/site/ - Site Meta

Official 8chan Site Meta. (Bring bug reports, complaints, and requests here)

Index Catalog Archive Bottom Refresh
Mode: Reply
Name
Options
Subject
Message

Max message length: 8000

Files

Max file size: 32.00 MB

Max files: 5

Supported file types: GIF, JPG, PNG, WebM, OGG, and more

Captcha
E-mail
Password

(used to delete files and postings)

Misc

Remember to follow the rules

The backup domain is located at 8chan.se. .cc is a third fallback. TOR access can be found here, or you can access the TOR portal from the clearnet at Redchannit 2.0.

Be aware of the Fallback Plan

8chan.moe is a hobby project with no affiliation whatsoever to the administration of any other "8chan" site, past or present.

(251.53 KB 1165x1192 Asuka loli and rei.jpeg)
(397.12 KB 1127x630 Globals 2.0.png)
Site Meta Update Acid Board owner 05/12/2021 (Wed) 05:38:29 Id:196953 No. 2514
SITE META UPDATE 5-12-2021 Well this has been a fun week. I had one of these coming down the pipe anyway since we're over a month from the last one, and considering the current headaches this seems like as good a time as any. Before I go over the usual boring stuff I'll get straight to the issue of the day: /hebe/, their content on /b/ and elsewhere on the site, free speech, and the recent waves of spam. In short, our position is this: Pedos have a right to free speech, but do not have a right to possess or share unlawful content especially on our site. Global Rule 2 has always been quite strong, in my opinion and gave the staff and BOs some leeway to use common sense when removing material or banning users who post borderline material. Leeway is good. Good faith is also good. It means when we doubt what you post, it gets removed but you don't get banned, we don't assume you're a pedo, and nothing else comes of it as long as you don't repost it. Users have a little freedom to make honest mistakes, because the law in this area is murky, grey, and largely untested (yet must be followed.) So we do the best we can. Unfortunately this leeway has been translated into ambiguity about the content allowed under Global 2, which allowed for the rise of /hebe/, the appearance of their target audience, and outsiders from places as varied as /tvch/, /cow/, anonib, and "CIA Triad Security LLC" some of whom have proceeded to cause problems sitewide on both that board and the global level for going on three days. Much of this drama is manufactured in my opinion, and our concern level is low but we owe our anons and board owners a clear response. Please direct your attention to the new, much more specific Global Rule 2. This now hard-codifies what our base restrictions are and have been, but names the particulars. BOs are free to take a harsher stance if they so choose, but these will be the guidelines for global enforcement going forward. That said: We will not be deleting or removing /hebe/ so long as they operate in accordance with the rules. If they wish to have a board purely for discussion of their preferred interests, it is not our place to judge them for that or deny them provided they are in accordance with the Global Rules and the law. Free speech means free speech. Linking or making available unlawful material is already itself unlawful, and is covered fully by Global Rule 1 already. The rest of the site meta stuff Very little to report, honestly. We have received no warrants or court orders since the last update, the hosts and server are doing well, we took on the nice little community at /hisparol/ who have made themselves at home and the site has experienced two months of steady growth. Codexx is working on further improvements for Lynxchan 2.6, and I have a server OS upgrade scheduled for sometime next month that will probably cause a day of downtime, which we will announce well in advance. If anything comes to mind that I forgot, I'll edit it into this OP. As usual this will be merged into the meta sticky after a week of visibility. Onward and upward.
15 isn't pedo.
water is wet
(8.35 KB 173x188 checkdance.gif)
>>2999 13 isn't either.
If you guys would just allow jailbait content then the site would grow more.
>>3041 Okay, explain why.
>>3042 Because jailbait no longer has a place on the Internet. It's content that people want, but there's nowhere to post it (on the clearnet). There's an alternative out there somewhere for every other type of content that gets posted here, but there's no place to post jailbait. It's almost guaranteed traffic.
>>3043 What about Motherless or the other million porn sites that let you upload photos?
>>3044 They don't allow 14-17 year old content.
>>3045 Why? Is it illegal?
>>3046 Only if certain criteria are met.
>>3049 That means its an inherent risk and this isn't actually 8chan so its not going to take any kind of risks. They'd rather take the no risk no reward model that every other dead altchan is taking and so the site will never grow.
>>3050 And that is why this site will continue to suck.
>>3050 This just sounds a bit baseless to me. There's jailbait all over instagram and facebook and twitter and maybe still MySpace. Jailbait is normie content. Why do we want normies?
>>3054 Nobody cares what you want.
>>3055 Then replace "we" with "you" and reread the message
>>3056 You don't get the point, it's not about what you or I want.
>>3057 Well, them not actually wanting the site to thrive and just wanting to stir trouble is likely, but I still like to give them some benefit of the doubt to explain their reasoning. I like seeing these discussions
>>3058 The same is likely for interracial content, but I wouldn't demand it to be banned regardless, because it's not illegal and 8chan doesn't exist to be another curated chan.
