AT&T Blocks 4Chan.org, Prepares Will

Title gleefully swiped.

Mashable.com wrote:

The LA Metblogs has compiled several sources that apparently confirm AT&T has blocked img.4chan at the ISP level, including reports from multiple Twitter users who cannot access 4chan and even calls to their help desk.

Techcrunch.com wrote:

In other words, AT&T has just opened perhaps the most vindictive, messy can of worms it could have possibly found. Blocking any site is an extreme breach of user trust, but the decision to block 4chan in particular just seems stupid. Expect the web equivalent of rioting if this doesn’t change soon.

The story is making the rounds of the big tech sites but hasn't hit the news sites yet. I fully expect AT&T to explain this away as a systemic glitch, ala Amazon's filtering controversy a few months ago.

I expect this mostly because them blocking 4chan for any reason makes no goddamned sense whatsoever.

Is freedom of access granted or implied in the Constitution/Bill of Rights? [I assume it is, but ]

4chan...

4CHAN?

Geez, there's much worse than 4chan out there. Some executive must have gotten butthurt over something and decided to be meeeean.

Raine wrote:

Geez, there's much worse than 4chan out there.

...and those worse sites have less of a history of flipping the fuck out and messing with people. GOOD MOVE, PEOPLE.

I for one kinda hope we're going to see some sort of meltdown over this, it could be epic.

Really? they couldn't aim for the child porn rings, or even the thousands of piracy sites? They had to target a bunch of 15-year-olds posting cat macros and complaining that they can't find a girlfriend?

Seems more bizarre than anything.

...what?

WHERE'S YOUR FREE SPEECH NOW AMERICA?

The US Constitution has little to no authority in matters like this. If AT&T wants to put limitations on a service they provide, they are completely free to do so.

Now if the US government were to try to block 4chan then it would be a free speech issue. As it stands, this is a business issue, not a legal one.

It's still utterly ridiculous. Why 4chan?

(oh, and anything I say in capslock is completely ironic. Just to clarify)

Just as planned.

4Chan is constantly under DDoS attacks, that could be going through AT&T servers and overloading them.

So blocking it could be a poor decision instead of censorship. (as opposed to finding the source of DDoS and just cutting it off)

(Of course, that would mean that 4chan would just get DDoSed through servers of other ISPs, and since it's fine now, the above is most likely a crock of shit)

Penguin wrote:

The US Constitution has little to no authority in matters like this. If AT&T wants to put limitations on a service they provide, they are completely free to do so.

Now if the US government were to try to block 4chan then it would be a free speech issue. As it stands, this is a business issue, not a legal one.

Net Neutrality, motherfucker, are you with it?

Psy-4 wrote:

Net Neutrality, motherfucker, are you with it?

Property ownership, unclefucker: Do you get it?

Penguin wrote:

Psy-4 wrote:

Net Neutrality, motherfucker, are you with it?

Property ownership, unclefucker: Do you get it?

Net Neutrality all the way!

Haha! Fuck 4chan right up its dirty ass!

This post was paid for by the Church of Scientology.

Knorg wrote:

Haha! Fuck 4chan right up its dirty ass!

This post was paid for by the Church of Scientology.

Do they pay well?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Penguin wrote:

Property ownership, unclefucker: Do you get it?

What, is AT&T the ISP equivalent of a fanbrat now?

Wah, I can do whatever I want with my servers, and I don't see you doing any better, so you're just jealous, enjoy your block.

They own the servers, true; but they are an ISP. See that 'P'? It stands for Provider. As in, their job is to provide internet services. You know what internet services don't include? Censorship without consent. They are not an Internet Service Controller, they are not Big Brother's failure at life, Little Brother.

Nihilist wrote:

First they came for the pirates, and I did not speak out--
because my hard drives were clean;
Then they came for 4chan, and I did not speak out--
because I did not participate in raids;
Then they came for SomethingAwful, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a goon;
Then they came for people who defended net neutrality, and I did not speak out--
because I figured the government knew what was best for me;
Then they came for me--
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Sig, please?

Yeah. I think I can decide for myself which websites are too evil for me to visit.

A case might be able to be made here for discrimination. I'm just wondering why 4chan? All those porn sites too hard to block?

Lady Anne wrote:

Nihilist wrote:

First they came for the pirates, and I did not speak out--
because my hard drives were clean;
Then they came for 4chan, and I did not speak out--
because I did not participate in raids;
Then they came for SomethingAwful, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a goon;
Then they came for people who defended net neutrality, and I did not speak out--
because I figured the government knew what was best for me;
Then they came for me--
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Sig, please?

certainly.

An attack on one of is is an attack on all of us, as long as that one of us was not doing something illegal. INTERNET BACKLASH TIEM

It was nice knowing you, AT&T.

It appears the CEO likes boasting about the size of his penis

It's only Southern California for right now. Hopefully they won't continue this. D:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]