Wrong, but thanks for playing.
And I don't think debating morality with the founder of 4chan is productive; if you have a moral sense it must be almost entirely libertarian.
Many of the 4chan communities are totally moral, from any standards: the cooking board (http://boards.4chan.org/ck) is my favourite board on 4chan, and it's just discussion of tasty eats.
As to copyrighted content, 4chan is the same as any other online message board that allows the embedding of images. 4chan has a staff of volunteer janitors to remove copyrighted content, and a smaller team of moderators to deal with repeat offenders.
Moot talks:
http://www.ted.com/talks/christopher_m00t_poole_the_case_for...
Most people who speak of 4chan in this way, are really just talking about /b/.
Now, if you want to call it "the last bastion of freedom [to spread hate ideologies, post loli hentai, etc]", go ahead. However, be clear that you are defending the freedom to commit immoral acts.
4chan is the Mal Reynolds of the internet, not Luke Skywalker.
I see no problem with defending freedom of horrible people. Both from an ethical standpoint, and from a pragmatic standpoint (I would rather those people communicate in a way that has some visibility/oversight. You are not going to stop them, only push them underground; I think most would agree that would be a bad thing.)
Yes, and? If you actually believe in free speech, calling someone a Horrible Person is not a disguised argument for shutting them down.
4chan is full of really horrible people. Sometimes I am one of them. This doesn't mean they should be shut down by the government or something. However, it also doesn't mean they're Glorious Heroes Fighting For Righteousness.
Who is arguing that?
Now surely everyone is going to yell that they're just protecting their beloved web from censorship. However, since I never proposed censorship, that means most of them are arguing against the evil, censorious Congressman in their own heads, rather than against anything I actually said.
> oldfriend
Hey wait a minute ...
CENSORSHIP
Most, if not all, of your so called "illegal", "immoral or malicious" behavior comes from a certain handful of boards, of which there are over fifty. For most, the only illegal/immoral stuff they engage in is piracy and just generally being assholes, both of which can be found on almost any online congregation.
In short, lel.
Likewise, many people have no actual problem with smoking crack. That doesn't mean it's not illegal, and it doesn't mean there's no good reason people don't want to live next to a crack house. Or even a dive bar, for that matter.
Consistent cross-site raids conducted by sites like 4chan and SomethingAwful (and worse: hate groups are some of Reddit's most regular raiders) definitely do create the effect of having a virtual "bad neighbor".
I enjoy 4chan too, after having finally getting over being a newfriend (printing the polite version of that term) since half my IRL friends are anons. This doesn't mean I don't know damn well the site is a guilty pleasure and I shouldn't actually let myself get sucked into the Internet Hate Machine.
Ehm. Yes, piracy, as in armed robbery on the high seas, is indeed "very illegal" [sic]. Copy-pasta culture with images is arguably very close to fair use, so close that various aspects (sampling for music, being the most prolific) have been deemed legal.
Are you saying that you know of 4chan boards dedicated to (actual) piracy?
I would think hate speech is generally held to be "more" illegal than digital piracy in most countries. Copyright infringement is largely a civil matter, not a criminal matter.
By the way, I still want that word: "piracy" back. I do not, will not, accept that the copyright lobby has gotten away with stealing it.
You're so out of touch it's ridiculous
Why should this make people concerned about admitting to going to 4chan anymore than piracy would make people concerned about using IRC, usenet, torrents, or even thepiratebay in particular?