocaust didn't personally agree with their orders, despite what they did. But make no mistake about it, every single Anonymous member that posted on YouTube and the epilepsy forums did so of their own volition and should be tried for it.
The posts to the epilepsy forum could easily be tried as attempted manslaughter. And the posts to YouTube, on an individual basis, are almost guaranteed to cover a number of lesser charges, such as distribution of sexual material to minors, lewd acts, etc.
Personally, I feel that singling out handicapped people on the web and posting images specifically tailored to bring about possible-fatal seizures in them is the very behavior of pleasure killers.
At least many of the Nazi soldiers that participated in the holocaust didn't personally agree with their orders, despite what they did. But make no mistake about it, every single Anonymous member that posted on YouTube and the epilepsy forums did so of their own volition and should be tried for it.
The posts to the epilepsy forum could easily be tried as attempted manslaughter. And the posts to YouTube, on an individual basis, are almost guaranteed to cover a number of lesser charges, such as distribution of sexual material to minors, lewd acts, etc.
I said I also disagreed with the epilepsy event. That went too far. But this is learning, is it not? They went too far, they learned from it, they haven't done it again. Why involve the law? You would never find them anyway.
There were no lasting ill effects from the epilepsy forum vandalism. The Wired article you link to mentions "day-long migraine", someone who locked up for "about 10 seconds", etc. I'm not trying to downplay the stupidity of it, not at all. I'm just saying that throwing around phrases like "attempted manslaughter" is a huge exaggeration. It was a stupid, ill-conceived prank that had unanticipated consequences. If they'd done it again after that, then you can start using words like malicious or maelevolent, but they haven't.
I don't have any problem with the YouTube prank at all. Who cares if some kids see some naked people? I'd almost prefer them watching porn than the fricking Jonas Brothers. And good luck convicting anyone, they'd just claim is was art or something, and I kind of agree.
There were no lasting ill effects from the epilepsy forum vandalism. The Wired article you link to mentions "day-long migraine", someone who locked up for "about 10 seconds", etc. I'm not trying to downplay the stupidity of it, not at all. I'm just saying that throwing around phrases like "attempted manslaughter" is a huge exaggeration. It was a stupid, ill-conceived prank that had unanticipated consequences. If they'd done it again after that, then you can start using words like malicious or maelevolent, but they haven't.
I don't have any problem with the YouTube prank at all. Who cares if some kids see some naked people? I'd almost prefer them watching porn than the fricking Jonas Brothers. And good luck convicting anyone, they'd just claim is was art or something, and I kind of agree.
It's just begging for the political and commercial powers that be to stamp down on the web with a great, big boot.
No, this is the end of the ad-supported internet.
Politics doesn't matter; the (US) government cannot legally censor anything, they've tried, it's been declared unconstitutional. Companies don't care what they're hosting, as long as they are getting rich. If they could legally make millions of dollars a year hosting child porn, they would. (They have no objection to polluting the environment or forcing workers to work in unsafe conditions, directly resulting in many deaths every day. Showing videos on the Internet is child's play compared to that.)
However, it's the advertisers who will get upset, and then pull out. "Our product associated with porn being shown to children? Bye." With no advertising revenue, the web (as we know it) cannot exist. That means either censorship (too hard; "information wants to be free"), or actually paying money for content.
FWIW, this is not unheard of. The big Japanese video sharing site, NicoNico Douga, requires everyone to pay. Even though it's not free, it's more popular than Youtube.
In the end, the advertisers lose, and I think that's a good thing. I hate advertising.
Media corporations have already started demanding more control over the "distribution channel" that is the Internet.
They're demanding, but nobody cares about their demands. I know people whine about Hulu's restrictions, but I've never even visited Hulu and I still get all my TV online. It's called Usenet. You open your news reader, browse to alt.binaries.multimedia.tv-shows, or whatever, and download away. In 10 minutes, I have whatever show I want, in HD, with no restrictions. "Censorship is considered damage, and the Internet routes around it."
