Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | alekratz's comments login

I always thought it was because it needed to be rigid and specific.

one of the biggest problems that 4chan has to combat is spam. unfortunately, at 4chan's scale, hcaptcha and recaptcha are not free. 4chan is not exactly a font of money, either. the only reason they turned to this awful homebrew captcha was because recaptcha stopped being free. is there any better way to do it with a single developer for a website that serves millions of people a day?


Not the rampant racism or sexism or simple misanthropy or outright calls to violence or overflowing hostility.

It's the spam that tops the problem list.


It's a bit embarrassing I even have to explain this, but yes, because racism or sexism are very important parts of 4chan's appeal: it's a place with freedom of speech. Let's be real the standards of discussion are low, but people can discuss stuff freely, which they wouldn't be able to if everything was buried under some GPT generated spam.


A lot of people think 4chan is one of the last bastions of free speech on the internet because they see a lot of racism that would normally be banned anywhere else.

But if you post something that goes against the alt-right that pisses them off too much and getting a lot of replies, it'll be deleted within minutes, or you'll even get banned for being "off topic".

4chan is not free speech, it is just a haven for the alt-right.


They do have rules and the site is quite moderated.

I do think though that any such site or platform will have the issue of judges inflecting their bias in their application of the rules.

So I wouldn't say that it is a unique phenomenon.

That said, of course there is a semantic as well as technical identity to 4chan. And they are quite connected, rather than isolated.

4chan, apart from its lax rules on what we now call hate speech, has developed a community where insults are now part of its culture. The fact that the site is anonymous greatly influences that animosity.

I like to think of 4chan not as a place where horrible people go, but where people go to be horrible. Of course you have the dedicated users, neets or schizos or chronically online, but again that's a propery of every site, and not necessarily a majority.

So if you read /pol/ or /b/ like articles of an organization with an editorial line, sure you will see nazis and a deranged group of people.

If you however see it like bathroom wall writings, you will see a bit of everyone.


There were no rules broken. Actually they selectively ignore the rule against racism as long as it is aligned with alt-right, and not just the pol board now.

https://4chan.org/rules

3. You will not post any of the following outside of /b/:

  b. Racism
The political bias of the moderators on the website have been documented by others.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/the-man-who-helped-turn-4cha...

They selectively censor any opposing views that rile them too hard or they can't easily refute, so it is not equivalent to bathroom scribbles.

Recent example just found today (not my post).

https://i.imgur.com/0Xkslke.jpeg


>https://i.imgur.com/0Xkslke.jpeg

That thread is about the Spanish movie "La piel que habito,"[0] and that OP post is actually describing the plot, it's not even a political post. So bringing up American Republicans out of nowhere is quite off topic. Strange how you conveniently cropped out the title and image that ostensibly showed this. Is this the best you can do?

[0] https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_piel_que_habito


It's not entirely unrelated to the discussion and I guarantee you if someone said something aligned with alt-right, instead it would not have been censored.

Examples

https://archive.4plebs.org/tv/thread/206317377/

https://archive.4plebs.org/tv/thread/206526786/#q206527439

https://archive.4plebs.org/tv/thread/206199053/#q206200223

https://archive.4plebs.org/tv/thread/206521664/#q206526548


An article about 4chan from left media is something I won't read. Not a boomer, I can actually read 4chan anyways and make my own mind.

Image related is unfortunate. Not uncommon for jannies and mods in any website to use their power to self serve. It happens even in more serious and regulated sites like wikipedia, so I'm not surprised by the lack of moderation neutrality in a meme site.


> Image related is unfortunate. Not uncommon for jannies and mods in any website to use their power to self serve.

This isn't just a 1 off thing by rogue moderators is what I'm trying to point out. This is a constantly re-occurring thing. I also experienced the same issue multiple times until I got fed up with it and stopped posting there a few years ago.

Their main moderator had a goal to make 4chan politically aligned with his views. 4chan used to be free speech but it really isn't anymore.


I tried to post and got this

"Please wait for the timer or verify your email to post"

As a captcha

I used to get an ip block ban. But asking for my email to post in 4chan is just proof of how much it has changed.


No politics and news is just one board. You can go to 4chan to discuss more important things such as videogames.


Its not just the pol board as I showed in my other comments.

I don't use the videogame board so I do not know if anti alt-right comments there get deleted, but I find it hard to believe that anybody is going to be emotionally invested enough to delete posts that say "game X is going to succeed even when it is woke".

From a random search it looks like there's a lot of racist or alt-right aligned political comments there that never get deleted though.


