Randall Stephenson has alerted the horde, stirred the beehive, and many more metaphors.
People are angry, including myself. His secretary shall recieve quite a nasty call on my behalf in the morning.
[QUOTE=gbtygfvyg;16298077]I'm the only person i know of that actually likes using wireless internet.[/QUOTE]
Wireless is fine if the alternative is nothing, or god forbid, AT&T, but other than that, I'd rather be wired.
[QUOTE=Kilr;16298106]Wireless is fine if the alternative is nothing, or god forbid, AT&T, but other than that, I'd rather be wired.[/QUOTE]
What if AT&T is providing the wireless too? :ohdear:
I'm not on AT&T so i'm fine.
[QUOTE=enjoi10;16298144]I'm not on AT&T so i'm fine.[/QUOTE]
Like I said, it'll spread to other ISPs if you let them fuck you in the ass, they will.
[QUOTE=The_Naysayer;16294217]/b/ will probably just migrate or find ways around it.
I've never been there and never plan to. The (semi) funny stuff all gets screencapped and put elsewhere anyway. Why would I want to root through the dregs?[/QUOTE]
Yeah migrate everywhere including FacePunch.
Expect more of those new-member-noobs...
[QUOTE=mm3guy;16295327]It's 4chan we're talking about here.[/QUOTE]
take a guess who is gonna be next
[quote]
They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time no one was left to speak up.
[/quote]
[QUOTE=enjoi10;16298144]I'm not on AT&T so i'm fine.[/QUOTE]
For now.
You can bet big money that other companies will hop on the bandwagon, especially once they come out with some shit like "Keeping your family safe!" It'll be the new internet fad; hunting down things that parents don't like and shutting them down.
If it doesn't stop here, then where will it stop?
This deeply disturbs me, not because it's /b/, but because of the principle behind it.
[QUOTE=pentium;16294266]Do you seriously want to be kicked around by a forum filled with 15 year-olds? I'm surprised they didn't block the whole site.[/QUOTE]
4chan is NOT /b/ god fucking damn it. When will you understand? As said before, when people refer to 4chan they probably mean /b/ but are too fucking stupid to understand the difference.
Don't try to look like a kickass cool rebel when you know [B]fuck[/B] about a subject.
You probably have never visited 4chan thinking it's all the same crazy stupid shit as the media tell you it and /b/ is?
They are forcing you out of a great site because of a small portion. If someone tells someone that OIFY is shit and that's in facepunch, isn't that someone gonna tell people not to visit Facepunch because it's shit, while they mean OIFY? This is EXACTLY what happened here with 4chan and /b/.
Did you know 4chan has rules?
HOLY SHIT RLY?
Yes it does. It's not the disorganized hacking web site you think where anyone can organize attacks against the whole internet.
Did you know that there are sections in 4chan about Japanese Culture (manga, anime etc)? Television and Movies? Weapons? Cars? Animals and Nature? Papercraft? Cooking? Video Games? Comics? Technology? Sports? Travel? Health and Fitness?
No?
Doesn't surprise me.
Yes, there are trolls, yes there are people doing mad shit. But aren't these people also on Facepunch? This doesn't make Facepunch equal to the OIFY.
So,
I'll say it one more goddamn fucking time.
[B]4chan.
Is.
[highlight]NOT.[/highlight]
/b/.[/B]
This is why I love Comcast.
[QUOTE=i_speel_good;16298264]4chan is NOT /b/ god fucking damn it. When will you understand? As said before, when people refer to 4chan they probably mean /b/ but are too fucking stupid to understand the difference.
:words:
[B]4chan.
Is.
[highlight]NOT.[/highlight]
/b/.[/B][/QUOTE]
Unless I'm misinterpreting something here, they're only blocking /b/ and /r9k/ :downs:
[b]EDIT:[/b]
[quote=Article in OP]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.[/quote]
Thank God all of the decent boards still work! Who gives a shit about /b/, it sucks. /a/, /g/, /tg/ (the only board on 4chan that gets shit done), and /v/ still works!
Although it is unfortunate that AT&T have taken it upon themselves to decide what Americans should and should not see on the Internet, which is exactly what the Communist People's Republic of China have been doing for years with their Great Wall of Fire.
Maybe the NSA has asked AT&T to disallow access to img.4chan.org because they claim that /b/ is a terrorist recruiting center?
[img]http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/2345/newattlogo3.jpg[/img]
Wait... oh shi- this means that all of the /b/tards will most likely seek refuge in all of the good boards!
[B]FOR THE LOVE OF THE INTERNET, UNBLOCK /b/ BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE![/b]
I have AT&T, but I don't really care that /b/ is blocked, I don't use it. I still think it's stupid that they're blocking it.
[img]http://osmoothie.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/in_china_web_police.jpg[/img]
:siren:[highlight]YOU NO HAVE RIGHTS HERE WHITE DEVIR[/highlight]:siren:
[QUOTE=Traxxasred;16298555][img_thumb]http://osmoothie.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/in_china_web_police.jpg[/img_thumb]
:siren:[highlight]YOU NO HAVE RIGHTS HERE WHITE DEVIR[/highlight]:siren:[/QUOTE]
You have no sense here... Forum... person.
I don't give a shit about the /b/ censoring, but I'm in fear of censoring. What the fuck? I thought this kind of thing was against of all kinds of constitutional rights.