The whole "let's punish file-sharers" thing has also backfired. Even governments with very weak personal protections (France, the UK) have struck down the disconnection laws. The Pirate Party has 17% of the vote in Sweeden (and large numbers in other EU countries, I think). Organizations in the US are suing the RIAA for its lawsuit intimidation campaign.
The tide is shifting, and it's not towards the media industry's interests.
Basically, now is not time for the media companies to demand anything. Nobody cares what they think. If creating content isn't profitable anymore, they should go into some other business and stop bothering everyone else.
No, this is the end of the ad-supported internet.
Politics doesn't matter; the (US) government cannot legally censor anything, they've tried, it's been declared unconstitutional. Companies don't care what they're hosting, as long as they are getting rich. If they could legally make millions of dollars a year hosting child porn, they would. (They have no objection to polluting the environment or forcing workers to work in unsafe conditions, directly resulting in many deaths every day. Showing videos on the Internet is child's play compared to that.)
However, it's the advertisers who will get upset, and then pull out. "Our product associated with porn being shown to children? Bye." With no advertising revenue, the web (as we know it) cannot exist. That means either censorship (too hard; "information wants to be free"), or actually paying money for content.
FWIW, this is not unheard of. The big Japanese video sharing site, NicoNico Douga, requires everyone to pay. Even though it's not free, it's more popular than Youtube.
In the end, the advertisers lose, and I think that's a good thing. I hate advertising.
Media corporations have already started demanding more control over the "distribution channel" that is the Internet.
They're demanding, but nobody cares about their demands. I know people whine about Hulu's restrictions, but I've never even visited Hulu and I still get all my TV online. It's called Usenet. You open your news reader, browse to alt.binaries.multimedia.tv-shows, or whatever, and download away. In 10 minutes, I have whatever show I want, in HD, with no restrictions. "Censorship is considered damage, and the Internet routes around it."
The whole "let's punish file-sharers" thing has also backfired. Even governments with very weak personal protections (France, the UK) have struck down the disconnection laws. The Pirate Party has 17% of the vote in Sweeden (and large numbers in other EU countries, I think). Organizations in the US are suing the RIAA for its lawsuit intimidation campaign.
The tide is shifting, and it's not towards the media industry's interests.
Basically, now is not time for the media companies to demand anything. Nobody cares what they think. If creating content isn't profitable anymore, they should go into some other business and stop bothering everyone else.
The First Amendment right to free speech is not absolute. Sure, the Supreme Court has usually rejected prior restraint, but try writing a book about how to make crystal meth and let me know how it turns out.
And there's certainly no absolute right to anonymous speech....
And there's certainly no absolute right to anonymous speech....
try writing a book about how to make crystal meth and let me know how it turns out.
I can't think of any reason that this might be illegal. The research you need to do to write a good book may be illegal, however. You can always do that in a different country, though.
And there's certainly no absolute right to anonymous speech....
The courts disagree. See, http://www.eff.org/cases/doe-v-cahill for example. (http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20051007151046... is a more in-depth analysis.)
Finally, "anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority ... It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation -- and their ideas from suppression -- at the hand of an intolerant society."
I can't think of any reason that this might be illegal. The research you need to do to write a good book may be illegal, however. You can always do that in a different country, though.
And there's certainly no absolute right to anonymous speech....
The courts disagree. See, http://www.eff.org/cases/doe-v-cahill for example. (http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20051007151046... is a more in-depth analysis.)
Finally, "anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority ... It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation -- and their ideas from suppression -- at the hand of an intolerant society."
the authors of the federalist papers might beg to differ
"They're demanding, but nobody cares about their demands."
Except politicians whose morals and wants stretch in proportion to the contributions they receive.
"Basically, now is not time for the media companies to demand anything."
That's not the point I'm trying to make. The point is that this sort of "vandalism" is going to change the whole landscape, everything you just described.
