Using CP to Shut Down Altchans (from 4chan.org/g)A thread about hosting image boards. Relevant to anyone who is - concerned about censorship of small web communities
- interested in censorship techniques used by authorities and activists to get small web communities censored
- curious about methods to protect small web communities
- thinking about adding media to their text-only forum.
Take-aways:- There is a war on free speech being waged by the government against independent services and websites.
- CP isn't just something that some jerk might upload to your service. It's a weapon that your enemies will use against you, including the government.
- Nobody has completely solved the problem of weaponized CP; the solutions are not ready-to-hand.
- Unless you have a solid human moderating team, all posting needs to be processed by AI to scan for CP; this is not yet available to independent operators.
- The era of "unfettered posting" is over.
In the following thread, anons discuss the use of CP to shut down altchans.
Why are altchans so shit in 2020's?
I miss /tech/ how can we bring it back?
https://boards.4chan.org/g/thread/99440467
Definitions:- Altchan is an image board similar to 4chan but independent from it.
- An image board is a forum with a mix of text, images, and videos.
Anonymous 03/11/24(Mon)22:46:19 No.99441600
Everything gets raided and/or spammed with CP. I've seen this firsthand, even when captchas are on.
You are going to call me retarded or leddit, but we need new moderation technology and strategies, ML or purely heuristic, whatever runs okay. Because the burden of maintaining an imageboard even the slightest bit worth fucking with becomes great. This is why the good altchans are no longer around (jannies quit, admins get tired) and why a lot of the existing ones are even worse than 4chan (unmaintained to the point where insects make it their hive)
Alternatively, micropayment/crypto refundable stamps with sliding prices according to some "pressure" value, but obviously it's a bit much. Anonymous 03/12/24(Tue)02:01:55 No.99444463
Never seen gore threads, but I've seen an imageboard that had been online for 13 years die to CP spam. The problem isn't that users leave because of it, the problem is that your host will pull the plug, as it did in this case with zero warning beforehand and without even providing the admin access to the site data anymore. Most hosts are more reasonable and give you a week or so to GTFO, but you'll get fucked either way. The alternative is of course hosting it at home, in which case you'll get a nice party van at your home because all of society agrees that possessing something unwillingly should get you 20 years in prison.
Of course, that's if you even manage to get your imageboard off the ground. Someone made an attempt to revive the site I mentioned, but it couldn't even get its old userbase back. Getting a userbase for a new site is almost impossible nowadays. A while back, /g/ was tinkering with Tor site hosting, and we got anonymous chatboxes. But nobody used them. Either your site dies to inactivity, or it dies to CP spam. The web is specifically set up to prevent people from forming communities outside of the centralized services nowadays. Anonymous 03/12/24(Tue)03:22:16 No.99445410
If you think that you really live in a bubble, check ban logs or deleted posts on an archive and you'll see it isn't the case, and that's stuff the various filters didn't automatically detect. Sharty around a year ago was absolutely flooded until they finally made massive changes and imagedna, but the most common ban is still posting and advocating for posting cp. 4chan still has to manually delete that and cartel, animal or ukraine gore dozens of times a day. Anonymous 03/12/24(Tue)04:43:05 No.99446229
>Spammed with CP
I have thought that maybe you could create an AI that could determine the probability of an image containing a minor and create another one that detects if an image is sexual content and then use both of them on incoming images. If both were detected then the image wouldn't be saved to the site. In the cases that something was missing you could take the image and get a hash of it that you could check when getting new images. You could also use the image in a third AI as training material to better detect holes. The spammers would then eventually train the AI to be good enough to prevent then from spamming.
>spammers
I would force users to create a token using proof of work. Then they would be allowed to use that token to post as much as they liked. If they got reported a bunch or had spam like material the token would get banned and they would be forced to generate another one. I would then use the work they were putting in to mine crypto currency defeating the point of spamming as each time they did it they would be helping fund the site. I would also include a small proof of work function on post this would put a higher load on mass posters vs most poster who would only be posting a few times. I think I would also have a list of popular copypastas and assign post a likeness score compared to the copy pasta. If this score exceeded a threshold it would be marked as an offense and enough of those could warrant a ban. The challenge of moving onto the darknet:Anonymous 03/12/24(Tue)05:49:33 No.99446772
>I2P
The problem with this is it is a meme. People don't want to use tor because of all the horror stories, now you want people to setup I2P just to access your chan. You multiply the visibility issue by two by choosing to go that route. You will only have people that know about I2P also know about your specific chan, and are willing to go through the work to get to it. That is basically nobody or a really small group making that chan dead on arrival. Any chan has to be on the public internet for it to actually not just be a very small niche group of friends using a weird messaging format. Anon asks:Anonymous 03/12/24(Tue)06:42:35 No.99447211
>The web is specifically set up to prevent people from forming communities outside of the centralized services nowadays.