[QUOTE=tarkata14;16298632]I don't give a shit about the /b/ censoring, but I'm in fear of censoring. What the fuck? I thought this kind of thing was against of all kinds of constitutional rights.[/QUOTE]
it's a privatelyyy owned companyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
[QUOTE=tarkata14;16298632]I don't give a shit about the /b/ censoring, but I'm in fear of censoring. What the fuck? I thought this kind of thing was against of all kinds of constitutional rights.[/QUOTE]
I find it very similar to restaurants reserving their right to deny service to anyone. As a business, it's their right. Hoboes can get their food somewhere else. Channers can get their /b/ from a different isp.
See?
Or does this make no sense?
But yeah, this is still obnoxious, even for non-/b/folks like myself.
[QUOTE=The_Naysayer;16298677]I find it very similar to restaurants reserving their right to deny service to anyone. As a business, it's their right. Hoboes can get their food somewhere else. Channers can get their /b/ from a different isp.
See?
Or does this make no sense?
But yeah, this is still obnoxious, even for non-/b/folks like myself.[/QUOTE]
The large ISPs have government-granted monopolies in many regions, or they are the only practical choice (a local ISP that costs twice as much because they have to piggyback on the larger ISP's lines is not real competition). This would generally require they are held to the government's restrictions, or they should lose that guaranteed monopoly.
If there were several ISPs in the majority of the US to pick from, all competing for service quality because they all rent government-provided wires, then it'd be closer to the restaurant analogy you gave. Until then, when the government is the reason they're big, they play by the government's rules.
Also, even in the case of private businesses, there are still restrictions on what you're allowed to do. (e.g. The ADA Act requires business to make an effort where reasonable to provide access to disabled persons)
[QUOTE=Thy Reaper;16298848]The large ISPs have government-granted monopolies in many regions, or they are the only practical choice (a local ISP that costs twice as much because they have to piggyback on the larger ISP's lines is not real competition). This would generally require they are held to the government's restrictions, or they should lose that guaranteed monopoly.
If there were several ISPs in the majority of the US to pick from, all competing for service quality because they all rent government-provided wires, then it'd be closer to the restaurant analogy you gave. Until then, when the government is the reason they're big, they play by the government's rules.
Also, even in the case of private businesses, there are still restrictions on what you're allowed to do.[/QUOTE]Where is it written in the U.S. Code or any legal document that states that ISPs must allow access to the whole Internet?
Remember the whole "net neutrality" debates a few years back? That whole "Save the Internet" campaign to get Congress to pass a bill stating that ISPs must provide fair access to the Internet without censoring anything? And, of coruse, the good old United States Congress did [b]NOTHING[/b] to pass any such bill.
AT&T owns south florida, therefore I can go no where else for a good service at a cheap price. How will I get my daily supply of vitamin lulz if I can't have /b/ on my region's ruling ISP?
[QUOTE=Doug52392;16298917]Where is it written in the U.S. Code or any legal document that states that ISPs must allow access to the whole Internet?[/QUOTE]
Blocking access to sites is a specific effort on the part of the ISP, as by default the ISP is already given all information it needs to serve up every site on the internet (although this is a gross oversimplification, the fact is the blocking must be added after support for the current DNS system). The blocking of a site by the government for no particular reason would qualify as censorship. Therefore, in the case of a government-granted monopoly, it makes sense to me that ISPs should not be allowed to restrict free speech (censor websites).
If there was a specific DNS that required ISPs to go to a great deal of effort, unique to that DNS system, then the ISP not supporting that system would not qualify as censorship. This in particular would be dealt with via competition, as certainly some competing ISPs would support this unique DNS system, thus providing access to more of the internet.
[QUOTE=Thy Reaper;16298964]Blocking access to sites is a specific effort on the part of the ISP, as by default the ISP is already given all information it needs to serve up every site on the internet (although this is a gross oversimplification, the fact is the blocking must be added after support for the current DNS system). The blocking of a site by the government for no particular reason would qualify as censorship. Therefore, in the case of a government-granted monopoly, it makes sense to me that ISPs should not be allowed to restrict free speech (censor websites).
If there was a specific DNS that required ISPs to go to a great deal of effort, unique to that DNS system, then the ISP not supporting that system would not qualify as censorship. This in particular would be dealt with via competition, as certainly some competing ISPs would support this unique DNS system, thus providing access to more of the internet.[/QUOTE]That's the way it should be, but I'm sure AT&T's evil Army of Lawyers could destroy that theory.
I got the Iphone and I can go on /b/.
[url]http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2009-July/012182.html[/url]
[editline]02:18AM[/editline]
Apparently, services are being restored, at least according to some websites.
Hopefully, AT&T will be forced to admit what they did, and help reiterate the importance of net neutrality legislation.
Haha, that's awesome. /b/ is the sewage system of the internet, where all the shit, garbage, and unidentified blob organisms are.
I have AT&T DSL and /b/ loads fine for me.
And it doesn't matter if you don't like the website or not, an ISP should not have the right to tell you which websites you can and cannot visit.
Good, nobody should go to /b/
[editline]10:40PM[/editline]
It has child porn, which is probably why by the way.
Look, I hate /b/ as much as the next non-retard, but there's something use humans like called FREEDOM.
[QUOTE=Solid.Snake;16299676]Good, nobody should go to /b/
[editline]10:40PM[/editline]
It has child porn, which is probably why by the way.[/QUOTE]
Stop saying dumb shit like this, it isn't about /b/, it's about the fact that they have [B]blocked every single person using AT&T from accessing a part of a website.[/B]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
