“Firing one of the first shots in the net neutrality war, AT&T has blocked 4chan’s /b/ image board. AT&T subscribers are unable to connect to /b/ and /r9k/ (both of which are hosted on img.4chan.org). However, subscribers can get on any of the so-called «worksafe» boards that 4chan.org offers.”

http://stormen.wordpress.com/2009/07/27/att-blocks-4chan/

You can find various other articles about it around the web . What do you guys think ? I know it’s 4chan and all, but if they are allowed to do this, it really sets a precedent for this kind of thing . Don’t want to get all slippery slope here, but this doesn’t really bode well for the future of the internet .

This is indeed a really slippery slope and as soon as you start to censor anything it will all go to **** inevitably. But one key aspect is that this can’t go unnoticed. Mainstream media in the U.S has to pick this up and people have to care, unless that happens ISPs can keep blocking areas of the internet and continue to be their usual douchbaggery way.

A storm is brewing on the horizon, and a ****storm it is.

Sarcasm Inc Posted:

Frankly, I think everyone on the net would be a lot better off if someone just walled up 4chan, and left them there to drown in their own acgreat timesulated filth. They stopped being funny/witty a long time ago.

The problem with this is pretty simple. Who gets to decide what is or is not objectionable or appropriate? If ISP’s are given free license to block objectionable content it will not be very long till sites like this one are gone the way of the pbuming censor.

Xylon Posted:

The problem with this is pretty simple. Who gets to decide what is or is not objectionable or appropriate? If ISP’s are given free license to block objectionable content it will not be very long till sites like this one are gone the way of the pbuming censor.

I get to decide, duh. Me.

From http://www.centralgadget.com/att-blocking-access-to-portions-of-4chan-2336/

Update (8:45 PM 7/26): After over an hour of trying, we finally got someone from AT&T corporate to provide a statement. AT&T has confirmed that they are “currently blocking portions of the internet site 4chan.org”, but states that they are “following the practices of their policy department.”

AT&T went on to say that they did contact (or, at least, attempted to contact, they wouldn’t clarify) the owners of 4chan. They say that they have specific reasons why they blocked these parts of the site, but they would not disclose them to CentralGadget.com. AT&T states that they have requested specific things and changes from 4chan’s owners, and that 4chan has not complied.

Regardless, without a clear explanation of specific rationale for blocking 4chan… both 4chan and CentralGadget.com encourage you to continue calling AT&T technical support, and filing your complaints there (escalate as high as possible, we have heard reports that Tier 1 support agents are being told to incorrectly state that AT&T doesn’t block any web site).

Update (9 PM 7/26): Moot, the owner of 4chan, has stated that 4chan has received no contact from AT&T, calling into question if AT&T followed their own protocol when blocking 4chan.

Update (11:15 PM 7/26): AT&T appears to have restored access network-wide to all areas of 4chan.

Update (12:30 AM 7/27): 4chan is currently down, due to a large DDOS attack, affecting most of 4chan’s servers. This appears unrelated to the AT&T blockade, but may have been triggered by the high-profile attention that 4chan has received, over the past 24 hours.

Xylon Posted:

The problem with this is pretty simple. Who gets to decide what is or is not objectionable or appropriate? If ISP’s are given free license to block objectionable content it will not be very long till sites like this one are gone the way of the pbuming censor.

Yes, I’m well aware of the ‘who watches the watchmen’ problems inherent in such endeavours. And I’m against internet censorship in general (excluding child pornography and other things which are agreed under international law to be illegal). I don’t find 4chan ‘objectionable’ per say, it’s more that they are just a waste of space, time and energy. Petty, childish, repetitive and frankly un-amusing are words I’d use to describe the whole sordid mess. Any humour and wit that could once be found on the site has long ago retreated to find better things to do. Which is my reasoning for walling the population in and leaving them to choke on their own ‘Mudkipz’ and ‘Advocacy canines’.

slippery slope stuff aside, since when do we say it’s not their right to do what they want to do with their equipment? They don’t have an exclusive monopoly on providing internet service. Perhaps another company can make a selling point of the fact that they don’t block anything.

bumuming this story ever becomes true, what ****ing right does AT&T have to dictate what is and isn’t appropriate?

Unless the argument was that /b/ is a terrorist site, which only those morons at Fox would believe.

Staunch Posted:

The problem is if a powerhouse like AT&T does it, other companies will follow suit. I am sure they will hide behind “FOR THE CHILDREN” as to why they are doing it.

That’s what I find to be the problem with this. Especially in smaller towns where you are limited to one ISP.

Sarcasm Inc Posted:

Yes, I’m well aware of the ‘who watches the watchmen’ problems inherent in such endeavours. And I’m against internet censorship in general (excluding child pornography and other things which are agreed under international law to be illegal). I don’t find 4chan ‘objectionable’ per say, it’s more that they are just a waste of space, time and energy. Petty, childish, repetitive and frankly un-amusing are words I’d use to describe the whole sordid mess. Any humour and wit that could once be found on the site has long ago retreated to find better things to do. Which is my reasoning for walling the population in and leaving them to choke on their own ‘Mudkipz’ and ‘Advocacy canines’.

Maybe I work at AT&T and decided that a lot of things you like were tasteless and things no one cares about . It’s the principle of this, not the site . Just saying .