If they had the courage to call for a real discussion of issues like teenage sexuality—not to mention call out the schizophrenic mainstream view of those issues—things might’ve turned out very differently. How the hell does 4chan get away with things that would make that tinpot dictator of an admin faint—and is no less popular for it? From what I’ve heard, it’s not exactly an unprofitable venture for Moot, either.
There’s a certain degree of irony involved in your comment, posted as it is on another discussion site run by hopefully-benevolent dictators.
4chan has toed the line considerably; the only thing that keeps them from getting van’d is their ruthlessness in weeding out and banning those responsible for posting child pornography.
There’s a certain degree of irony involved in your comment, posted as it is on another discussion site run by hopefully-benevolent dictators.
I’d say there’s a greater distance between an oppressive tinpot dictator and a genuinely benevolent one than between a generic dictator and a generic representative democracy.
4chan has toed the line considerably; the only thing that keeps them from getting van’d is their ruthlessness in weeding out and banning those responsible for posting child pornography.
And their limits on what is and what isn’t child pornography are some of the most narrow and liberal in the world. E.g. any written stuff is considered a harmless fantasy, as it should be. Particularly shocking drawn pictures might be censored, but as long as it’s not “real” you’re not in real trouble. Have you seen what /a/ has been like for the last few years?
(I should clarify that, personally, I don’t see any specific appeal in erotic material with childlike features, and am faintly pushed off by it on an emotional level. But I have absolutely no problem with those who indulge in it, as long as they don’t engage in anything harmful to real people or support those who do.)
Er, not to interrupt your moral outrage, but their policy seems more or less reasonable given their size and presumably their legal resources.
If they had the courage to call for a real discussion of issues like teenage sexuality—not to mention call out the schizophrenic mainstream view of those issues—things might’ve turned out very differently. How the hell does 4chan get away with things that would make that tinpot dictator of an admin faint—and is no less popular for it? From what I’ve heard, it’s not exactly an unprofitable venture for Moot, either.
There’s a certain degree of irony involved in your comment, posted as it is on another discussion site run by hopefully-benevolent dictators.
4chan has toed the line considerably; the only thing that keeps them from getting van’d is their ruthlessness in weeding out and banning those responsible for posting child pornography.
I’d say there’s a greater distance between an oppressive tinpot dictator and a genuinely benevolent one than between a generic dictator and a generic representative democracy.
And their limits on what is and what isn’t child pornography are some of the most narrow and liberal in the world. E.g. any written stuff is considered a harmless fantasy, as it should be. Particularly shocking drawn pictures might be censored, but as long as it’s not “real” you’re not in real trouble. Have you seen what /a/ has been like for the last few years?
(I should clarify that, personally, I don’t see any specific appeal in erotic material with childlike features, and am faintly pushed off by it on an emotional level. But I have absolutely no problem with those who indulge in it, as long as they don’t engage in anything harmful to real people or support those who do.)