No.5465018
>>5465011
Is he being paid in hotpockets?
No.5465025
>>5465018
He's going to revitalize Google+ with cp, traps and gore.
No.5465029
>>5465011
who would ever trust that face?
No.5465032
>"I can't wait to contribute my own experience from a dozen years of building online communities, and to begin the next chapter of my career at such an incredible company."
Spoken like a true kike/cuck.
You know he knows about google's corruption yet he still says something like this.
Goddamn, I hate this guy.
No.5465040
>>5465029
That is a particularly evil looking pic of him.
No.5465045
>>5465032
Meh, he wants a cushy job with a fat paycheck.
No.5465046
>>5465045
>it's okay if he sells out
>if he wants money, it's okay
Man, I miss the days growing up in the 90's when it was bad to be a sellout.
No.5465049
>>5465045
>principles don't matter
>as long as he gets his paycheck
No.5465055
>>5465046
I thought 4chan never ever turned out a profit in all his years there. At this point in his life, why not think about a serious career and finally making some decent money? There's a lot of more shitty companies than Google, and almost all are corrupt in some way.
Maybe he could make Google Great Again!
No.5465064
>>5465055
>There's a lot of more shitty companies than Google
There is also a lot of more greater than google™.
>and almost all are corrupt in some way.
Not exactly.
>Maybe he could make Google Great Again!
No one could do this. They are so far gone, the only option for them at this point is to make more money or die. When a gigantic corporation plateaus or hits a minimal area, it dies. If you look in the past, this always happens. It needs to grow exponentially in order to prosper.
No.5465065
>>5465049
What "principles" did 4chan have other than being a den of disgusting and fun debauchery? "Anything goes"?
It's admirable in it's way and I do like it, but it doesn't pay shit. And it's damn close to running an asylum for screaming, shit flinging retards, puking junkies and greasy teenagers leaving cumstains on the furniture and carpet.
Get place to party. Horrible place to run and maintain. Especially for free.
No.5465070
>>5465064
Ok, where would you suggest he work with similar prestige and salary, keeping in mind his semi-notorious reputation to more traditional tech companies?
No.5465071
Looks like I'm not the biggest turncoat on the chans any more :'(((
No.5465076
>>5465065
the original principles were freedom of speech. Whether you think some of those are "disgusting" or "debauchery" are subjective.
4chan started out as being about expressing anything you wanted, which is free speech in its truest form.
There is no alternative form of free speech, you cant say "well this is radical free speech" or this is "free speech that most wouldn't consider". Free speech is free speech.
No.5465082
>>5465076
In other words utter rubbish and a waste of time
No.5465086
>>5465082
in other words, free speech. Which is anything that you care to say.
No.5465095
>>5465011
>When will Hotwheels get a real job?
but he's writing an emoji langauge!
No.5465097
>>5465076
It was not. It was just a place of scum and villains and never did it hold any free speech in high regard. It just kind of was there. Like coworkers going out to a bar in the evening and talking all kinds of shit. They use free speech, but it is not like it is the whole reason for it and they were "The Protectors of Banter!"
The only reason there was free speech was not because of moot's great policies. Instead because of his inactivity and not giving a fuck.
moot has never really given a fuck about free speech. Saying chans were made about it is just a speculation while looking back.
No.5465099
>>5465082
>I only car about popular narratives and pushing them through corporate means
>your "free speech" concept is stupid
No.5465100
>>5465076
I know, and I admire it and do think it's important. But 1.) free speech doesn't pay the bills, and 2.) it does result in a lot of nonsense.
If someone with the reach and userbase size of Google fully embraced it, most people would turn away. Can you imagine if Travisfag of BumbleBee guy went worldwide and spammed all of Google's accounts?
Don't get me wrong, it would be damn funny but it would shed normalfag users like mad. Our relatively tiny /b/ board can barely withstand it.
No.5465115
>>5465097
> Like coworkers going out to a bar in the evening and talking all kinds of shit.
Exactly, it was a place to express the opinions you had against people behind their backs and anonymously on the internet. That is the definition of free speech.
I browsed 4chan back in '05 and experienced this. I am not saying moot is some hero for creating this, but at least he didn't depend on the moderation to enforce his rules.
The concept he created was good though, he created a platform for anons to communicate with themselves to say things they wouldn't normally say IRL.
No.5465132
>>5465115
freedom of speech
noun
1.
the right of people to express their opinions publicly without governmental interference, subject to the laws against libel, incitement to violence or rebellion, etc.
Not "talk about people behind their backs anonymously." That is some sort of gossip m8.
That is completely not "Freedom of speech means."
> "Yes, Russia has freedom of speech. Whenever we hide in a pub somewhere, we can say what we want. Glorious rus!"
And, again, this is not what it was made for. Think about it like this: scientist creates a chemical. Wants it to cure cancer or whatever. Some people realize you can get real high from that chemical. Create a culture of it, praises the scientist as the God of said Chemical.
