hey, get out of ! personally, I get a certain amount of satisfaction knowing that there is this one space left on the net that is completely devoid of adult rationalism. i know that you are a journalist and that’s your job and everything, but I feel like you are voiding some kind of contract, by venturing into this fragile natural habitat, exposing it to the ‘adult’ world. the only possible result of such an act would be that the adults will encroach and destroy it. you realize this, right?

Wasn’t this same scenario the premise for Coercion? It seems like you have made a career out of hanging out on the seamy underside, and writing about it for marketeers. As far as I’m concerned, letting those asshats in, facilitating them–where it would have taken them years longer to get there on their own–is a negative force and you should resist the temptation and stop it.

Please, savor these unique environments, smirk and keep it to yourself. Anyone can be status-quo. It takes something extra and exclusive to be really fringe these days. or just kill the autonomous zones, speed up homogenization by stirring the cultural pot. whatever, I guess.

Wow. Thanks for warning me. I’ll make sure to always stay away from the b/ Channel.

So you’re saying I discovered ? That this was some kind of secret community that hadn’t ever seen the light of day?

Everyone and their sister reported on the ATT vs. story last week. And everyone and their sister wrote about how it’s this horrible place that should be shut down.

I write basically the opposite, and you’re thinking I’m going to be responsible for the destruction of a delicate internet environment?

is tougher than you think. They took on Scientology, for chissakes. They are ad supported. They can handle a little Daily Beast admiration, especially after two or three weeks of attention from much much bigger media outlets, and in much more negative light.

The only possible result is not that adults will go in and destroy it. The more probable result, I think, is that they’ll stay away and leave it be.

If anything, I’m agreeing with you. But I don’t think adding one more to the hundreds or thousands of bigger pieces about 4chan threatens the integrity of the community, such as it is.

inb4 shitstorm

The point is, needs less media coverage, be it positive or negative.

Sorry for my knee-jerk reaction, Douglas. I respect your writings very much, and I hadn’t really taken note of the other media mentions, of which there have doubtless been many. It was irresponsible for me to read something into your article which wasn’t there. In the end of the article you state, that they’ll be laying in waiting somewhere. I’m just afraid that if the service were ever taken down, then the counter culture would have nowhere to go.

I recently walked through an alternative mall that was thriving in my college years (the grunge age of the early 90s), only to see all of the shops shut down. There was nothing left there of the dozens of stores except for a lone tattoo parlor, and I pined a little bit, for the days when alternative information thrived in little shops like these, full of the whole-earth catalogs, pro-hemp magazines, headshops, zines, weird clothing and whatever. but now the internet has swept all that away. I expect my reaction is the result of a cumulative fear that counter cultures are dispersing with nowhere to go. Not that I really understand it now; there could be vast counter cultures that are completely off my radar. Hell, I’m almost 40, I’m not supposed to know where that stuff is. Cheers.

You have to consider the so-called ‘newfags’ that have been drawn to . With their arrival, they dumb down the content and promote mediocrity. Your article will attract more of these ‘newfags’ to the site. Thus, you do a disservice, and ultimately harm it.

Talk about media sensationalism, you really played up the “fear” that you felt that someone would put something naughty on your computer just for saying something out of place. That’s laughable on its face.

It’s obvious that your article was poorly researched and just a thinly veiled attempt to get the internet to pay attention to you. These articles have been written time and time again, yet you write this one and it’s the worst one out of the bunch. Had you spent any real time studying the site and observing its participants, you would have seen that there is little to no threat of anything untoward happening to you or your computer and that there is some value to the discussions that take place within. Instead, you focus on the inane and the one instance that some pervert and the worst of society posted child porn. Yes, should do more to prevent such instances from occurring (including turning information over to the authorities for CP violations), but these instances are rare and do not constitute some sort of overbearing trend that you make it out to be.

It’s a shame, because I used to respect your writing and insight.