What changed? Centralized services always existed. AOL, Myspace, Reddit, etc. But even with those, and way less people online overall, there was enough to go around for tons of forums to sprout up. What happened? Was it search engines hiding things? Anon answers:Anonymous 03/12/24(Tue)06:49:26 No.99447253
That, plus various forms of discouraging self-hosting (there were tons of Neocities-like sites allowing you to host your own stuff, CGNAT prevents people from hosting from home, laws regarding what stuff is hosted on your servers got stricter and more commonly enforced, etc etc), as well as an increase in malicious (totally not state-funded) actors (performing CP spam, DDoS attacks, etc). The general atmosphere on the internet also changed completely, making it harder to form communities. The traditional forums that still exist are now far more hostile than they used to be in the past. Anonymous 03/12/24(Tue)07:07:48 No.99447410
one of the problems I've noticed over the years for niche forums is after 2016 they got stuck into political purity spirals where whatever the main topic was got totally forgotten for more and more political infighting (usually among different sects of leftists). rpg/game/tech. I think trump is a zog puppet but TDS is very real and destroyed countless communities. and somehow BDS (B for Biden!) also seemed to have been a factor in 2020 as the more extreme leftists truly hated anyone supporting him.
for DDoS I think kiwifarm's solution is pretty neat and at this point incredibly battle tested. only problem is the state funded CP spam that is a constant problem and requires very active moderation staff. Sadly the only agency that could train a CP image recognition model is the FBI and they're uh the ones spamming CP everywhere lmfao Anonymous 03/12/24(Tue)07:08:37 No.99447419
The social internet is self destructing at maximum velocity, and you can see this with zoomers being tech illiterate/adding reddit to google searches/wikipedia becoming more irrelevant/mismanaged and discords replacing wikis and this obsession over mindless slop content.
The next step isnt to create another shitty dimeless imageboard on the regular web, it is to evolve into the decentralized age. You don't want to stay here at this point.
You want to create the next platform where we all go to following the ideals we've been after. That's what you do when everything is self destructing all at once and that's what you NEED to do. Everyone who could care about this shit is being a fat fucking lazy bum.
Here is something I pulled from an image, posted by someone who gave up hosting an altchan after facing the CP problem.
Definitions:- The offensive term "glow nxxxxr" refers to agents of the Secret Police. It was coined by autistic schizo Terry Davis, author of TempleOS, who once said: "The CIA nxxxxrs glow in the dark; you can see them if you're driving. You just run them over."
- Jannies are moderators (janitors).
Anonymous Sat 29 Jan 2022
Let me give you a good example of what I'm talking about. I allowed a loli board because at the time it was a hot button issue. It was a canary in the goal mine type of thing. I didn't really give a fuck if they hosted on my server because it was just drawing of naked anime girls. The regulars on the board mainly posted naked pictures of Disney characters and anime girls.
A small group decided they didn't like this. That group started to dump CP and more hardcore loli everywhere. They would go to other boards like /pol/ where they knew they'd get a reaction and start dumping the shit there too. Then they'd hop to a new IP and start concern trolling the jannys about the loli spammers. They claimed it was the loli board doing it.
Why would the regulars on the loli board do this? They were happy just to hvae a place to talk about the shit they liked. They knew they were on thin ice and didn't want to risk getting booted off.
When this failed because it was so obvious this group started to dump real CP everywhere. Then they started spamming every anon that posted an anime girl claiming they were pedos in an attempt to derail every discussion.
Do you expect me to believe these dedicated spammers and CP uploaders are just trying to lure 20-50 anons to a board they host? All for jealousy? Do you really think people are that stupid? Who would risk getting v& (vanned=arrested) for CP over some stupid board drama? Maybe 1 or 2 retards but not 30+ dedicated people that never get caught. The same ones that were doing it to me 10 years ago [are] the same people doing it today. They don't even bother to change their names where they namefag.
The only logical answer is that it's glow nxxxxrs or a state level actor. This includes FAGMAN companies. They want to retain their monopoly on the web and social networking. Indepdendent websites are too much of a threat to the state. The state wants direct control over what you can post/read.
https://i.4cdn.org/g/1710208915441410.png
| High Stakes Word GamesOne of the biggest problems we face is categorizing people we are attracted to. Many of the words we use are appropriate in one context, and inappropriate in another. Some may pull in meanings which emphasize the wrong things, leading to confusion and ambiguity. And, of course, "childhood", as the storehouse of infants and teenagers indistinguishable from adults, is itself is full of contradictions that need to be picked apart. The generic terminology often doesn't help, but holds us back from such analysis.Some Not So Great WordsAre they boys? Sure. This is my favorite word, perhaps in the whole world. But boy can mean anything, including infants and even adults. Gay men call themselves "boys", though I'm sure much less than they used to owing to the social approbation around age gap relationships. The problem I am trying to tackle is the problem with the term "boy"--it says too much and nothing at all. It lumps everything together. We want to be able to make distinctions.
Are they minors? It's a very dry and legalistic term, and includes babies and 17.999 year olds. Minor Attracted Person (MAP) is a very popular term, but it is also a very dry term, kind of like "featherless biped" but without the fascinating picture that the phrase brings to mind. It is a term that nobody uses in their day-to-day life. Nobody says, "The minors are at home," or "I'm going to pick up my minors." As a political term, it is useful, as "minor" implies nothing except legal status.
Are they children? Like minor, it includes everyone between 0 and 18, with the added problem that the 17.999 year olds are infantalized. "Child" is the antonym of "adult", and carries with it the implication that the "child" is the subject of parenting by an adult, who has authority over them. But this subjectivity is precisely what is put into question as the "child" becomes a "teenager". It is very common, in real life, and in media, to see teenagers taking the reins of their own lives, with limited input from their parents and the adults around them. And so, "children" is not a good catch-all term for the people we are attracted to. This is the reason why "childlove" is not an appropriate generalization of "boylove" and "girl love". MAP is much better by comparison.
Are they people? This is perhaps politically useful, and can be deployed here and there, but doesn't address the unique characteristics of the people we are attracted to. We are not peoplelovers. Although we may say "I've got some people over" it is said in a way to obscure rather than inform who those people are. And "people" does not immediately suggest our demographic of interest, as illustrated by the phrase "young people".
We hear the phrase "children and adolescents" to distinguish between younger and slightly older people. But adolescents is a scientific term indicating a period of development. It carries with it that baggage, which may not be relevant to our desire. After all, being a boylover means being attracted to what has not officially developed yet, or what is in the process of developing. As a term, "adolescence" doesn't even signify anything of interest. "Pubertal" would be better, and Tanner stages would provide a better practical guide to what we want to talk about. "Adolescence" promises a lot, and delivers very little, and carries scientistic baggage that falsely inflates its value. Better ChoicesKids: The term comes from the word for a baby animal--but baby animals of this type are more developed than human babies. It has a similar meaning to colt or fawn. Although any minor can be a kid, the images of animals at this stage of develpment suggest a connection with developed children that are not yet adults, just as the limbs are getting longer, before the body is filled out. I would say it's the perfect term for a boy between 10-14. But it is a term that can be used for a child of any age, without the legalistic and authoritarian language of either "minor" or "child". It also has a hint of fun to it, is more slangy. No legal document would include the term "kid" in it.
Animal kids are more independent than human babies, but they are not so independent that they don't need their parents. After all, they still suckle for milk. But they are also ready to run. The word "kid" carries this implication forward: it does not mean tiny human children, but children who are capable of acting independently even as they require guidance and protection of the adults around them. Mothers report that children reach a special stage of development around 7 or 8 when "they become themselves".
We also hear the phrase "the kids are alright" referring to teenagers, and the title of the film "Kids" (1995) which featured teenagers. But when used to identify a teenager, the term "kid" carries with it a diminutive connotation. It is meant to remind adults that, although adolescents can be prickly, they are still kids, still somehow soft and cuddly and worthy of our care--even if they aren't.
"Kids" is a great catch-all term that emphasizes the independence of children within the context of care and protection adults can provide.
Youth: The same, but with a bump up in age. When I think of a youth, I think of a teenager. Youth is perfect for TBL. But it can also apply to any child. It is a term for a child that emphasizes independence rather than subjection to authority. Owing to their independence, youth are subject to their own responsibility. If you commit the crime, you will do the time--under youth sentencing guidelines of course. Youth provides a conceptual transition between minor and adult in a way that emphasizes the continued possibility of forgiving "youthful transgressions"--wrongs that can be overlooked because they were committed by a youth. "Young people" has a similar ring to it.
Little Ones: We need a term for children who are not independent, who have not "become themselves". These are kids 0-6. We have a phrase "milk and cookies", but it is inside-baseball. Nobody knows or understands what that means. "Little ones" is a better term. It emphasizes their diminutive size, which brings along with it the assumption that these beings will be the subject of a great deal of necessary care and guidance. But children of this age are also independent in the sense they can move about. Every parent knows how dangerous kids are to themselves, how often they have to be restrained from running thoughtlessly into the road, or playing with knives or sticking their fingers into light sockets. Children of this age can also speak and understand. So, while infants are "little ones", we should probably have a separate category for them, and consider toddling as the beginning of "little ones".
Infants: These are children who cannot move independently with competence and cannot speak. These children require the completest attention of their caregivers and cannot for long be left alone. They can't really get themselves into trouble because they are the trouble.