This is not true. You can go to /v/ right now and see tons of pro black/trans in video games posters, and /lgbt/ is one of the largest boards on the site at 12th place by avg. posts per day.[0] Here are 3 /v/ threads I found in less than 5 seconds that are "pro woke":

1. 696014001

OP:

>Face it, it’s going to be a BG3 situation. Everyone will screech about it being woke, play it, then 6 months later everyone will say “no one called it woke, what are you talking about?”

2. 696014873

OP:

>If Japanese people are so based and anti-woke then why is this so popular in nipland? [pic of otokonoko game in image]

3. 696016309

OP:

>>9999 games cater to cis men, 1 doesn't

>>THIS IS LITERALLY GENOCIDE

(Two of these threads I found by searching the word "woke" in the catalog. The first was the first thread when I opened the page.)

In fact, these types of threads are against the rules,[1] but /v/ is somewhat evenly split between liberals and anti-liberals and liberals make these threads all day and can be seen in replies as well. They even have their own terms, eg. "Grumzcord Raid" "Grifter thread" etc. And if you knew anything about the mods and janitors you would know many are far from alt-right.

My guess is you went to /g/ and started making blatant political threads and got banned. Note that both sides get banned for blatant off topic political posts. Do you have any examples of posts you were banned for?

[0] https://4stats.io/

[1] rules#v §3 - "Threads should not devolve into flamewars. Instigating or encouraging such activity will not be tolerated."


The mods won't ban or delete 1 off posts that don't get any traction. And I'm talking about pol, the #1 board on the site by activity.

And no I don't visit g, if I wanted some discussion about technology I'd rather use this website instead. I'm not going to show any of my own examples for privacy purposes, and no doubt you will probably find some way to nit pick at those.


>mods won't ban or delete 1 off posts that don't get any traction

Janitors don't delete posts that they don't see or are not reported.

>I'm talking about pol, the #1 board on the site by activity.

/vg/ is neck and neck with /pol/, and that's only because /v/ was split into /v/ and /vg/.

And yeah, if you don't give any examples it's hard to take you seriously. The example you did give was egregiously OT, and in fact potentially thread-derailing. The fact that you saw that as an example of janitors being unfair puts your credibility into question. I showed that liberal opinions are allowed and even common on 4chan, which was your initial point. I don't browse /pol/ but I found liberal threads pretty easily here as well:

490048710 (99 replies)

OP:

>Calmly explain why pissing off these countries [in OP pic] will result in untold riches for the working class [countries are China, Canada and Mexico, in reference to Trump's tariffs]

490048788 (103 replies)

OP:

>Is Trump the last gasp of a dying empire?

>He's going hard, threatening every country in the world with huge tariffs and massive retaliation if they use currencies other than the US dollar. It's rather absurd. [post continues for another 3 paragraphs]

I don't think 4chan is necessarily a bastion of free speech. Twitter is probably more free in terms on what you can post now. However 4chan is nothing like Reddit, old twitter, YouTube etc. in terms of what you can post.


> Janitors don't delete posts that they don't see or are not reported.

So why is it that any alt-right or racist posts never get deleted? Even if they only deal with things that get reported to them, there's clearly a huge bias going on here when alt-right aligned posts never get reported while the opposite is reported and dealt with within minutes.

https://archive.4plebs.org/tv/thread/206317377/

https://archive.4plebs.org/tv/thread/206526786/#q206527439

https://archive.4plebs.org/tv/thread/206199053/#q206200223

https://archive.4plebs.org/tv/thread/206521664/#q206526548

> And yeah, if you don't give any examples it's hard to take you seriously. The example you did give was egregiously OT, and in fact potentially thread-derailing. The fact that you saw that as an example of janitors being unfair puts your credibility into question.

I believe I've given plenty of other examples not my own. I don't want to bring in my own examples because I don't want to be arguing about politics on this website, especially since I am not using a throwaway account like you are.

If the example I gave was egregiously OT, then so are all the dozens of race and politic baiting posts aligned with the alt-right that never ever seem to get the same treatment.

And for posts be deleted quickly, it needs to piss enough people off. The examples you used are the most softball examples that are not too aggressively worded and makes it more likely that alt-right users try and refute the claim rather than a knee jerk "report and sage".

Also tariffs are more of a tangential viewpoint rather than one exactly opposed to the alt-right.


The thing is, addressing the spam and also allowing users to have a low friction experience would be the first step to addressing the concerns you mentioned (without compromising the purpose of the site: anonymous and totally free speech).

