Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet

The Washington Post Asks: Should 8chan Be Considered a Terrorist Recuiting Site? (washingtonpost.com) 322

An anonymous reader quotes the Washington Post: As most of the world condemned last week's mass shooting in New Zealand, a contrary story line emerged on 8chan, the online message board where the alleged shooter had announced the attack and urged others to continue the slaughter. "Who should i kill?" one anonymous poster wrote. "I have never been this happy," wrote another. "I am ready. I want to fight...." The persistence of the talk of violence on 8chan has led some experts to call for tougher actions by the world's governments, with some saying the site increasingly looks like the jihadi forums organized by the Islamic State and al-Qaeda...

8chan's founder, Fredrick Brennan, said Jim Watkins [8chan's sole administrator] owns other Internet businesses and has built a technical fortress to guard 8chan from potential takedowns: He owns nearly every component securing the site to the backbone of the Web, including its servers, which are scattered around the world. "You can send a complaint, but no one's going to do anything. He owns the whole operation," Brennan said. "It's how he keeps people confused and guessing...." Watkins is content to lose money, Brennan said, because he sees it as a pet project: "8chan is like a boat to Jim. It doesn't matter if it makes money. He just enjoys using it...."

8chan, however, is shielded in another way: the U.S. web-services giant Cloudflare, which helps websites guard against "distributed denial of service," or DDoS, attacks that online vigilante groups have used to target 8chan in the past.

The Post reports that Brennan "worries there are no true technical solutions beyond a total redesign of the Web, focused around identification and moderation, that could undermine it as a venue for free expression." Brennan tells the Post that "The Internet as a whole is not made to be censored. It was made to be resilient. And as long as there's a contingent of people who like this content, it will never go away."

On Tuesday, 8chan posted tips on Twitter for what to do "If your ISP is blocking a website you'd like to browse" -- a tweet which is now pinned to the top of its feed.

Submission + - Amazon Tells Signal's Creators To Stop Using Anti-Censorship Tool (theverge.com) 1

An anonymous reader writes: The team behind secure messaging app Signal says Amazon has threatened to kick the app off its CloudFront web service unless Signal drops the anti-censorship practice known as domain-fronting. Google recently banned the practice, which lets developers disguise web traffic to look like it’s coming from a different source, allowing apps like Signal to evade country-level bans. As a result, Signal moved from Google to the Amazon-owned Souq content delivery network. But Amazon implemented its own ban on Friday. In an email that Moxie Marlinspike — founder of Signal developer Open Whisper Systems — posted today, Amazon orders the organization to immediately stop using domain-fronting or find another web services provider. Signal used the system to provide service in Egypt, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), where it’s officially banned. It got around filters by making traffic appear to come from a huge platform, since countries weren’t willing to ban the entirety of a site like Google to shut down Signal.

Comment Re:ad blocker? (Score 1) 358

Why is the ethical responsibility on the end user? Does YouTube not benefit from the hard work of "content creators?" Keep in mind, there are plenty who YouTube doesn't compensate at all, who don't even have the option to display ads. There are a few ways they could level the playing field.

  1. Display ads on every video and give every channel the option to collect a portion of the total revenue based on how many views they generate. This way, YouTube partners who call their ad-blocking viewers "unethical, freeloading scumbags" won't feel like hypocritical assholes when they enjoy non-partner content on YouTube.
  2. Make the site paid-only and give every channel the option to collect a portion of the total revenue based on how many views they generate. This also eliminates the "unethical freeloading scumbag" problem. Of course, YouTube wouldn't do this because it would interfere with their oh-so-ethical data-mining operation.

It appears that YouTube has chosen a combination of these options with ad-free subscriptions. So now, they get my money, partners get a portion, and the non-partners I watch with my paid subscription continue to get absolutely nothing. Now that's what I call ethical!

Slashdot Top Deals

Doubt isn't the opposite of faith; it is an element of faith. - Paul Tillich, German theologian and historian

Working...