I think the solution to our interminable terminological problem is to speak of "infants, little ones, kids, and youth".ConclusionWe need to decide: Are these categories important, or just conveniences? Do these distinctions carry political significance?
It is my contention that each of these categories requires their own framework within a coherent system of pedophile desire and practice. Today there is no such thing as "boylove" as a theory or practice because boylove theory and practice has always been a grab bag of impressions based on available witnesses--an anecdote here, a statistic there, something somebody heard one time, or a quote dug up from a dusty book. When an ephebophile is typing, boylove is about teenagers and twinks. When a ganyphile[^1] is typing, boylove is about 12 year olds. Throw in a few "facts" about babylove, and you've got a "boylover" book, or a website, or a blogpost.
---
[1]: How I hate the gendered term "hebephile"!
The result is that boylove is a hotchpotch of theories and practices, none of which necessarily conform to one another. If we say, in our defense, as we sometimes do, that "5 year olds are different than 15 year olds", where is this distinction held within boylove itself? How are boylovers to relate to 5 year olds and 15 year old differently? It may be part of our political rhetoric, but I do not see it adequately upon the page, or imbibed by up and coming boylovers to be strictly applied in their practice. When it comes to boylove practice, it seems to me that there is no difference between 5 year olds and 15 year olds. Isn't that a problem?
If the idea is--as Dylan Thomas seems to have believed--that pedophile geographers discovered there is no meaningful difference between 5 year olds and 15 year olds, then (a) we should stop saying there is a difference between them, and (b) we should have the courage will to explain in great detail why it is there is no difference, and to argue for boylove upon the essential sameness of 5 year olds and 15 year olds.
But if there is a difference, it follows logically that this difference should be respected, and that there will be a different theory and practice pertaining to them. Since this post depends upon the idea that we can distinguish between these groups, if you've followed me this far, you're somewhat committed to the idea of these distinctions. I contend that boylove theory and practice should evolve out of these perceived differences, so that we can emphasize what works and leave aside what does not work.
What works in one context doesn't necessarily work in another. When we consider boylove as an abstraction, we lose the ability to distinguish between contexts and apply our reasoning to them. Instead of digging a big hole--the "big tent of boylove"--we can all fall into, why not dig a series of defensive trenches that respect the terrain?
When boylove is a grab bag of ideas derived from many different contexts it becomes confused. When boylove is confused, it does not magicaly "liberate" innocent desires that were wrongfully repressed; rather it serves as a cipher that anyone can use to justify any idea and any behavior, good or bad.
And that is why boylove has failed. It has not failed because sex with boys is inherently problematic. No, boylove has failed because boylove as a concept has failed to provide sufficient guidance to men, especially with respect to the boys in their lives. It has failed to be a flag that strong hands can continue to uphold against powerful winds.
Of course, we all know about the prohibitions and the corrosive effects of living in a totalitarian society full of informers. And we all know that walking life's path isn't easy. This isn't a condemnation of boylovers who made mistakes or got caught up in events bigger than themselves. Neither is it a daydream about the power of ideas, that a book written by yours truly would somehow have solved all the problems we face.
Rather, it is just to say that we can solve this one problem by establishing, once and for all, that if you believe there are meaningful distinctions between infants, little ones, kids, and youth, then boylove as a theory and practice has to reflect those differences. And it must do so against all the protests of those who seek an artificial, and ultimately meaningless unity by making boylove about nothing at all. The "unity" of boylove is like the unity of LGBTQ: a patchwork quilt of very different experiences, which nevertheless contain sufficient similarities and overlaps to justify a single term. And just as LGBTQ fights for its unity, boylove should fight for its unity. One part of it should not seek legitimization by erasing another part. For the picture is crystal clear: until and unless pedophilia is fully and completely addressed, its social implications will continue to erode civil society until we reach a genocidal conclusion. And so we cannot rest until the whole work is complete.
One could draw upon this observation to justify an alliance with girl love. But one can do so only with a hard emphasis on the importance of distinctions between categories--here boys and girls--which necessarily implies distinctions in theory, practice, and likely political consequences. MAP politics which sweeps differences under the rug to seek artificial unity is hardly better than the confused "Big Tent" boylove of old, and is headed in the same direction: irrelevance.
Boylove will stop being a mistake when the categories belonging to it are properly theorized so that sensible, appropriate, reliable, and acceptable practices can be instituted. This work can be done independently of any existing institution--such as the university--and irrespective of any existing legal framework--we are interested after all in what laws should be not what they are. I would say this work is the condition upon which institutionalization and legalization (or at least decriminalization) becomes possible.
No doubt, some of this work has already been completed, in bits and pieces. But it lies buried along with BC's own posting archive, the NAMBLA Bulletin, and mostly unread and un-referenced books, including Englinton's Greek Love and Brongersma's Loving Boys. Much digging is required for this work to be completed. |
