In today's news...

[Goldstein]

Re: In today's news...

No link due to lack of ordinary news sources at the moment. AT&T's DSL faction has apparently blocked access to 4chan. That is, users of AT&T DSL cannot go to any part of 4chan. No real reason why, though suspicion abounds, of course. Please don't jump to conclusions. (I will note that, while I certainly don't like 4chan, I like censorship even less.) (Though this could easily not be about censorship.)

 

[Obeliskos]

Re: In today's news...

Bastards!

 

[lurker]

Re: In today's news...

No link due to lack of ordinary news sources at the moment. AT&T's DSL faction has apparently blocked access to 4chan. That is, users of AT&T DSL cannot go to any part of 4chan. No real reason why, though suspicion abounds, of course. Please don't jump to conclusions. (I will note that, while I certainly don't like 4chan, I like censorship even less.) (Though this could easily not be about censorship.)

OMG THEY KILLED FOURCHAN!
YOU BASTARDS!

 

[Goldstein]

Re: In today's news...

For the past three weeks, 4chan has been under a constant DDoS attack. We were able to filter this specific type of attack in a fashion that was more or less transparent to the end user.

Unfortunately, as an unintended consequence of the method used, some Internet users received errant traffic from one of our network switches. A handful happened to be AT&T customers.

In response, AT&T filtered all traffic to and from our img.4chan.org IPs (which serve /b/ & /r9k/) for their entire network, instead of only the affected customers. AT&T did not contact us prior to implementing the block. Here is their statement regarding the matter.

In the end, this wasn't a sinister act of censorship, but rather a bit of a mistake and a poorly executed, disproportionate response on AT&T's part. Whoever pulled the trigger on blackholing the site probably didn't anticipate [nor intend] the consequences of doing so.

We're glad to see this short-lived debacle has prompted renewed interest and debate over net neutrality and internet censorship—two very important issues that don't get nearly enough attention—so perhaps this was all just a blessing in disguise.

I feel foolish for having slightly jumped to a conclusion.

 

[Kusanagi]

Re: In today's news...

I think they were simply drunk when they 'pulled the trigger', and once they sobered up, they were like, "Wait, we blocked access to WHO? OSHI- . . . we must fix this, but save face at the same time . . ."

 

[lurker]

Re: In today's news...

I still like my smartass response

 

[Loli Defense Force]

Re: In today's news...

You must be registered to see the links

 

[DeMatt]

Re: In today's news...

You must be registered to see the links

Nyaah, improved your link.

That looks... tasty. Yummy. It's basically KFC chicken with stuff added. Tons of salt? I used to sneak pickling salt out of my science teacher's cupboard and snack on it in grade 5. Tons of protein? Never harmed anyone. Tons of fat? I'm darn near officially underweight as it is.

Gimme!

 

[Pheonix Alugere]

Re: In today's news...

You must be registered to see the links

Opinions anyone?

 

[ToxicShock]

Re: In today's news...

I just hope it doesn't backfire and force me to keep my shirt on.

Honestly, it's not the same. I don't mean to hold a double standard but a guy's chest is not a girl's chest.
However, it is my personal opinion, probably cuz I'm one sexually detached motherfucker, that breasts mean little to nothing to me. Of course, going outside without warning and seeing topless females would surprise me at first, if I know of this change beforehand, nothing will be that different. I'll still be looking at girls faces and the guys who find themselves staring at a girls breasts will be doing just that. In all honesty, being shirtless isn't really a big deal either way to me, it's a minor convenience some of the time at most (unless we're talking about public breastfeeding which I would know nothing about)
But because of my first sentence, that's how I see MOST people feeling about it and I can understand if they don't get that freedom. Sure it's all in a matter of degrees to what someone finds sexual, people with feet fetishes may think it "lewd" for someone to go around barefoot, anyone can find an exposed neck sexy, etc etc but breasts are common to be a focal point of sexual interest.

 

[Nunu]

Re: In today's news...

i think if girls were allowed to go around topless not a whole lot would change immediately, because most wouldn't. over time (like decades and decades) it would be more and more accepted until eventually breasts stop being forbidden to see and there fore just as sexy as a face can be.

whether or not girls going topless is allowed is pretty neutral, in and of itself it means nothing. However because of the current culture it is branded as sexual and there fore on the same level as flashing genitals.

 

[Pheonix Alugere]

Re: In today's news...

My main opinion is that, out of all the causes available, why are people deciding to do this as opposed to something that doesn't strike me as so silly.

 

[aika]

Re: In today's news...

The only reason I don't think people should be allowed to show genitals is because they're ugly. Breasts are not ugly. Therefore breasts should be allowed to be bared.

Having said this, if a woman then complained that I was staring at her chest when she bared it for all to see, and tried to make a law or something against that, then I would rage at them, because it would then be evident that their only reason for supporting this law is equal rights gone over the top.

 

[Kusanagi]

Re: In today's news...

If they amend the laws to allow women to go topless in public, any woman who DOES go topless had better not be shocked when men openly stare/reel in disgust.
I agree with Aika in that I'll rage if the same women who want to go topless also try to make it illegal to stare at them, right after a moment of silence for the long-deceased Common Sense.

Thinking about this logically, though, this is most likely just so that women have the OPTION to go topless if they want to; I doubt that many who are all for this amendment want it so they can go topless 24/7. So, I'm not TOO worried about whether or not it gets passed. Hell, if C.S. were still alive, I'm sure (s)he'd be weeping at the fact that we even HAVE to amend the law like this.

Oh, and I had to fix this:

The majority of breasts I stare at are not ugly.

>p

 

[Nunu]

Re: In today's news...

it would be interesting if they did something obtuse like place a cup restriction on going topless. only As and Bs kids, only As and Bs...

 

[Host]

Re: In today's news...

it would be interesting if they did something obtuse like place a cup restriction on going topless. only As and Bs kids, only As and Bs...

Not going to comment... not going to comment...

 

[lurker]

Re: In today's news...

You must be registered to see the links

I fear for our future... *hugs stuffed animal like a small kid*

 

[Rule 34]

Re: In today's news...

You must be registered to see the links

I fear for our future... *hugs stuffed animal like a small kid*

What?! That's nothing.

You must be registered to see the links

puts that to shame AND adds an incestuous twist to it.

 

[Momiji]

Re: In today's news...

What?! That's nothing.

You must be registered to see the links

puts that to shame AND adds an incestuous twist to it.

Life Imprisonment? Fuck that, the fucker should've been executed on the spot.

 

[Rule 34]

Re: In today's news...

There's no death sentence in most of Europe. But hey, he's already old as fuck and gets to spend the rest of his life in prison, where the sex offenders are way low in the respect list. . .