There aren't many places for the people that share the views you mentioned to go other than sites like 4chan, so even though there's an awful captcha, they're going to be quite dedicated as they don't have many mainstream options elsewhere.

I believe if users were able to have a frictionless experience, then it'd reduce the chances of someone throwing their hands up in the air and saying, "this isn't worth it". I've actually attempted to reply to threads to challenge the views of others, but once I'm hit with the 300-1000 second wait time to post, I just close the tab and move on.


GP said "one of the biggest problems", not "the biggest problem"


> Not the rampant racism or sexism or simple misanthropy or outright calls to violence or overflowing hostility.

Isn't that more easily solved by just not visiting the site in the first place?


This problem is a societal one, it mostly harms you indirectly by creating spaces for hateful ideas to spread, 4chan's harm is through the capacity to organize and strengthen hateful and harmful political movements. More socially conscious people not visiting the site only serves to create a stronger echo chamber.


This is how oppression starts. First it's "let's only get rid of the most offensive content", then "let's suppress opinions we don't like".


This is how oppression starts

More often though it starts with wave after wave of logical fallacy.

As applies to your critique above, for example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope


A slippery slope argument is not necessarily a slippery slope fallacy. Which you should understand after reading the article you linked.


In this case it plainly is though, if we just think about what they're saying.


Plainly to you, but not to me. What isn't obvious to everyone, isn't really obvious. You didn't care to explain what kind of stopping mechanisms are there, that make it not a slippery slope.

Rowan Atkinson gives some nice examples here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUezfuy8Qpc

I'd say rather than there being *a risk* of descending too low on that slippery slope, we already have plenty of evidence this already happened. I'm from Poland and recently a party in ruling coalition proposed criminalizing hate speech on the Internet. Fortunately, precisely the slippery slope rhetoric, supported by evidence from countries like UK, seems to be enough of a backlash to stop politicians from following such ideas.


For starters -- the commenter wasn't actually suggesting that this kind of content needs to be suppressed.

In order to have a slippery slope, you need something to extrapolate from. But the commenter wasn't providing that.


I disagree, it seems what is obvious to you isn't to me and vice-versa so we're unlikely to have anything productive going on here.


Would you please tell me one example where oppression has started with criticizing nazis.



This is an armed resistance group, not an academic clique, and the violence was a reaction to attacks (e.g. beatings, assassination attempt).

It's also not an example of oppression, even though it is violent.


The fact you think some ideas are "harmful" is exactly why humanity needs sites like these. We don't trust people like you to determine which ideas are "harmful" and which aren't, which ideas are worth spreading and which aren't. We want to see for ourselves, thank you very much.

We are especially interested in the ideas that people deem offensive enough to suppress. Are they actually wrong or are they just socially unacceptable? Whatever the truth is, it can't be learned from a place that suppresses discussion of it. Declaring the matter as settled and suppressing any opposing viewpoint is the very definition of an echo chamber.


You're saying national socialism is not harmful? /pol/, /b/, and tons of other boards constantly spawn threads glorifying nazi germany and vilifying other ethnicities and women, using rhetoric calling for people belonging to these groups to be killed.

Violent far-right groups use these threads as a pool for recruitment. These far-right groups cause real societal harm through violent crime and shifting the view on violent policies against minorities.

I am not using an abstract moral argument when I say these ideas cause harm, I'm arguing based on objectively observed effects that the loose ethical norms of a liberal democratic society would unambiguously deem harmful.


> You're saying national socialism is not harmful?

Everything with the word "socialism" in it is harmful.

> vilifying other ethnicities and women, using rhetoric calling for people belonging to these groups to be killed

Unfiltered hate like that is a property of humanity itself. It is not at all exclusive to the so called internet hate machine. If you look closely, you'll find that plenty of "virtuous" people are capable of just as much hate, if not more. I've personally witnessed it.


If you're not answering the argument, that's fine. But let's acknowledge that you did not answer the argument and are now just spouting the rhetoric of the far-right movement I'm describing.


I won't acknowledge anything. Your argument was not convincing. It was actually the perfect example of an attempt to suppress socially unacceptable views.

You singled those people out as "harmful" because they call for the deaths of "other ethnicities and women". Implicit in your world view is the idea that these people wouldn't also do such things. The idea that these groups are the blameless and virtuous victims, deserving of special protection against these "harmful" words and ideas. That's the part of your argument that I chose to attack.

I chose to attack that idea because I've personally seen people from these "virtuous" groups post some of the most concentrated, unfiltered and unabashed hate speech I've ever seen. I witnessed them call for deaths of entire groups, including those I'm part of, with a clean conscience. I was there when they laughed at the very few people who tried to hold them accountable for it. Not only did they not suffer any consequences, people actually made excuses for such behavior and treated it as though it was justified. Their openly hateful behavior actually empowered them.