>>3054 What are you smoking? Jailbait has been banned on almost every site on the Internet. In no way is it "normie content".
>>3041 >If you allow jailbait then the site would grow more Back in the early 2000's you could had easily done that and gotten away with it. Nowadays you can get in serious trouble if you get involved with that. You're better off sticking with 2D girls no one is gonna bat an eye if you waifu anime teenage characters unless you go on Twitter where feminists and SJWs are dominant. >>3043 >Jailbait >Guaranteed Traffic More like guaranteed death. You allow that and 8chan.moe goes offline like all the countless ded altchans out there. Not even the normal pics are safe to post. >>3054 >All over Instagram and Facebook They only allow non-sexual uploads and only if they are uploaded from said person. Doubt they would allow unrelated pics to be uploaded by anons.
>>3060 The legal stuff is absolute normie content. The illegal stuff is illegal, and also appeals entirely to normie teen boys. You're not appealing to anybody that anyone would actually want on the internet. >>3061 >Doubt they would allow unrelated pics to be uploaded by anons. Point remains the same, it's normie content and therefor not something the majority of people on this site want. Really it just supports the fact it's not worth it. Risk it all to attract the people that would kill it anyway
>>3059 >8chan doesn't exist to be another curated chan This isn't 8chan any more than jim's was, thats why they both curate whats permitted to be posted based on subversiveness to cover their own ass at the detriment to their own sites success. 8chan as everyone knows it was the site that took in gamergate despite it being subversive as fuck and costed the site a great deal, this site isn't that.
>>3062 >and also appeals entirely to normie teen boys No. >You're not appealing to anybody that anyone would actually want on the internet. Also no. >Point remains the same, it's normie content and therefor not something the majority of people on this site want. Still no. >>3063 Which is why the site is dead and will ultimately fail.
>>3062 And mind you, no one here wants /interracial/ yet it's allowed.
>>3067 Because the site owner is a literal cuck.
>>3063 >Gamergate costed 8chan It was /pol/ and a few edgy faggots that ultimately sunk the ship. 8chan globals and mods were not fast enough to respond to the lone wolf mass shooters. /v/, /b/ /a/, /co/, /delicious/, /cake/ and /t/ were all doing great when 8chan was around. Hell even /hebe/ did not contribute to 8chan being taken offline by Cloudflare or DNS providers despite how controversial it was. It was /pol/ the one that took 8chan down after 3 consecutive mass shootings that came out of it. Before 8chan got increasingly political under Jim/Ron Watkins it was all about video games, hobbies, lolis, shitposting and fun. 8moe while not as big as 8chan was seems like its returning back to its original roots on what made it great. >>3066 Word needs to spread about 8moe in order for it to be more active. 8moe is not easy to find via search engines despite carrying the 8chan brand. Only ones in here are those that have experience with altchans or found this site in the Webring before 8chan was takened out because 8moe kept /hebe/. We gotta get the word out on forums, select boards on 4chan, and a video or two on Youtube. That would get the place active in no time. It would probably be more efficient if we found a place and time we can coordinate the site's growth.
>>3069 The consequences of /pol/ were no different than the consequences of gamergate, both resulted in a deplatforming and having to change domains. The difference is hotwheels responded to it by getting the site back up as soon as he could while changing nothing about it, while jim spent MONTHS rebuilding it from the ground up as a sanitized platform to prevent it from ever happening again. Your assumption that the only reason this place isn't as popular as 8chan is due to a lack of exposure is as asinine as suggesting that the reason 8kun isn't as popular as 8chan is because of a lack of exposure. This site serves as a bunker for the few people that still remained on 8kun and will never garner an audience beyond that because thats all it sets out to be. All the people that stopped going to jim's 8chan will see no reason to come here.
>>3069 Except this is not true, 1 or 2 of those "mass shootings from 8chan" happened while it was temporarily suspended, and they just lied and said it was posted there. Also, most big crimes like this are posted to, or even live streamed from facebook.
>>3071 If some communist on twitter did nothing but complain about the rich and surrounded themselves with antifa people that encouraged them to commit violence and eventually they crashed a party in hollywood and started gunning down champagne sippers left and right you would rightfully blame twitter for allowing that radicalization to take place. Whether or not it was online at the moment of the shooting is irrelevant, and whether or not they used facebook as a platform for livestreaming the event doesn't implicate facebook in why that event took place. The real question is whether or not we should censor peoples freedom to say radical things for the greater good, and in the current political climate freedom is a thing of the past so the answer to that seems to be yes. Things like hate speech laws have been introduced in progressive countries without free speech protections first but of course that doesn't mean they won't worm their way into places like the U.S as well as those protections seem to serve more as a roadblock than an impenetrable barrier.
