• Welcome to the PopMalt Forums! Whether you're new to forums or a veteran, welcome to our humble home on the web! We're a 20-year old forum community with thousands of discussions on entertainment, lifestyle, leisure, and more.

    Our rules are simple. Be nice and don't spam. Registration is free, so what are you waiting for? Join today!.

ATT Blocks 4chan /b/ Image Boards


Secret Agent
Staff member
You've got it wrong, Brix.
I'll explain. :)

4chan is not a "service".
I never said it was. Internet access is a service. Partial internet access is also a service. Restricted/censored/watered down internet access is also a service.

It would be like buying a magazine with certain words blacked out. You're buying a magazine and then the magazine editor is removing stuff from it.
So buy your magazine elsewhere? Show them that unless they don't black out words they won't be getting any of your business? Unless the magazine itself has a contract with the reseller that states that it must be sold WITHOUT words blacked out, the reseller can do whatever they want. It's not a legal issue. It's a private issue between said magazine and said magazine reseller.

If 4chan has a problem with AT&T blocking access to their site, then perhaps 4chan should ask AT&T nicely to stop blocking them. That's literally all they can do. No laws have been broken by AT&T here.

That's not right, especially in the quote that Storm brought up.
4chan is not a service. It might be able to be considered an IP but honestly the FCC would be way overstepping its boundaries if it ruled against this. A private company should be able to offer whatever version of a service that they want.

That's not right, especially in the quote that Storm brought up. It's not AT&T's job to censor or remove anything, their job is to provide a connection to the net end of story.
Technically, their job is to provide whatever service they decide they want to provide. In this case they've chosen to provide access to a filtered internet. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Simple as that.

Would a tour guide who refused to include a particular building on the route in his/her tour be acting illegally?

Are radio stations that censor music acting illegally?

If one particular McDonald's restaurant decided to no longer sell burgers, would it be a legal issue? (Granted, they might have some trouble from McDonald's corporate, but U.S. law doesn't have anything in it requiring McDonald's to carry everything customers expect them to carry).


Problematic Shitlord
Well, this thread is moot now because AT&T lifted the ban. They did it to protect one of their customers who was being DDoS'd by people from 4chan.

But for sake of discussion, let's say it's still banned!

@Brix: Let's say you're driving and you want to go from Boston to New York. You're driving down the highway when all of a sudden, the road just ends. You get out of your car to ask the cop why the road is gone and he says, "We dislike New York, so you can't go there."

Can't you see a problem with certain freedoms there? Like I already said, it's not their responsibility to choose what I can and can't see. It's their job to give me a vehicle to access a service. I don't need a tour guide. Nobody does. I know you're big on private business rights and trust me I understand and I am too. I agree with you often on issues of business. However, this is overstepping boundaries. It's one thing if AT&T chose to block something logical like howtomakeabomb.com or something else illegal.

Here's the issue:

If AT&T is allowed to pick and choose what I see, it makes them responsible for content. That means, that through loopholes, people would most likely be able to blame their internet providers for making these things accessible. Soon, pedophiles will just sue their ISP's for allowing them to access illegal content. Does that sound fair to you? Don't say it wouldn't happen either. You know how ridiculous the judicial system in this country is and you know the lengths of which people will go to avoid personal responsibility. AT&T is effectively saying, "We're responsible" when it comes to content by policing it. It's a far better idea for AT&T to worry about other things rather than censoring.