4Chan Flooding YouTube with Childrens' Clips Containing Porn

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8061979.stm

by ComputerGuru • 17 years ago

16 49 17 years ago

thomaslee3• 17 years ago

While I can sort of see the funny side, I think this sort of crap is going to be the end of the Internet as we know it. It's just begging for the political and commercial powers that be to stamp down on the web with a great, big boot.

Media corporations have already started demanding more control over the "distribution channel" that is the Internet. When the lobbying steps up, politicians aren't going to have to look very far for justification to give the corporations exactly what they want.

</twocents>

jrockway8• 17 years ago

It's just begging for the political and commercial powers that be to stamp down on the web with a great, big boot.

No, this is the end of the ad-supported internet.

Politics doesn't matter; the (US) government cannot legally censor anything, they've tried, it's been declared unconstitutional. Companies don't care what they're hosting, as long as they are getting rich. If they could legally make millions of dollars a year hosting child porn, they would. (They have no objection to polluting the environment or forcing workers to work in unsafe conditions, directly resulting in many deaths every day. Showing videos on the Internet is child's play compared to that.)

However, it's the advertisers who will get upset, and then pull out. "Our product associated with porn being shown to children? Bye." With no advertising revenue, the web (as we know it) cannot exist. That means either censorship (too hard; "information wants to be free"), or actually paying money for content.

FWIW, this is not unheard of. The big Japanese video sharing site, NicoNico Douga, requires everyone to pay. Even though it's not free, it's more popular than Youtube.

In the end, the advertisers lose, and I think that's a good thing. I hate advertising.

Media corporations have already started demanding more control over the "distribution channel" that is the Internet.

They're demanding, but nobody cares about their demands. I know people whine about Hulu's restrictions, but I've never even visited Hulu and I still get all my TV online. It's called Usenet. You open your news reader, browse to alt.binaries.multimedia.tv-shows, or whatever, and download away. In 10 minutes, I have whatever show I want, in HD, with no restrictions. "Censorship is considered damage, and the Internet routes around it."

The whole "let's punish file-sharers" thing has also backfired. Even governments with very weak personal protections (France, the UK) have struck down the disconnection laws. The Pirate Party has 17% of the vote in Sweeden (and large numbers in other EU countries, I think). Organizations in the US are suing the RIAA for its lawsuit intimidation campaign.

The tide is shifting, and it's not towards the media industry's interests.

Basically, now is not time for the media companies to demand anything. Nobody cares what they think. If creating content isn't profitable anymore, they should go into some other business and stop bothering everyone else.

axod5• 17 years ago

Perhaps you mean "Advertising on UGC websites". And in that case, it's far more likely sites will just come up with better moderation tools to detect questionable content.

Online advertising is crucial for the survival of the internet. I kinda like the fact most sites are free to visit. You can hate it all you like, but without it, most of the internet wouldn't exist. I hate people who hate advertising :/ It's irrational. It's like saying you hate 'money', 'commerce' or even 'information'

thomaslee3• 17 years ago

"They're demanding, but nobody cares about their demands."

Except politicians whose morals and wants stretch in proportion to the contributions they receive.

"Basically, now is not time for the media companies to demand anything."

That's not the point I'm trying to make. The point is that this sort of "vandalism" is going to change the whole landscape, everything you just described.

Perhaps now is not the time for media companies to demand anything -- but if you take the freedom of today's Internet for granted, sooner or later this sort of behaviour is going to come back and bite us all on the ass. It could progress such that if censorship fails, they could always go down the China route and use plain old-fashioned fear.

eli2• 17 years ago

The First Amendment right to free speech is not absolute. Sure, the Supreme Court has usually rejected prior restraint, but try writing a book about how to make crystal meth and let me know how it turns out.

And there's certainly no absolute right to anonymous speech....

reedlaw• 17 years ago

It's already true in China where Youtube has been blocked for many weeks now. All new PCs will be required to have censorware installed by July.

I enjoy using Youtube, but behavior like this helps justify the government's draconian measures, which is not so funny for the people who live here.

gasull2• 17 years ago

You guys use Tor:

http://tor.eff.org

And donate bandwidth if you can setting up a server (at least a middle server).

ComputerGuru3• 17 years ago

(Update, posted here: http://bit.ly/l1Lvh)

What funny side is that?

I have never taken one of the attacks, defamations, etc. by people online personally nor felt in the least inclined to put an end to it all, but 4Chan strikes a nerve - what they do is pure, raw evil.

I know I'm doing them a favor by posting this, that these are the very feelings they intend to elicit by their actions, but honestly, enough is enough. This is the 2nd time I am so appalled by their behavior, and one of the few times I am ashamed of the internet's privacy and the power of its denizens to do evil.

The last time (http://bit.ly/qcWDC) was when 4Chan attacked an epilepsy forum frequented by people susceptible to photosensitive seizures, causing a dozen epilepsy attacks by uploading rapidly-moving images and flashing colors to the forum, triggering a dozen attack.