I hear you. And I probably came off as angry in my response to you when I was actually just pissed about the site being “taken” down when we were trying to post something about the YesMen. So it seemed ironic that one media-hack posse would be hurting another media-hack posse.

Anyway, I do see what you mean about how the light of media attention ends up being something like lifting a rock and exposing the little worms and things under it. There’s a whole ecosystem that gets screwed up.

I saw doing the piece more as a way to put the rock back down – even though I can see why participants in the community might see it otherwise. I was inspired to know there’s still that raw youthful energy. I am old, now, and more cynical about the net – especially the commercial net. So I saw it as cool that kids and others are still doing the “real” thing.

That they think I’m an evil fuck for it, is fine, too. They have to.

Please take down the article.

Thank you.

fag

NIGGER
NIGGER
NIGGER
NIGGER
NIGGER
NIGGER
NIGGER
NIGGER
NIGGER
NIGGER
NIGGER
NIGGER
NIGGER
NIGGER
NIGGER
NIGGER
NIGGER
NIGGER
NIGGER
NIGGER

NIGGER
NIGGER
NIGGER
NIGGER
NIGGER

http://www.lolwat.com/http://www.lolwat.com/http://www.lolwat.com/http://www.lolwat.com/http://www.lolwat.com/http://www.lolwat.com/http://www.lolwat.com/http://www.lolwat.com/http://www.lolwat.com/http://www.lolwat.com/http://www.lolwat.com/http://www.lolwat.com/http://www.lolwat.com/http://www.lolwat.com/http://www.lolwat.com/http://www.lolwat.com/http://www.lolwat.com/http://www.lolwat.com/http://www.lolwat.com/http://www.lolwat.com/http://www.lolwat.com/

NIGGERS

On the second thought, is but a shadow of it’s former glory. Perhaps it is time to put it down. The inane comments that have been posted above me serve as a testament to illustrate the poor condition of it’s userbase. Surely a new site will emerge as a nexus of agency, and then the cycle will repeat itself.

This is why we can’t have good things.

#8 – Yes, Mootasaurus. But don’t the crashed sites (mine and Daily Beast), posted home addresses and photos, and the thousands of new registrations made in my name demonstrate that there is still some small element associated with that is engaged in these sorts of activities.

I meant the piece, of course, as admiration. I wasn’t responsible for the headline, but I was responsible for the piece itself, which looked at as the last bastion of something real and untamed about the net. I am sorry you didn’t see it that way.

But I’m not sure what opinion you want me to have, or whether you are in support of the censorship action against me.

Anyway, if you are Moot, I’d love the chance to engage with you. Is there any chance of an interview?

You could explain what I did wrong, what – if anything at all – I did right. Tell me why my appreciation for is so misguided.

I am still a fan of the Internet’s underbelly – but maybe is no longer the community of vigilantes, anti-censorship hackers, and upstarts I thought it was.

Or maybe – and I’d love to understand this better if it’s true – I have missed the point. I know the child porn I saw was rare. It took two weeks for an image like that to scroll by. That’s the main reason I let people know the period of time this particular inquiry was taking place.

I have read and re-read the article, and cannot find any evidence of my making the site out to be a hotbed for porn, or for that picture to be a regular occurrence. It’s more that it happened, and it shocked me.

But I really do respect you, and get that there’s something extremely big I’m missing. If there’s any way for you help me – and the folks at Daily Beast and beyond – get it, I’d love to make that happen.

Meanwhile, many members of the community clearly want this piece taken down.

Should I, for the sake of keeping the rest of this site up and functioning, take the piece down?

Do not take this piece down, you have every right to do this. These newfags are just whining, it will pass.

And I do appreciate the site’s speedy removal of the posts directed at me.

No, I am not “the” Moot.

I don’t condone any of the actions that were taken against you with regards to your article. While we may all have different perspectives, I think that all perspectives should be seen and heard without fear of being shut out of the process. For that, I’m ashamed that people acted in this way.