I will never forget that as long as I live. I straight up archived those social media threads to ensure the internet never forgets. I even posted those archives here years ago when people asked me for examples. If I cared enough I bet I could even dig up those archive links from my post history.

I didn't care to dig up those links because I've yet to see a single person get outraged by this sort of behavior when it comes from these groups. I have no reason to believe you will be the exception.

They post things like "KILL ALL MEN" verbatim and people make excuses for it. Well, I'm not interested in hearing excuses today. I decided to try and make you realize that hate is a normal human emotion instead. My argument to you is that hate is a perfectly normal human emotion. It's part of the human condition. It's not at all exclusive to 4chan's politics board, oh no. People hate. Everyone hates. Even people on this very site will hate and openly call for the deaths of other humans if presented with a juicy enough target. Don't doubt it, for I have seen it happen.

By the way, dang has rate limited my account to about 5 posts every 2 hours because I would get into too many arguments just like this one. He's actually right and when I contacted him about it I asked him to keep the account rate limited. So you will excuse me if I don't reply further to this thread.


I understand that this issue seems to create a strong emotional reaction in you. That does not excuse you from the consequences of those strong emotional reactions.

I feel like you have massively extrapolated the argument from what the original point was. My response was about how "avoiding 4chan" does not shield you from the effects that 4chan has (including harm). I don't know which groups you belong to (because you don't mention them), but we clearly agree that violent rhetoric is bad, so why are we disagreeing? It seems you have the exact same point of view as me in the general case of hateful rhetoric, but simply feel that some groups are more important (because you belong to them, perhaps? this is the feeling I get).

Also, let's not kid ourselves, violent crime (including murder) and oppression towards women and minorities are well-documented and studied real-life issues. Violence towards men by "virtuous" groups (leftists?) does not even register on the scale when compared to them. The online violent rhetoric towards women is also at several orders of magnitude higher than violent rhetoric towards men. There is a clear disproportionate aspect to this issue that your emotional reaction is not taking into account.


Magnitudes do not matter. Right and wrong are not based on statistics. I will not excuse their behavior by citing statistics.

It's very simple. We have 4chan people. We have "virtuous" people: women and minorities. I have witnessed the virtuous express hate with complete impunity. Therefore Anonymous should not be punished for doing the same thing.

Nothing emotional about it. I'm simply incapable of the cognitive dissonance necessary to accept the idea that some people get to hate freely while others don't. It is easier to accept the idea that hate is a normal and universal human emotion which will manifest everywhere where humans are present.


That's the price you pay for ability to freely and anonymously voice different opinions. And even then 4chan is considered "soft", because mods still delete some egregiously "incorrect" opinions.


    > is there any better way to do
    > it with a single developer for
    > a website that serves millions
    > of people a day?
No, the other reason they're using this is to make it so annoying that you'll spend $20/yr to buy a 4chan pass to bypass it.

If you're not making your free website annoying to drive revenue there's obvious ways to make it less annoying.

E.g. keep the annoying captcha, but don't show one again for the lifetime of a cookie, validate users who can make a money transfer of $0.01 etc.


>No, the other reason they're using this is to make it so annoying that you'll spend $20/yr to buy a 4chan pass to bypass it.

I think this is a really cynical outlook, especially for a website that is not run as a modern tech-centric company. 4chan's roots are in that of the Old Internet, where it is a creative and messy and interesting place to be. why would they be banking solely on using a terrible captcha as a method to drive user subscriptions, when they have the option to run circus-tent ads? if making money was their sole purpose, why would they not kick the problematic and porn boards to the curb and ban the use of slurs to make room for more friendly advertisers? there are so many other avenues to increase profitability that most websites have taken which 4chan has staunchly refused to follow. why would they choose only the 4chan pass and ads as their only opportunity at making money?


You're reading a lot into my reply. The GP's question was "is there any better way to [avoid the captcha] with a single developer?".

That's clearly the case. As a trivial example, 4chan could take your $20 and avoid giving you a captcha for 2 years, or charge you $10 for one year.

Both are a 2x improvement, if the only goal is to get past the necessary evil of the captcha.

But that clearly isn't the goal, that doesn't mean I'm begrudging 4chan their business model, that's something you grabbed out of thin air.

    why would they not kick the
    problematic and porn boards
    to the curb and ban the use
    of slurs to make room for more
    friendly advertisers?
How would that be a realistic alternative for the "single developer "? The entire selling point of 4chan is that it's a very limited time capsule of the old Internet wild west.