Perhaps now is not the time for media companies to demand anything -- but if you take the freedom of today's Internet for granted, sooner or later this sort of behaviour is going to come back and bite us all on the ass. It could progress such that if censorship fails, they could always go down the China route and use plain old-fashioned fear.
Except politicians whose morals and wants stretch in proportion to the contributions they receive.
"Basically, now is not time for the media companies to demand anything."
That's not the point I'm trying to make. The point is that this sort of "vandalism" is going to change the whole landscape, everything you just described.
Perhaps now is not the time for media companies to demand anything -- but if you take the freedom of today's Internet for granted, sooner or later this sort of behaviour is going to come back and bite us all on the ass. It could progress such that if censorship fails, they could always go down the China route and use plain old-fashioned fear.
Perhaps you mean "Advertising on UGC websites". And in that case, it's far more likely sites will just come up with better moderation tools to detect questionable content.
Online advertising is crucial for the survival of the internet. I kinda like the fact most sites are free to visit. You can hate it all you like, but without it, most of the internet wouldn't exist. I hate people who hate advertising :/ It's irrational. It's like saying you hate 'money', 'commerce' or even 'information'
Online advertising is crucial for the survival of the internet. I kinda like the fact most sites are free to visit. You can hate it all you like, but without it, most of the internet wouldn't exist. I hate people who hate advertising :/ It's irrational. It's like saying you hate 'money', 'commerce' or even 'information'
I will define "hating advertising" as "liking the lack of advertising better".
Fortunately, this is a decision I am free to make for myself. I can fast-forward through advertisements on television and block them on the Internet.
Fortunately, this is a decision I am free to make for myself. I can fast-forward through advertisements on television and block them on the Internet.
meh. I find them really useful. Perhaps it's a hippy anti-consumerism thing I just don't understand?
"Online advertising is crucial for the survival of the internet."
Which internet? There was plenty of internet before ads became common. Without ads some other structure would arise. It might change a bit but the internet is here to stay.
"I hate people who hate advertising :/ It's irrational."
I don't see anything irrational about disliking insidious, manipulative marketing messages being shoved in your face whereever you look. In fact I find it completely rational, what are you talking about? I am guessing that you rely on advertising for your income, but surely you can see the other perspective.
And saying that you "hate" people who hate advertising is pretty disturbing.
update: corrected misquote
Which internet? There was plenty of internet before ads became common. Without ads some other structure would arise. It might change a bit but the internet is here to stay.
"I hate people who hate advertising :/ It's irrational."
I don't see anything irrational about disliking insidious, manipulative marketing messages being shoved in your face whereever you look. In fact I find it completely rational, what are you talking about? I am guessing that you rely on advertising for your income, but surely you can see the other perspective.
And saying that you "hate" people who hate advertising is pretty disturbing.
update: corrected misquote
Which internet? There was plenty of internet before ads became common.
I agree. I have never found ads worth the trouble. I am no designer, but I cannot bear to look at ads on my own site, even if I could be making money. I would rather ensure that my readers have a peaceful and pristine experience learning from my writing than make a few cents off of them. I think I would even prefer a paywall to advertising. (And indeed, I have written a book that you have to pay for. Although it is on P2P sites, and I certainly won't be suing you if you download and read it. Give me money if you want to, otherwise, don't worry about it.)
And saying that you "hate" people who dislike advertising is pretty disturbing.
It's axod. He is hates everyone and everything, unless Apple makes it.
I agree. I have never found ads worth the trouble. I am no designer, but I cannot bear to look at ads on my own site, even if I could be making money. I would rather ensure that my readers have a peaceful and pristine experience learning from my writing than make a few cents off of them. I think I would even prefer a paywall to advertising. (And indeed, I have written a book that you have to pay for. Although it is on P2P sites, and I certainly won't be suing you if you download and read it. Give me money if you want to, otherwise, don't worry about it.)
And saying that you "hate" people who dislike advertising is pretty disturbing.
It's axod. He is hates everyone and everything, unless Apple makes it.