Scientist has never really thought about getting high from it, it wasn't his goal to make such a culture and he doesn't really care if people do get high. Then gets job at a huge pharmaceutic corporation and everyone from the high-culture is shocked that he is not defending the "values of Chemical".
Don't get me wrong, moot is a twat, but he was just a normie with an anime board that spiraled way out of his control.
No.5465138
>>5465132
>Not "talk about people behind their backs anonymously." That is some sort of gossip m8.
Yes it is. It's about expressing any opinion you have publicly or anonymously. It doesn't matter if you even think of it and then shout it out to yourself in an isolated area, it's still freedom of speech. There are no barriers.
>And, again, this is not what it was made for.
It was originally. It isn't now though.
No.5465141
>>5465138
So we've gotten here to "well it is not the definition but some sort of free speech" and "yeah, nah mate, it was totally about free speech, like 4real"
Alright.
No.5465142
>>5465132
so you are saying gossip should be banned?
No.5465148
>>5465142
Are you actually this retarded?
No.5465152
>>5465141
No. you have just given some example of a dictionary definition that you chose and then decided to run with it.
I am sure that same dictionary has other definitions as well, like most dictionaries have, but you will not mention them.
Have you ever heard of context?
No.5465154
>>5465148
so gossip should be banned?
No.5465157
>>5465138
It goes beyond bitching about people and venting, though, which I agree has some value. Somebody puts up dox of someone they don't like. Then it's korans and pizzas, then "let's egg their house," "let's cut the breaks on their car," "let's send their nudes to their job," let's call the SWAT team in the hopes they get shot," "let's trade some cp, here's this girl's Kennedi's dox, who wants to find her?" "Let's goad this guy into suicide."
WTF why am I being censored?
The beta uprising guy on >>>/r9k/, the other guy last year who put pics up of that girl he just strangled to death. Can you really blame him for wanting to just have a normal job not dealing with child rapists and murderers, even if the majority was just stupid fun?
No.5465158
>>5465076
>>5465086
>>5465115
They used to ban people for any fucking thing or just for fun, you tard.
The whole "bring back Snacks" thing was because Snacks b& "retards", in other words actual retards but also anyone who wasn't an enthusiastic pedophile, weeb, and edgelord.
No.5465161
>>5465157
No, we blame him for handing 4chan over to Tumblrettes and then that Hiro scammer, and working at fucking Google.
"Don't be evil."
No.5465169
>>5465156
>i'm 14 and hate when people make me look like a reatard
>He was just preaching to the choir because I don't understand how the corporate media is trying to sell me out
No.5465173
>>5465152
Sure, disregard everything I've said and ignore the context. The crazy cat lady never was about "giving home to stray cats", she got one and it spiraled out of control. The fact that you want to think that it was about free speech kind of makes me think you know about chans only from KnowYourMeme.
>>5465154
And you've gotten that from what of all that I said?
No.5465179
>>5465161
So he gets janitors, and then has to manage them and make sure they remove the "right" material and doesn't go too far, but also doesn't get too lax and leave stuff up that gets the Feds to come by, who he is at this point getting to know on a first name basis.
Not for unpopular opinions or politics getting trampled on, or even most gore or porn of an extreme nature. It's the actual murders, rapes, bullying into suicide and mass shooters that are coming both in and out of 4chan in increasing numbers and frequency. That is what gets him on the radar. Nothing to do with freedom of speech or expression, unless rape and murder are included.
Why in the fuck should he still want this "business," which was just for fun and never made him any money? Why not call it a day and get a corporate job, when all your image board ever got you was dealing with that shit?
No.5465183
>>5465169
Even when it really is the evil corporations, you still sound 14 when you spew that schizo shit.
>>5465179
It's like instead of reading my post you just repeated your pre-chewed depiction of things that has actually nothing to do with what I said which had nothing to do with free speech which 4chan was never about to begin with.
If you want to write to yourself, just open fucking Notepad.
Why are you not on 4chan, again?
No.5465190
>>5465173
>And you've gotten that from what of all that I said?
Yes, that's pretty much all that I have gotten so far. Can you explain further? It seems like you are saying that freedom of speech is limited in some way, when it is not.
There are no rules for freedom of speech. Here is freedom of speech in a nutshell: "Say anything you want"
No.5465196
>>5465190
I'm not sure if it is possible to explain anything to a man who got "ban gossip" from all that I've said. What I am sure is that I do not intend to try.
"Say anything you want" is one characteristic of free speech, not definition. It is also a characteristic of insanity and mild cases of Turrets.
No.5465199
>>5465183
No U!
I thought you were talking about the tumblrite mods and overmoderation. My bad.
No.5465202
>>5465196
>"Say anything you want" is one characteristic of free speech
No, it's not. It is the entirety of the concept. It means "saying anything at any time".
Here, let me break it down for you:
You can say anything whenever you want, in public, to a friend in private, to yourself in private, in your head to yourself, it doesn't matter.
Do you get the concept yet? You were born with this right, it wasn't given to you. Allowing it is simply natural.