However, perhaps I am just obtuse, but I’m missing how the article was largely in support of the site. Detailing an instance where child pornography appear seems to be the backbone of the article. Again, let me restate, those that post or distribute such things should be met with harsh justice and consequences. There is no room in a civilized society for it. But such instances are rather uncommon and the moderators are quick to ban and remove any such posts. Admittedly, they are working in a hostile environment and it seems to be an ongoing battle, but that behavior isn’t promoted or encouraged by 99.9% of the site.

There have been many articles written about 4chan and the sites creator, Moot. Some are just hit pieces but others have been more even handed and acknowledge the unique nature of the site (the good and bad) in the realm of the internet and in a larger sense, free speech. I think that’s why I was originally upset about your article and perhaps I missed the finer point of it. I honestly wouldn’t mind seeing you write another article about the site and the culture behind it – both good and bad. What I find interesting in my time on the site (a few years of on and off browsing) is that there is a wide array of people and backgrounds that are involved. If you sit back and watch, you can find people from all types of backgrounds and professions that share their knowledge about subjects in a way that you can’t find in other forums. The “seedy underbelly” of the internet is populated with some of the brightest minds and also with some of the worst examples of humanity. It’s this melting pot that gives the site its uniqueness and keeps people interested. Sure, there is a lot of nonsense and repulsive behavior to be found and on some days that’s all there seems to be found, but if you look harder and keep your eye open you can find diamonds of real conversation and debate hidden amongst the rabble. And there’s really no debating that the site has had its shares of brushes with infamy and other occasions where it’s contributed mightily to popular culture or helped contribute something decent to society (they have helped law enforcement apprehend and prosecute animal abusers and pedophiles – not to mention their unabashed support for free speech in all forms.)

I humbly submit that my original post may have been written in a knee-jerk manner, and I apologize as such. I’m also disgusted that people advocated for the removal of your article. There is a better way to have discourse but such is the nature of the internet and assumed anonymity by a few. Again, I would strongly urge you to revisit this subject again with a fresh perspective and perhaps a bit more clarity in what you are trying to convey in your message. I respect your credentials and expertise but sometimes we all develop tunnel vision or our points get clouded along the way.

is irrelevant. They’re not some undergroud movement. Underground implies that it’s something of worth that no one knows about, but is something most people on the internet are aware of but chose to ignore. The juggalos of the internet, though a bit more clever. They claim counterculture status, but in a very superficial way. Goatse pictures are good for a laugh, but they can’t dismantle centralized currency.

Moot – I agree with you, except for the free speech part. The culture seems to engage in censorship of people/articles it doesn’t like.

The piece I wrote was in reaction to the hoopla following the site’s entanglement with a big communications company. Most of the articles following up on that debacle criticized the site, and even suggested it shouldn’t be allowed to exist.

My point was to spend two or three weeks there and see if I could put my finger on what made people so uncomfortable about its existence. I credited the site with three great media hacks, including one against a cult. I explained the site’s origins.

Then I explained the feeling of being there (again), and of being in a place that felt as unpredictable, even dangerous, as the original Internet. The Internet I remember before it was sanitized by business.

And then, after two full week of scrolling, I found a single horrific image. One. And it did effect me, viscerally.

But – and I said this, too – I experienced it as a relief. The same kind of relief one feels when they see a kid in an otherwise conservative town wearing a pierced eyebrow or a grommet in the earlobe.

Then I ended by explaining:

There is still an “element” online willing to take the time, energy, and risk to piss on the virtual street, spray paint on a virtual building, or gang up on a real person or institute they consider a threat. You may not want to engage with this element directly, or even indirectly. But no matter how far from the Internet’s wild, anarchic origins we get—no matter how much the Web starts to look and act like a copy-protecting iTunes nightmare—they’re still out there. Waiting.

you should have lurked moar, then you would have known that /b/’s reaction was to be expected. actually I assumed you were aware of this.

i kinda liked your article. too bad that you took it down. it doesn’t change much anyway. /b/ would get bored with you sooner or later, no matter if the article is there or not.