I love lots of things :) A free internet is one of those things.
I don't understand hate of advertising though. Are you anti-christmas presents also? Do you hate blockbuster movies? Hate disney? Hate consumerism? Maybe there's some 'hippiness' going on I just don't get.
I don't understand hate of advertising though. Are you anti-christmas presents also? Do you hate blockbuster movies? Hate disney? Hate consumerism? Maybe there's some 'hippiness' going on I just don't get.
I don't understand hate of advertising though.
It's boring to see the same thing over and over again. If I got a new ad every time, maybe I wouldn't block them.
It's boring to see the same thing over and over again. If I got a new ad every time, maybe I wouldn't block them.
You're not replying to me, but I want to respond anyway. I hate advertising for two main reasons:
1. It is mostly ugly and aesthetically displeasing. I care about how things look and take steps to seek out and appreciate things I like looking at (eg art, OSX) and avoid things I don't (advertising, Windows)
2. I recognise the human brain is a flawed machine and susceptible to clever manipulation, even when the person knows he is being manipulated. Thus, I avoid any contact with known-manipulative forms of messaging whereever possible - this includes most forms of advertising. I have no such aversion to, say, movie trailers (I generally love them) or local business catalogues, etc, since they are informational only and do not try to manipulate me. By the way, if you think you're immune to this manipulation, you are 1. in the vast majority of people and 2. provably wrong.
And I do dislike excessive consumerism, especially around christmastime, and credit advertising for spurring it on - but whatever, people can do what they want.
You always mentioning this "free, advertising-supported internet" but that is a simplistic view, IMO. The price of "free" is that you are expected to view, absorb, and presumably act on, commercial messaging. There is no immediate monetary charge, no, but there certainly is a cost.
1. It is mostly ugly and aesthetically displeasing. I care about how things look and take steps to seek out and appreciate things I like looking at (eg art, OSX) and avoid things I don't (advertising, Windows)
2. I recognise the human brain is a flawed machine and susceptible to clever manipulation, even when the person knows he is being manipulated. Thus, I avoid any contact with known-manipulative forms of messaging whereever possible - this includes most forms of advertising. I have no such aversion to, say, movie trailers (I generally love them) or local business catalogues, etc, since they are informational only and do not try to manipulate me. By the way, if you think you're immune to this manipulation, you are 1. in the vast majority of people and 2. provably wrong.
And I do dislike excessive consumerism, especially around christmastime, and credit advertising for spurring it on - but whatever, people can do what they want.
You always mentioning this "free, advertising-supported internet" but that is a simplistic view, IMO. The price of "free" is that you are expected to view, absorb, and presumably act on, commercial messaging. There is no immediate monetary charge, no, but there certainly is a cost.
Well, agree to disagree.
Advertising is there to tell me about products and services I didn't know about. I find that useful, and so do most people. Advertising (when done well) can be funny, witty, clever, artistic, etc. Sure, you get a few ugly adverts, just as with anything else.
I'm guessing it's mainly a "I haven't owned a TV for years/I hate consumerism/Anti-mainstream" type thing at work here...
Advertising is there to tell me about products and services I didn't know about. I find that useful, and so do most people. Advertising (when done well) can be funny, witty, clever, artistic, etc. Sure, you get a few ugly adverts, just as with anything else.
I'm guessing it's mainly a "I haven't owned a TV for years/I hate consumerism/Anti-mainstream" type thing at work here...
From my point of view the internet needs advertising, because if there wasn't Companies like Google orYahoo wouldn't have been able to take on Microsoft with subscription based services.
" I am no designer, but I cannot bear to look at ads on my own site, even if I could be making money. I would rather ensure that my readers have a peaceful and pristine experience learning from my writing than make a few cents off of them."
I wholeheartedly agree. Not only do I not touch ads in any business activities, I do not place ads on any of my personal sites either. I pay for them, then, out of my own pocket - to the tune of about $250/m. I would have thought putting my money where my mouth is like that would ward off claims of being a "freeloader" but apparently not.