What you're describing would be a Reddit or Facebook groups clone. If 4chan became that, nobody would use it. They'd just use Reddit or Facebook groups.


Cynical yes, incorrect no.

The link between spam protection and payment is well documented and as old as the internet.

Consider the origins of bitcoin and PoW have been as a currency to stop email spam.

I do agree that the incentive is probably not to make money, but to deter spam. That said after so many times the company has been sold, I wouldn't disregard that theory


Doing so would destroy the culture of 4chan.

Companies centered around communities don't generally have leeway to shape their communities into a profitable form by directly altering the fabric of the community. Time and again it has been shown that forcing changes to the identity of a space leads to communities' rapid demise. In rare circumstances and with a skilled hand a community can be guided here and there in even some significant ways, but 4chan probably does not have that option: they'd need a massive shift to pull off what you describe.

Instead profit must generally be built around what is there. But whether or not such communities exist to make profit, they surely must be profitable, or they will not survive. They must, some time or another, be free of deficit. This is not a matter of capitalist greed for most communities, but an attempt to find a path towards stability.


> keep the annoying captcha, but don't show one again for the lifetime of a cookie

This is already being done, there's a cookie and heuristics in place that will give you an easier captcha or occasionally skip it entirely. But 4chan really does have a couple (and I truly mean a small amount of super super dedicated users) of bad actors who constantly spam and try to work around any roadblocks given to annoy the rest of the userbase. You cannot give them a reliable way to spam no matter what. That's why there's now many country and region blocks in addition to your standard VPN/DC IP range blocks. Plus the Cloudflare check added a couple years ago.


Is the anontalk guy still up to his shenanigans? It's admittedly been a very long time since I've used 4chan.


The remastered annoyed the hell out of me because it was so buggy. I ragequit the game because there was some point that I had gotten to where one of the characters bugged out in a cutscene and wouldn't move the game forward. I had to reload a save and play about 30 minutes just to get back to the same point. This happened multiple times, too. it's a good game, yes, but the remaster is seriously full of bugs that it's difficult for me to recommend.


I don't think the lexer hack is relevant in this instance. The lexer hack just refers to the ambiguity of `A * B` and whether that should be parsed as a variable declaration or an expression. If you're building a syntax tree, then this matters, but AFAICT all the author needs is a sequence of tokens and not a syntax tree. Maybe "parser hack" would be a better name for it.


> Why load on boot? -> Because we need to, don't worry.

I believe the reason stated was "because we know it will not be tampered with after boot". Not saying it's a good or bad reason, but this is dishonest paraphrasing.


I said it because I think other kernel level anticheat don't do it.

If I remember correctly I can just enable/disable the easy anticheat service, sane with the EA thing, I don't need to reboot the machine like with Vanguard.

But thanks for pointing it out.


> I said it because I think other kernel level anticheat don't do it.

It is done by FACEIT and ESEA.

> If I remember correctly I can just enable/disable the easy anticheat service, sane with the EA thing, I don't need to reboot the machine like with Vanguard.

You can disable Vanguard as well, you'll only need to re-enable it and restart if you want to play the games.


I love seeing Adam Cadre's name in the wild, I know him through the Lyttle Lytton contest that he's held every year since 2001. It's a fun deep dive of terrible (on purpose) writing. https://adamcadre.ac/lyttle/


it's dead simple early 90s text based protocol, and the servers have a remarkably lightweight footprint. simplicity also means you don't get the modern niceties like built-in media embeds or reactions (things that I really love from discord and matrix). but its simplicity also means it's easy to integrate (client, server, bot). I think it's perfect for 10-50 person channels, anything more it gets a bit too noisy to be useful or carry normal conversations.


the missing built-in media embeds and reactions are a feature, in my opinion.

The internet needs a light weight chat protocol.


It was a fun Networking 101 project to implement an IRC server and client. Such a simple protocol.


it's kind of disappointing that they're focusing on food in this. I get that it's a quarter of their revenue, but one of the things that makes japanese convenience stores so convenient is that you can do more than just buy stuff. like, they often have printers and scanners if you need to make a copy of something or print something off. or if you're a tourist and you're taking the train someplace and have too much luggage, you can get it shipped to the hotel at your destination via 7/11. that's the kind of thing I would love to see in a convenience store.


The place I run into this the most is, strangely, chipotle.com. Still can't order online on Firefox.


You're asking me to sign up before I can even see what I'm signing up for. Let me look at the content first.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: