AT&T blocks b and r9k

[Jezus53 18]

link

As upset as I am about b and r9k being blocked, I am more upset with AT&T for infringing upon my rights to go to what ever site I want at my own risk. And as I've read, does this really make AT&T responsible for any illegal actions that occur under it's service since it took it upon it's self to start censoring sites?

[Lumbergh 0]

first off, what is b and r9k?

[Removed for inappropriate content--91]

[Patricius Maximus 236]

It will set a dangerous precedent, and may cause a chain reaction turning ISPs into iron-fisted censors. AT&T, not because of their rights, but out of concern for customers, needs to cease this at once.

Yet another reason to fully enact network neutrality where it does not exist.

[Easy Bakes 253]

What happens when this "site" Sues AT&T for restraint of trade?

[fukuda 351]

Ohh importing chinese technology and ideology, right

[hamsterTK 93]

 /b/ is part of "IV-chan". It's of course known for various incidents of hazy legal nature, as in DDOS "pranks"

however I believe censorship is nothing but theatre, if someone commits a crime they should be charged for it and that's it. If anyone really cared to do anything about this kind of internet disorder beyond the sickening "think of the children" rhetoric there'd be fewer judges wimping out and not handing subpeonas or injunctions.

[your_adress_here 11]

I don't think AT&T realizes just who they're messing with by blocking four-chan.

Censorship is wrong. Period.

[TEG24601 32]

This morning at&t announced that they had blocked four-chan due to a possible DoS attack that appeared to originate within the 'img' subdomain. This morning they found the attack had stopped and restored access to the site. http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2009/07/att_says_web_site_block_was_no.html

[your_adress_here 11]

Originally posted by: TEG24601

This morning at&t announced that they had blocked four-chan due to a possible DoS attack that appeared to originate within the 'img' subdomain. This morning they found the attack had stopped and restored access to the site. http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2009/07/att_says_web_site_block_was_no.htmlquote>

I guess it wasn't a case of censorship but rather a case of protecting themselves. A good idea to, probably, since there's no guessing what /b/ can do.

[Jezus53 18]

Here's what moot (creator of four-chan) said in the four-chan status:

Here's what happened:

For the past three weeks, four-chan 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.four-cahn.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 must say, it was very interesting to see what users were planning to do against AT&T if they didn't unblock the site.

[hamsterTK 93]

lol, so false alarm. I got to say, I believed it, mainly because there is a precedent of European ISP's blocking sites.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: Jezus53

Here's what moot (creator of four-chan) said in the four-chan status:

Here's what happened:

For the past three weeks, four-chan 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.four-cahn.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 must say, it was very interesting to see what users were planning to do against AT&T if they didn't unblock the site.

quote>

So the hacker site gets hacked?

[Patricius Maximus 236]

Then it is resolved on the side of liberty. Good. Hopefully we can keep it that way.

[Jezus53 18]

Originally posted by: Easy Bakes

So the hacker site gets hacked?

quote>

They always get attacked because they attack everyone else. It's from a rival site called anontalk. Some angery member of four-chan went and made his own site and declared war on four-chan. 711chan has also been causing havock for them.