btw maybe you should pay encyclopedia dramatica a visit. then you’ll see that you’re not the first victim. and i don’t think that you should defend your position. /b/ can’t be reasoned with. unless you stick a sharpie in your pooper or put a shoe on your head

also what happened has not much to do with censorship. their goal was not to have the article taken down, but to harrass its writer and get lulzy reactions from you.
some people just have to prove all the time that /b channel (lol) is the internet haet machine.

and you did nothing wrong. except posting an article which some users on /b/ did not like. it’s your right. maybe it sounded a bit trollish ( /b channel ), which provoked the trolls even more. and the “child porn” in the title provoked the “baaaw you’re wrong. 4chan is different” (which is false and true) newfags.

and i assume most of the “oldfags” didn’t even consider you a worthy target. not much lulz to be had from raiding you.
proof: you don’t even have an own page on ecyclopedia dramatica.

but your name seems to be mentioned in this article from march 2009:
http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/ChangeDaChannel

I know. I figured it was the little guys doing the attack since I hardly rank with Scientology. But it’s still debilitating enough to make taking the article down worth it.

Besides, it’s still up at Daily Beast, where they have the resources to defend it if they choose.

The irony, of course, is that the same people saying that the site doesn’t do stuff like this are the people doing it. But I was fully aware that writing anything at all about the site was like poking at a hornets’ nest. It’s all in a days’ work.

First of all, let me state that it wasn’t just the “low ranking members” who were raiding you, because we have no ranks. We are all completely anonymous, therefore as a collective, we all have the same “rank”, as you should know, albeit there are some heavily skilled people mixed amongst people that can barely click a mouse.

Secondly, this “raid” was commenced by MAYBE 40 people. Mostly by people that have been around a while, and understand how /b/ likes to operate. We do not want ANY publicity, whether it be good or bad.

Over the past few months, maybe even the past year or so, we have received so much ink, that our population has nearly doubled, and now there is so much influx of “newfag” traffic, that everything /b/ once stood for, everything we held near and dear, is basically gone. All the good content on the site that made /b/ what it originally was has been replaced with teenage girls with social disorders and people that act like they are now a part of some “club”. /b/ is not, never has been, and never will be, a club. We like our privacy, we do NOT want more retards filling up our pages with nonsense. The less people that clutter up our pages with bullshit, the better.

You were not raided because of the content of your article, you were raided because you chose to write ANYTHING with regards to us. We do not want press.

Take this post as you will, but rest assured, if you choose to do another piece, it will be viewed as a big “F YOU” to the general population in regards to the first raid, and you will be hit harder and longer. This is not a direct threat from me, but simply the truth. The capabilities of /b/ has been seen before, from murder, to bomb threats, to mass shootings/suicide.. you name it, /b/ has done it in one form or another.

Please, do not write another piece.

NewFags don’t understand your work for the most part.

They don’t understand your positions most likely or your history and involvement with the net.

It’s unfortunate they went and did that to you, but it is true, this is why we cant have anything nice.

They still think they are the others

Wow. I see why you pulled the piece. These people are a little scary.

Matt: If you’re existing in cyberspace, you’re existing in an inherently public sphere, one that is also inherently collaborative–don’t you think? People can, will, and should read and respond to your group’s work–it’s the nature of the beast, and frankly the dynamic of the new media. If you don’t want press and want to avoid public reaction to your work, maybe you should consider moving it to a more private/less public forum? Is it reasonable of you to expect to exist to some degree publicly in a fundamentally responsive/collaborative environment without eventually garnering comment/reaction/press/etc.? Am I crazy or isn’t it also kind of crappy to intimidate someone just because you don’t want that person reacting to your public work?

Douglas: I totally get it. I would’ve made the same call. Right or not, sometimes certain people are just not worth fighting with and I really respect you for having the good sense to make that call.

#28 You really don’t get it, do you? How about you place your loyalty in an ethic instead of a web community? Ichi-go ichi-e. Nothing is permanent. Learn it. If you can understand what you like about /b/ you can pull up stakes and move somewhere else unbothered by “newfags”.