I wholeheartedly agree. Not only do I not touch ads in any business activities, I do not place ads on any of my personal sites either. I pay for them, then, out of my own pocket - to the tune of about $250/m. I would have thought putting my money where my mouth is like that would ward off claims of being a "freeloader" but apparently not.
> And saying that you "hate" people who dislike advertising is pretty disturbing.
"hate" advertising. Let's not misquote.
> I don't see anything irrational about disliking insidious, manipulative marketing messages being shoved in your face whereever you look.
It does seem a bit irrational to expect everything for free. The other option is payment. In discussion threads there are a lot of people that say "I'll gladly pay for no advertising", but real life so far has not given me reason to believe that that group is actually of a relevant size.
"hate" advertising. Let's not misquote.
> I don't see anything irrational about disliking insidious, manipulative marketing messages being shoved in your face whereever you look.
It does seem a bit irrational to expect everything for free. The other option is payment. In discussion threads there are a lot of people that say "I'll gladly pay for no advertising", but real life so far has not given me reason to believe that that group is actually of a relevant size.
It's already true in China where Youtube has been blocked for many weeks now. All new PCs will be required to have censorware installed by July.
I enjoy using Youtube, but behavior like this helps justify the government's draconian measures, which is not so funny for the people who live here.
I enjoy using Youtube, but behavior like this helps justify the government's draconian measures, which is not so funny for the people who live here.
You guys use Tor:
http://tor.eff.org
And donate bandwidth if you can setting up a server (at least a middle server).
http://tor.eff.org
And donate bandwidth if you can setting up a server (at least a middle server).
>In one video titled Jonas Brother Live On Stage, a user posted a comment saying: "I'm 12 years old and what is this?"
ah, bbc...
ah, bbc...
This happened nearly a month ago. It's strange how breaking stories go away, then suddenly reappear at the top of the BBC most read list (sometimes months or even years later)... where they get picked up and recycled by social news sites or bloggers, only to cause a second wave of outrage. I wonder what the dynamics of it all are.
Also note that the "I'm 12 years old and what is this?" troll - successfully swallowed up by many of the major news outlets - has now become somewhat of a meme.
Also note that the "I'm 12 years old and what is this?" troll - successfully swallowed up by many of the major news outlets - has now become somewhat of a meme.
This also happened today, with lots of /b/-style "publicity" and "planning" i.e. it was copypasta'd in every thread.
I'm confused. The BBC link in the title of this thread is to an article dated 21 May 09 (the original attack). Then ComputerGuru posted a link to an "update" (http://bit.ly/l1Lvh),
which is dated June 13, and goes on to spout "this time, it's not the Church of Scientology they're attacking, but innocent children. As the BBC reports, members of 4Chan have been uploading videos containing explicit sexual content in droves to YouTube today, specifically targeting children". Yet the source of this post - the linked BBC report - is the still the old one dated 21 May 09. If it also happened today, then it's odd to link to an old news article about a current event (at least without noting that it's old).
I am confused that YouTube didn't catch this in advance. I only casually keep myself informed of Internet memes, and I knew 4chan was going to unleash a bunch of porn on June 12th. If I know... everyone knows :)
Not that it matters, but I didn't know... guess the guys at YouTube aren't alone. :P
I'm not sure I follow. Were you suggesting that YouTube disable uploads for the day?
How did you find out?
Honestly it's been copypasta'd throughout /b/ for the past few weeks. And yesterday especially, it was in every thread!
It's not like /b/ is some walled garden ::)
It's not like /b/ is some walled garden ::)
I only rarely read /b/, so I must have heard about it here.
I don't think this is funny at all. They've now managed to be a real asshole by sabotaging childrens' clips
Media corporations have already started demanding more control over the "distribution channel" that is the Internet. When the lobbying steps up, politicians aren't going to have to look very far for justification to give the corporations exactly what they want.
</twocents>