pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty Premium Member join:2002-05-02 Mount Airy, MD |
pnh102
Premium Member
2009-Jul-27 8:39 am
Hmmm...How much did 4chan.org pay AT&T for this publicity? |
|
ArrayListDevOps Premium Member join:2005-03-19 Mullica Hill, NJ |
probably not a cent. its too sweet of a deal for them. |
|
FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ 1 edit |
to pnh102
And it didn't stop DailyKos from jumping to the wrong conclusions and going off on a rant: » www.dailykos.com/storyon ··· -tonight |
|
|
your moderator at work
hidden : Trolling hidden : hidden : Off topic
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty Premium Member join:2002-05-02 Mount Airy, MD |
to ArrayList
Re: Hmmm...said by ArrayList:probably not a cent. its too sweet of a deal for them. I must be getting cynical. I must admit that prior to this story I'd never heard of this website. While I don't have any evidence to back up this assertion, I've come to believe that the saying "you can't buy this type of publicity" isn't really that true anymore. |
|
|
to pnh102
Well, AT&T blocked MySpace once blaming a "router issue." Even MySpace said it was an AT&T issue and they were working with AT&T. Funny, however, once Murdoch bought MySpace, no issues again.
It does raise the specter of AT&T blocking websites in the "public interest."
I don't know the truth so perhaps AT&T should publish it with facts to support it. |
|
your moderator at work
hidden : Off topic
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty Premium Member join:2002-05-02 Mount Airy, MD |
to cameronsfx
Re: Hmmm...said by cameronsfx:I don't know the truth so perhaps AT&T should publish it with facts to support it. There is legal precedent that would allow for AT&T to be punished for blocking any website. I would refer to the case of one DSL provider blocking access to VOIP providers a few years back (the details escape me). Furthermore, I would imagine that AT&T probably does not want to play the role of content police. Blocking access to certain parts of certain websites would most likely result in AT&T losing "common carrier" status with regard to its Internet network. |
|
your moderator at work
hidden : Off topic hidden : Off topic hidden : Off topic
|
|
to pnh102
Re: Hmmm...4chan did not buy publicity to reach the likes of you. |
|
your moderator at work
hidden : Off topic
|
|
to pnh102
Re: Hmmm...I had heard of it but figured it was on the same level of crap as Facebook, MySpace, and Twitter. |
|
CorydonCultivant son jardin Premium Member join:2008-02-18 Denver, CO |
to FFH5
I'd say that the underlying assumption, that we need some kind of net neutrality, is sound regardless of the reasons for the temporary "ban".
Last night, AT&T demonstrated that they can block access to a particular site and that, under certain circumstances (whatever those may be), they are willing to block access to certain sites.
In this case, apparently 4chan was blocked because it was the target of an ongoing DDOS attack. Well what kind of message does that send to attackers? That if they make life hard enough for a big enough ISP, they actually do have the power to shut down access to their targeted site?
That's a recipe to guarantee that these attacks continue and, if anything, get worse. Who do the script kiddies target next? The RNC? The White House? AT&T just set a bad precedent. |
|
FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ |
FFH5
Premium Member
2009-Jul-27 12:31 pm
said by Corydon:I'd say that the underlying assumption, that we need some kind of net neutrality, is sound regardless of the reasons for the temporary "ban". Last night, AT&T demonstrated that they can block access to a particular site and that, under certain circumstances (whatever those may be), they are willing to block access to certain sites. In this case, apparently 4chan was blocked because it was the target of an ongoing DDOS attack. Well what kind of message does that send to attackers? That if they make life hard enough for a big enough ISP, they actually do have the power to shut down access to their targeted site? That's a recipe to guarantee that these attacks continue and, if anything, get worse. Who do the script kiddies target next? The RNC? The White House? AT&T just set a bad precedent. I don't see it that way. The site is back up - probably after AT&T & the web site putting mitigation measures in place to blunt the effect of the DDOS attacks. A reasonable response to what occurred. |
|
NerdtalkerWorking Hard, Or Hardly Working? MVM join:2003-02-18 San Jose, CA |
to pnh102
Uh... They didn't pay anything. In fact, that'd be breaking the rules as a matter of fact.
I'm just glad AT&T went and fixed this before things got too out of hand. Backlash is probably still coming though.
I read that thread last night as this was taking off and agree with the one guy who asks if anybody's ever heard of spoofed headers. Why the hell would 4chan be DDoSing itself? This is a completely clueless statement made by AT&T to admit wrongdoing; it's their way of covering their a**es before the cogs of the internet hate machine got fully spinning. Perhaps wise, but unwise of them to not admit wrongdoing and instead mutter something about DDoS and ARP and reliability that doesn't make sense. |
|
ArrayListDevOps Premium Member join:2005-03-19 Mullica Hill, NJ |
to battleop
no. 4chan (especially /b/) is far below the likes of social networking sites. |
|
ArrayList |
to FFH5
it does not matter why they blocked it. the point is is that they proved they have the means to do it and are willing to do it. net neutrality takes that job away from them. |
|
|
Not if they claim the offender is attacking their network or their customers. |
|
your moderator at work
hidden :
|
Dennis Mod join:2001-01-26 Algonquin, IL
4 recommendations |
to ArrayList
Re: Hmmm...said by ArrayList:the point is is that they proved they have the means to do it and are willing to do it. net neutrality takes that job away from them. AT&T controls the routing within their network and peering routers via something you might have heard of called the IP protocol (TCP and UDP). They have always had the ability to control where traffic flows...everyone has, it's how the internet works. Net neutrality is a seperate issue and to be quite frank if you can't understand that you shouldn't really comment on it. The issues surrounding net neutrality don't have to do with blocking certain websites (although they can) but rather imparing or giving the ISP some type of unfair advantage that upsets the playing field. This whole situation is really just being overblown. |
|
SLD Premium Member join:2002-04-17 San Francisco, CA |
SLD
Premium Member
2009-Jul-27 2:58 pm
Whoh....nice bitch-slap, man! |
|
funchordsHello MVM join:2001-03-11 Yarmouth Port, MA |
to ArrayList
said by ArrayList:it does not matter why they blocked it. the point is is that they proved they have the means to do it and are willing to do it. net neutrality takes that job away from them. I think that 4chan was the focus of a DDOS attack and the node was, innocently, sending back ACKs to the forged SYNs it received. If true, that's a good enough reason for AT&T to null route that IP and it's not a Network Neutrality issue at all. |
|
dynodb Premium Member join:2004-04-21 Minneapolis, MN
1 recommendation |
dynodb
Premium Member
2009-Jul-27 3:10 pm
Right, because the kiddies at 4chan would never, ever be involved in perpetrating a DoS attack |
|
|
to pnh102
said by pnh102:said by cameronsfx:I don't know the truth so perhaps AT&T should publish it with facts to support it. There is legal precedent that would allow for AT&T to be punished for blocking any website. I would refer to the case of one DSL provider blocking access to VOIP providers a few years back (the details escape me). Furthermore, I would imagine that AT&T probably does not want to play the role of content police. Blocking access to certain parts of certain websites would most likely result in AT&T losing "common carrier" status with regard to its Internet network. Hmm....I care if AT&T loses common carrier status? NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
cameronsfx |
to pnh102
said by pnh102:How much did 4chan.org pay AT&T for this publicity? As some people say, "Who cares?" Never been there, never will. 4Chan.org sounds like some group to promote Jackie Chan movies! |
|
1 recommendation |
to ArrayList
said by ArrayList:no. 4chan (especially /b/) is far below the likes of social networking sites. I saw what you did thar! |
|