[rosmax_1337]

I find it very disturbing that the Wikipedia thread posted in the post above discusses the topic like it's about CP. It's clearly not. It's completely about the political implications of 8ch, especially in the aftermath of the connection between the Christchurch shooting by Brenton Tarrant.

I have browsed 8ch extensively in the past, and continue to browse 4chan. You'll be exposed to disgusting imagery from time to time, no doubt, but the idea that 8ch is censored because of illegal and disgusting imagery is so incredibly disingenuous, this is clearly about political censorship of right wing extremism.

If I had a bit less faith in humanity I would even go as far as to suggest that the Wikipedia thread is crafted to be about CP and not politics for the sake of justifying censorship and rewriting history. 8ch was not controversial because of CP, it was controversial because of extremist politics, and attempting to rewrite history like this is just so typical of Wikipedians these days.

[magnoliakobus]

CSAM is literally what got it delisted from Google search results in summer 2015

[rosmax_1337]

And this is why the website even has a Wikipedia article? No, ofcourse not. The site is known because of it's political board: /pol/.

[magnoliakobus]

Its Wikipedia article actually exists due to to both gamergate and CSAM as evidenced by the first actual commits. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=8chan&diff=634741...

[ziddoap]

>8ch was not controversial because of CP

Huh?

>Google appears to have taken an unprecedented step in filtering its search results by banning an entire domain—and adding a warning about __"suspected child abuse content"__ to a search for the domain itself.

Emphasis mine.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/08/8chan-hosted-con...

It is controversial because of the history of CSAM and the history of extremism.

[HeatrayEnjoyer]

This is an extremely dishonest and factually untrue comment.

[rosmax_1337]

No, it is not.

[r3d0c]

the guy who made it said that he found it reprehensible but wouldn't remove it, so yes promoted pedohilia by turning a blind eye in the name of "free speech"

[rosmax_1337]

And the reason why they're even having the discussion is not because the site might contain CP. The reason they're having the discussion is because the board was host to a political discussion board which hosted right wing extremists, and various kind of censors in the west don't think these people should be able to act freely on the internet.