BTW I’m a realfag, and don’t much appreciate that tag, but I think those empty threats you made were HILARIOUS! Geez kids, grow up.

Dude. Moot isn’t here. He never told us to raid at&t, he said that if we were blocked, it wasn’t his fault, it was at&ts, and we should take it up with them. Moot has never condoned what /b/ does behind his back, at least not in public, and he certainly isnt going to do an interview with someone who made a website hes been working on for five years sound like a piece of SHlT. I didn’t participate in this raid, I sat back and watched. By the way, weweren’t told to raid you either, and all the aid threads were deleted by mods as soon as they saw them, along with every other raid thread, CP thread, JB thread, and NlGGER thread.

So, if you are

planning to keep bagging on /b/, plan on getting another ass beating. Because anon is legion, anon doesn’t sleep.

By the way, i’m sorry it had to be this way. I used to actually like you.

I can’t believe you said this:
“All the good content on the site that made /b/ what it originally was has been replaced with teenage girls with social disorders and people that act like they are now a part of some “club”. ”

And publicly. You are committing much worse offenses than I ever did. Hey anon- why don’t you get that person who is bagging on /b/?

The ranking comment, well, that came straight from emails from people calling themselves oldtimers of the site, and giving me their support. They, like I, think it’s an important thing to keep alive – in spite of anything that certain people might be using it for. I get that you don’t even want support from anyone, so sorry.

Thing is, it turns out what you folks are doing is of cultural and social significance. And when you do something important, sometimes it gets noticed. Usually, it only gets notice by people who hate you , or are scared. Sometimes it gets notice by someone with a more open mind, who takes a more anthropological perspective, and tries to explain as best he can where the value lies.

I know that is meaningless to you. But it turns out there’s a real world out here that is actually dying. That’s right – planet almost used up, people without any values, crazy people with nukes, financial sector run by the equivalent of the mafia….

So every bit of anarchy, ever self-0rganized community, every place with a bit of fertility left is valuable. And that’s why it was important to share the constructive side of your existence with some others.

While much of what you do (or that gets done in your name) is random or cruel, there’s also a certain power in it that makes for good.

But you see this is bagging on you, which I get. The punks in the 80′s *hated* when people wrote articles explaining how what they were doing was high art or politically coherent.

Also, in terms of media tactics, you end up bringing way more attention of nubes *to* your site by taking big actions against those who say something. You made this a much much bigger story than I ever could.

And believe me, going after Daily Beast could prove much more newsworthy, still.

The *death* threat is intense, Matt.

You really shouldn’t go there, no matter how well you think your IP address is hidden. It’s not like this is all in my hands. I hope you’re under 18.

“So I was infected, after all. Not just by an indecent, illegal image, but by indecency and illegality itself.” -Rushkoff, “The Web’s Dirtiest Site”

Many times Douglas, your writing strikes me as incredibly naive, and I think this has to do with your having had a culturally deprived childhood during your Westchester period. Maybe in your earlier Brooklyn period, where you had opportunities for a broader social experience, you never went swimming in the pool at the St. George Hotel? You should have Gore Vidal bring you up to speed on what you missed. On top of that, by learning the score, maybe today you would be less shocked by what you stumble into when using your computer.

It’s a big world Douglas, and after reading your article, I find your comprehension of it lackluster, if not in fact sterile.

The self-righteous feeling you project over your mugging, which you talk about ad nauseum, is another glaring example of your abject naivety.

“Also, in terms of media tactics, you end up bringing way more attention of nubes *to* your site by taking big actions against those who say something. You made this a much much bigger story than I ever could.”

Maybe that’s the point?

The *death* threat is intense, Matt.

You really shouldn’t go there, no matter how well you think your IP address is hidden. It’s not like this is all in my hands. I hope you’re under 18.
/quote

good luck finding him.

HES UNDER SEVEN PROXIES