Willfully bringing about seizures in handicapped people and exposing children as young as 6 years old to wholly-explicit films of adult sex are E.V.I.L. .... and more importantly, punishable by law.

I hope someone wises up in the legal community and takes action against this site. Like I said, I know this is the sort of self-righteous anger that 4Chan is looking forward to receiving after these attacks, but there's a line and they crossed it a long time ago.

So, do tell, where's the funny side in this?

sho7• 17 years ago

I was going to try to explain but seeing you use phrases like "pure, raw evil" to describe a couple of internet pranks makes me wonder if it's even possible.

The epilepsy thing was going too far, I agree, and they haven't done anything like that since. But I don't see why this one is so bad, in fact when I saw the headline I grinned and thought "good old 4Chan, creating drama for the rest of us .."

When I think "pure, raw evil" I think of nazi concentration camps and pleasure killers, etc. I cannot even begin to put these pranks into the same category. I don't see any reason whatsoever why it should be illegal. I just don't understand your reaction at all, basically. What is the problem?

thomaslee3• 17 years ago

This is not evil. This is a bunch of kids sitting behind their collective computers having a giggle with their mates.

As you observed, the Internet completely disconnects them from the reality of their actions. I'd wager that -- generally speaking -- 4channers don't run around flashing their technicolour LCDs at epileptics or showing porn to their mate's six year old. They're a little power-drunk on sweet, sweet anonymity juice.

The porn thing isn't a huge deal in my personal opinion. Of course, I say this without being a parent. So I don't know, perhaps I'd feel differently if that were the case. What I do know is that you and I are different people with different opinions and apparently different senses of humor, and hey -- that's cool. Sorry you found my comments about seeing the funny side to be so outrageous, I meant no offense.

I'd prefer a cultural change in 4chan rather than a legal smackdown. You can shut down a site, but the 4channers will still be around. This, in turn, will only lead to Internet censorship for the rest of us.

And it really would be shit if the Internet's dying words were "Oh, but think of the children." -- but imagine the good 4chan could do if this sort of energy were channeled elsewhere? Maybe I'm just being excessively optimistic. :)

jpcx01• 17 years ago

Pure, raw evil? Get a grip.

It's not E.V.I.L. It's mean, and nasty. But E.V.I.L. to me resembles means more on the lines of the rape, torture, murder variety.

The reason the law shouldn't get involved in cases like this is the damage done to citizens in enforcing the law is higher than the result of letting it go free. Any parent who lets their kids under 13 browse around youtube unsupervised is responsible for the result of what the kid sees.

radu_floricica2• 17 years ago

How exactly can you put causing epilepsy attacks and exposing children to porn on the same level? I may be liberal, but to be honest I am more offended by your remark then about what 4chan did.

jrockway8• 17 years ago

I am confused that YouTube didn't catch this in advance. I only casually keep myself informed of Internet memes, and I knew 4chan was going to unleash a bunch of porn on June 12th. If I know... everyone knows :)

ComputerGuru3• 17 years ago

Not that it matters, but I didn't know... guess the guys at YouTube aren't alone. :P

eli2• 17 years ago

I'm not sure I follow. Were you suggesting that YouTube disable uploads for the day?

dimitar• 17 years ago

How did you find out?

CGamesPlay2• 17 years ago

Honestly it's been copypasta'd throughout /b/ for the past few weeks. And yesterday especially, it was in every thread!

It's not like /b/ is some walled garden ::)

Herring• 17 years ago

>In one video titled Jonas Brother Live On Stage, a user posted a comment saying: "I'm 12 years old and what is this?"

ah, bbc...

dtf2• 17 years ago

This happened nearly a month ago. It's strange how breaking stories go away, then suddenly reappear at the top of the BBC most read list (sometimes months or even years later)... where they get picked up and recycled by social news sites or bloggers, only to cause a second wave of outrage. I wonder what the dynamics of it all are.

Also note that the "I'm 12 years old and what is this?" troll - successfully swallowed up by many of the major news outlets - has now become somewhat of a meme.

CGamesPlay2• 17 years ago

This also happened today, with lots of /b/-style "publicity" and "planning" i.e. it was copypasta'd in every thread.

dtf2• 17 years ago

I'm confused. The BBC link in the title of this thread is to an article dated 21 May 09 (the original attack). Then ComputerGuru posted a link to an "update" (http://bit.ly/l1Lvh), which is dated June 13, and goes on to spout "this time, it's not the Church of Scientology they're attacking, but innocent children. As the BBC reports, members of 4Chan have been uploading videos containing explicit sexual content in droves to YouTube today, specifically targeting children". Yet the source of this post - the linked BBC report - is the still the old one dated 21 May 09. If it also happened today, then it's odd to link to an old news article about a current event (at least without noting that it's old).

Dilpil• 17 years ago

200 Years from now we'll all have a good laugh at how ridiculous it was that videotaping sex and tricking kids into seeing it used to be thought of as an intensely evil crime.

robotron• 17 years ago

Or as funny

darwinw• 17 years ago

I don't think this is funny at all. They've now managed to be a real asshole by sabotaging childrens' clips