The Washington Post Asks: Should 8chan Be Considered a Terrorist Recuiting Site? (washingtonpost.com)

An anonymous reader quotes the Washington Post: As most of the world condemned last week's mass shooting in New Zealand, a contrary story line emerged on 8chan, the online message board where the alleged shooter had announced the attack and urged others to continue the slaughter. "Who should i kill?" one anonymous poster wrote. "I have never been this happy," wrote another. "I am ready. I want to fight...." The persistence of the talk of violence on 8chan has led some experts to call for tougher actions by the world's governments, with some saying the site increasingly looks like the jihadi forums organized by the Islamic State and al-Qaeda...

8chan's founder, Fredrick Brennan, said Jim Watkins [8chan's sole administrator] owns other Internet businesses and has built a technical fortress to guard 8chan from potential takedowns: He owns nearly every component securing the site to the backbone of the Web, including its servers, which are scattered around the world. "You can send a complaint, but no one's going to do anything. He owns the whole operation," Brennan said. "It's how he keeps people confused and guessing...." Watkins is content to lose money, Brennan said, because he sees it as a pet project: "8chan is like a boat to Jim. It doesn't matter if it makes money. He just enjoys using it...."

8chan, however, is shielded in another way: the U.S. web-services giant Cloudflare, which helps websites guard against "distributed denial of service," or DDoS, attacks that online vigilante groups have used to target 8chan in the past.
The Post reports that Brennan "worries there are no true technical solutions beyond a total redesign of the Web, focused around identification and moderation, that could undermine it as a venue for free expression." Brennan tells the Post that "The Internet as a whole is not made to be censored. It was made to be resilient. And as long as there's a contingent of people who like this content, it will never go away."

On Tuesday, 8chan posted tips on Twitter for what to do "If your ISP is blocking a website you'd like to browse" -- a tweet which is now pinned to the top of its feed.

Comments

Wrong question!

[fustakrakich]

The real question is: Should the Washington Post be considered Jeff Bezos Blog?

The sites you listed make an effort

[rsilvergun]

to reign in the worst elements of their community. By all accounts 8Chan bills itself as a haven for those sorts.

There are arguments to be made that 8chan shouldn't be considered a terrorist recruitment site. For example, that it's not their intended purpose and that any recruitment taking place is a side effect of their laissez faire approach to moderation. But it's not a fair argument to make that because a terrorist recruiter can post to Facebook that means 8chan's automatically off the hook. Facebook would very quickly ban the individual if there was even a whiff of potential violence. 8chan wouldn't take down a post unless there was a very, very clear violation of law (and there's accusations that even then they'll turn a blind eye).

Also, I think we're conflating up "Should be considered a recruitment tool" vs "is actively recruiting terrorists". There's a big difference. For the former it means the FBI keeps a closer eye on what goes on. For the latter it means the FBI/CIA/Military/local police (depending on the country) raids the place.

Well, there's a multi-billion dollar media engine

[rsilvergun]

dedicated to making the members of the right wing feel as though they're under attack. That's because once you convince somebody that they're under attack and really drive home the fear of it you can get them to do damn near anything.

Re: Forgot the Censorship Icon

[terrycarlino]

The answer to crazy conspiracy theories is not censorship. It is information.

In the United States, because of our cherished First Amendment, there is no such thing as 'Hate Speech'. There is just speech, which is protected. If you don't like what someone is saying then don't listen to them. If you believe that their speech poses a danger to society then use your right to free speech to convince everyone else why they are wrong.

The answer to crazy theories and disgusting rhetoric is intelligent debate. It is not shouting people down, getting people banned, or preventing speech.

When you shut people down and prevent them from speaking what you have done is to leave them only one avenue by which to express themselves, and that is violence.

The monster in NZ states in his manifesto exactly what his plan was. The purpose of his attack was only peripherally to kill people he didn't like. His attack wasn't even directed at NZ, though they have been following his plan as if they were co conspirators of his. His attack was directed at the U.S. His purpose was to push the left into banning weapons, censoring speech and taking away rights, because he knew the left doing this was likely to cause the right to stubbornly resist such actions. Initially politically and legally and eventually violently, should the left persist in their actions to curtail rights. NZ is moving right along that path.

Meanwhile, as everyone here can attest, people who want to see the banned information can see it because The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it. (John Gilmore)

Re:Yes. No. Sorta.

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you honestly believe this? That random kids are going to be watching his massacre video, listen his "subscribe to pewdiepie" comment, and that's how they're going to be introduced to a network of alt-lite individuals?
No, it was bait. Pewdiepie is big, the #1 youtuber, has famously had major efforts put towards deplatforming him, and most importantly, people can't seem to shut up about any little thing he does. The shooter said it because he knew people wouldn't be able to resist talking about it, which draws attention towards the actual video, his actions, his purpose, and his ideas, which is the whole point of terrorism.