>>3076 >If some communist on twitter did nothing but complain about the rich and surrounded themselves with antifa people that encouraged them to commit violence and eventually they crashed a party in hollywood and started gunning down champagne sippers left and right you would rightfully blame twitter for allowing that radicalization to take place No one here would "rightfully blame" any platform for the actions of some lunatic individual just because they allowed speech that was critical of a certain class of people. >The real question is whether or not we should censor peoples freedom to say radical things for the greater good, and in the current political climate freedom is a thing of the past so the answer to that seems to be yes. It's easy to say that we should control all speech and virtually impossible at scale to actually execute on that goal regardless of the perceived benefits.
>>3077 >No one here would "rightfully blame" any platform for the actions of some lunatic individual I blame /pol/ for spurring lunatic individuals into action that I believe wouldn't have otherwise so thats not true. The point of contention is whether or not everyones freedom of speech should be violated in the effort to stop lunatics from being fed a bunch of bullshit that poisons their mind towards violent acts. When a jihadist allah ackbars a building full of people I don't say "well they're just a lunatic that would've done this no matter what", I rightfully blame islamic indoctrination for putting into their head that killing random people is a good idea. Does that mean all qurans should be burned and the very knowledge of their existence should be wiped from the history books? Not in my opinion as thats a dangerous slippery slope. >It's easy to say that we should control all speech and virtually impossible at scale to actually execute on that goal regardless of the perceived benefits. People in scotland for example are being terrified into silence over the restrictions on speech put in place there, you aren't even allowed to commit the crime of hate speech at the dinner table anymore. Its one step away from communist china where one of the best ways to improve your social credit score is to snitch on other people for their illegal speech. If you think things like this have no influence on controlling peoples speech then you're just being willfully ignorant on the subject.
>>3078 >I blame /pol/ for spurring lunatic individuals into action that I believe wouldn't have otherwise so thats not true. There's a difference between fed posting and merely criticizing systems of belief and discussing political happenings. /pol/ has and had a lot of fed posting, but even that doesn't necessarily influence lunatics. You can make a series of perfectly innocent and well meaning observations about the world from any political perspective that are irrefutably true and with a slightly off intonation a lunatic might be influenced to do something crazy. >The point of contention is whether or not everyones freedom of speech should be violated in the effort to stop lunatics from being fed a bunch of bullshit that poisons their mind towards violent acts. When a jihadist allah ackbars a building full of people I don't say "well they're just a lunatic that would've done this no matter what", I rightfully blame islamic indoctrination for putting into their head that killing random people is a good idea. Does that mean all qurans should be burned and the very knowledge of their existence should be wiped from the history books? Not in my opinion as thats a dangerous slippery slope. I don't think there's an answer, and where you can't find an answer I think it's best to just appeal to the principle. There's clearly an issue with how modern communication works. Humanity is not mentally or physically built to interface with each other through the internet. The internet has done irreparable damage to society that will echo through all of time. As someone who is generally quite empathetic I'm not comfortable with the damage being done through rampant misinformation, but I'm also not comfortable with solving this through losing freedom and autonomy. There are people on the planet, even the majority of people in fact, that should not at any point in their lives spend time contemplating political ideologies as they simply aren't physically equipped to come away with any meaningful conclusion. This is an undeniable truth, but there is no solution I can find to the problem of facebook boomer storming the capital because an anonymous shit-poster on some forum told them to.
>>3079 Your eagerness to disqualify any radicalizing that went on as "fedposting" showcases your own personal bias on the matter more than anything, but aside from that we seem to be in agreement for the most part.
>>3080 I didn't disqualify anything, I specifically agreed that people can be "radicalized" by virtually anything. I don't think we can solve that by simply disallowing strong opinions about controversial topics. At least not on a national or global scale. What I meant was the fed posting doesn't necessarily influence lunatics any more than anyone with a strong opinion about any political issue that is rhetorically effective enough to make the problem seem immediate and concerning enough to the reader. It's incredibly easy to induce fear and panic into the average person with enough rhetorical skill regardless of how edgy or blatant your messaging is. Even without a single shred of malicious intent you can "spur" someone into doing crazy shit or just becoming plagued by anxiety and depression.


Quick Reply
Extra
Delete
Report

no cookies?