• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

AT&T Blocks Access to 4chan.org

Chase_the_Bass

Student
C
Joined
Jul 25, 2009
Messages
39
I guess this would go in current events. Here's the story I pulled from TechCrunch (still can't link I think)

AT&T Reportedly Blocks 4chan. This Is Going To Get Ugly.
199 Comments
by Jason Kincaid on July 26, 2009

As if AT&T wasn’t already bad enough. In an act that is sure to spark internet rebellions everywhere, AT&T has apparently declared war on the extremely popular imageboard 4chan.org, blocking some of the site’s most popular message boards, including /r9k/ and the infamous /b/. moot, who started 4chan and continues to run the site, has posted a note to the 4chan status blog indicating that AT&T is in fact filtering/blocking the site for many of its customers (we’re still trying to confirm from AT&T’s side).

Reports of the blocking began to surface on reddit this afternoon, and a number of blogs are beginning to pick up on the story, though it doesn’t seem like any have managed to get a comment from AT&T (we’ve reached out to the company and will update once we hear back).

4chan has been called many things, most of which aren’t particularly flattering. Some parts of the site are almost entirely unmoderated, leading to a wild-west, highly NSFW environment where irreverance, mischief, and lewdness thrive (I like to think of it as the Mos Eisley of the web). But that doesn’t mean the site isn’t extremely influential on web culture. Many of its exploits are famous, including taking over the Time 100 list, and it’s also where some of the Internet’s most famous memes got their start, including the Rick Roll and LOLcats. It’s also known as the main hub for Anonymous, a group that has held a very public campaign against Scientology.

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.
Click to expand...

What do you all think of this?

Here's what I say
Att-deathstar.jpg


Here's some traffic information on the site from Alexa the Web Information Company. It's the 322nd most popular site in the US and close to 1% of global internet users frequent the site.
 
Last edited:
Honestly? Don't use AT&T if you don't like it. In the end I am not going to say that I don't understand specific issues that would lead AT&T to blocking access to 4chan.org. I don't consider it wrong for a private company to decide what they want going through their network.

LOLcats and Rick Roll are things that would have started in other sectors of the interwebz anyways. Anonymous is actually what may well lead to those "Orwellian" restrictions on the internet that people worry about.

Personally I don't go to 4chan.org, and if I was running even a small internet company I would block it as well. 90% of that site is fine, and silly and what not. It is the vandalism, threats, harassment, etc that come from some sectors of the website.
 
Last edited:
There has been alot of customers on our network who were complaining about ACK scan reports coming from 207.126.64.181. We had no choice but to block that single IP until the attacks let up. It was a decision I made with the gentleman that owns the colo facility currently hosts 4chan. There was no other way around it. I'm sure AT&T is probably blocking it for the same reason. 4chan has been under attack for over 3 weeks, the attacks filling up an entire GigE. If you want to blame anyone, blame the script kiddies who pull this kind of stunt.
Click to expand...

http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2009-July/012182.html
 
IIRC, the correct litany for this story would be:

1. Script kiddies gone wild on 4chan
2. At & T acts
3. Something or other
4. Profit!


Though item 4 may more correctly be written as "no profit :P"
 
It's an interesting development. I don't frequent 4chan, but I have in the past and I occasionally peek in to see if anything piques my interest. I was pretty amused by the Scientology war they waged.

In the end of things I wouldn't be terribly surprised if a 4channer who happens to work for AT&T did it for the "lulz." It would fit their general trollish M.O.
 
fullflavormenthol said:
Honestly? Don't use AT&T if you don't like it. In the end I am not going to say that I don't understand specific issues that would lead AT&T to blocking access to 4chan.org. I don't consider it wrong for a private company to decide what they want going through their network.
Click to expand...

What if the other companies all began censoring the same sites, and not just this one inparticular? What if they decided to censor a website you own?
 
fullflavormenthol said:
Honestly? Don't use AT&T if you don't like it. In the end I am not going to say that I don't understand specific issues that would lead AT&T to blocking access to 4chan.org. I don't consider it wrong for a private company to decide what they want going through their network.
Click to expand...

That's fine in theory, except telecos have carved up areas in every city, town, and suburb in order to be just about the only choice available (even the "no name" or third-party providers have to lease lines from the big company). In short, when there's no choice to be had, telling people that they have a choice in providers is simply incorrect in practice.

I use AT&T U-Verse, but I'd much prefer Verizon FIOS that's available to people less than a quarter mile away. It's not a possibility, though.
 
Well the only other solution is to place it in the power of the FCC, which in that case would mean that 4chan would not exist at all, because it wouldbe 100% regulated.

Again, I am not going to fault a private company. There is no right to the Internet.

And I have never seen an area where there isn't a choice, it is just be demand broadband.

If you don't like AT&T's terms and they are the only broadband provider, well suck it up and use dial up or just don't complain.
 
Last edited:
fullflavormenthol said:
If you don't like AT&T's terms and they are the only broadband provider, well suck it up and use dial up or just don't complain.
Click to expand...

I don't think you understand the concept of providers having control over the main lines that smaller providers lease. Where I live (northern Texas), AT&T owns almost all of the main trunks. Even if I went with a smaller provider (like I do at work since they offer better commercial pricing), I'm still using AT&T's connection and can be affected if they're blocking sites-- sites might not be blocked outright under such circumstances, but they'd be hampered beyond limitations of using the different provider.

This kind of goes back to the whole issue of Net Neutrality. Providers in the US-- particularly the Baby Bells like AT&T (who has absorbed Baby Bells over the years, notably SBC) or Verizon-- have way more ownership than it seems the average consumer understands, because it isn't simply a matter of "if you don't like them, use someone else" at all. If you live in an area where they own the main lines, whether you're using them or not, you're still using their connections.

I really don't care much about 4chan specifically. That's got to be about the troll-iest place on the intarwebz, so I don't have any tears to shed over them. I do, however, take exception to the concept of "If you don't like AT&T use someone else" as an alternative, though, because it's simply not an accurate assessment of the situation. The internet provider market just doesn't work that way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom