The Register: AT&T blocks 4chan
If this is true - and that's a mighty big "if" - and if AT&T is doing it on purpose - and that's an even bigger "if" - then wouldn't choosing which traffic to carry put AT&T's "common carrier" status at risk? This has to be either a prank or a mistake on somebody's part.
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."
- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012
They may have a leg to stand on, if they are able to push their current stance, which is 'the block was due to DDOS involving that IP, and was done to
protect the network, and had nothing to do with content'
my personal opinion is that while oven baked with a tartar sauce and cracked black pepper and lemon is delicious, there has to be a different way to handle a
fresh red salmon, I'm getting kinda bored with the oven method.
"No can brain today. Want cheezeburger."
From NGE: Nobody Dies, by Gregg Landsman
http://www.fanfiction.net/s/5579457/1/NGE_Nobody_Dies
Quote: WengFook wrote:
http://www.sankakucomplex...07/27/att-censors-4chan/
It doesn't appear to be a joke or a mistake :O
This bit makes me laugh. So hard.
Quote: One of the main preoccupations of most /b/ denizens, perhaps second only to posting random Photoshops or child pornography, is attempting to hack or deface sites which the groupthink of the moment deems objectionable.
Already the board and various external sites (for the sake of those blocked) are alive with talk of how best to crush AT&T's network or customer
service infrastructure in an effort to force the company to reinstate access to the site; much talk also centres on waging a terror campaign against the CEO
and top executives of AT&T, who are now unfortunate enough to be having their personal details widely circulated online.
Whether this is an act of censorship based on the content of the server (which would indeed be highly reprehensible), or a transient effort to control the
headache for the company's network infrastructure which /b/ must at times represent is not completely clear, but it seems most likely to be the
latter.
In either case, the hysterical response of 4chan users and their immediate resort to tactics of vandalism and intimidation hardly elicit great
sympathy
---
"Oh, silver blade, forged in the depths of the beyond. Heed my summons and purge those who stand in my way. Lay
waste."
I agree with a poster who said something along the lines of:
I can think of a good reason to allow /b to exist and remain uncensored. It does serve a most useful function. It does benefit society. Much in the same way
that a sewage tank on a pig farm does. You appreciate it not for it's contents, but that it keeps it all in one place. Much like the sewage tank, /b allows
the rest of the internet to get on with its collective life and work without wallowing in pig shit.
That was a bad call on AT&T's part... /b only aggressively trolls people/companies that react to them, no reaction and they get bored. This is gonna
bite them in the rear end.
As long as /b sticks to trolling and doesn't start breaking the law, I suspect AT&T is big enough to ignore them.
Maybe.
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."
- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012
(duplicate post - Yuku timing glitch, really...)
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."
- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012