No.5465203
>>5465202
> Lets ignore all the definitions set in thesaurus and claim that my definition is the right one. Anyone who doesn't agree just doesn't get the concept.
I do remember that there was a particular group of people who were really hard on "things mean what I think they mean because I feel like it." Gee, I wonder what those people were called…
> "Yes, president, we have free speech. People can say anything in their head, it is good and glorious."
No.5465207
>>5465203
> Lets ignore all the definitions set in thesaurus
Which thesaurus are you referring to and which dictionary are you referring to?
free speech has always meant expressing whatever the fuck you want, there are no limits.
As soon as you make limits, the "free" speech becomes "limited" speech.
No.5465210
>Lets ignore all the definitions set in thesaurus
do you even know what a thesaurus is?
No.5465212
>>5465207
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/freedom-of-speech
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/freedom-of-speech
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/freedom%20of%20speech
>inb4 "free speech is not the same as freedom of speech"
> has always meant
No it hasn't. I've given you the definitions.
> Objects to me saying "free speech is when you talk to yourself in your head", thus limiting my free speech.
I just hope you are a bait man, because you've gone far and beyond.
>>5465210
Something god created to fool the humans into believing in the devil?
No.5465215
>>5465212
From your sources respectively:
>the right of people to express their opinions publicly without governmental interference, subject to the laws against libel, incitement to violence or rebellion, etc.
>The power or right to express one’s opinions without censorship, restraint, or legal penalty: the move would further harm freedom of speech in the region
>the legal right to express one's opinions freely
This is only confirming that I am right, I don't get it.
No.5465217
>>5465202
>say any thing at any time
>You were born with this right, it wasn't given to you
Where in the fuck are you getting this shit. You can say any thing at any time because you have a tongue and are not mute. But the other guy has thumbs and can use them gouge out your eyes for saying "Good morning." What is to stop him, if he is bigger, stronger, quicker, more crazy and violent than you?
Police, other members of society having your back, your own potential for violence. These are given to all of us by the collective society and shared value of not killing, at least without some reason.
Do you think you can crash a funeral and berate the dead without repercussion? Do you think you can go near a schoolyard and give a speech about lowering the age of consent while leering at underage girls? Decorum is part of the social contract as well. Yes you can protest (or should be able to) in public, but there are still general rules to follow to not incite violence.
But it is still the protection of the government that allows you to say upsetting and unpopular things. Protection from other citizens and private interests that would have no problem shutting any of us up with intimidation or violence.
No.5465221
>>5465217
>But the other guy has thumbs and can use them gouge out your eyes for saying "Good morning." What is to stop him, if he is bigger, stronger, quicker, more crazy and violent than you?
So what if the other guy is bigot racist faggot? My opinion was still freedom of speech
freedom of speech is: saying whatever, regardless of the consequences.
I don't care which race you are, you can say whatever you want.
Get it yet?
No.5465230
>>5465215
I'm fucking sure you do not get it man. I'm positively and honestly sure you do not.
Anyhow, the main point I was trying to say before the "ban gossip?!" and "The legal right to say things publicly = thinking about nasty things" is that 4chan was not created or based on the idea of free speech. That is the main point I am trying to get through here. It had it as a possibility, but not as it's goal. So moot can't be called the "betrayer of his own ideals" if those were not his ideals and were just imposed on him.
8chan, on the other hand, was created on the basis of free speech. The whole creation of it is a proof that 4chan was not. If 4chan was truly a place of free speech, there would not be a need for a website with "the exact thing as 4chan, but with free speech." And yes, while censorship in 4chan is a relatively new thing, it doesn't mean it was it's ideal.
Shit, man I think I'm going in circles trying to get my point across to you but there is some sort of a barrier you just can't overstep and you have to run in circles: "4chan had it, thus it was about it."
No.5465231
>>5465221
> freedom of speech is: saying whatever, regardless of the consequences.
Nigger if you can't read then please just say so and we will all move on.
No.5465233
>>5465230
>>5465231
Freedom of speech = Saying anything you want.
There are no "buts…" there are no "and..". that's all it is.
No.5465237
>>5465233
Alright, could you send this to Oxford? Here, let me help you:
"Dear smart peepl,
It has come to my attention that your books are having wrongs, because I am of inability of concepts. This your book triggers me as my own ideas of things are different of your's. Because of my stupidity I demand you change the definition to "saying things you want". Do this before the next meeting of my group that consists of myself where I discuss if the deffinition of "Free citizen" should be changed to "unchained person." Please see the attachment of pdf that consists of me putting my benis in various fruits.
Yours truly,
a complete and honest retard."
No.5465239
>>5465233
>>5465233
Alright, could you send this to Oxford? Here, let me help you:
"Dear smart peepl,
It has come to my attention that your books are having wrongs, because I am of inability of concepts. This your book triggers me as my own ideas of things are different of your's. Because of my stupidity I demand you change the definition to "saying things you want". Do this before the next meeting of my group that consists of myself where I discuss if the deffinition of "Free citizen" should be changed to "unchained person." Please see the attachment of pdf that consists of me putting my benis in various fruits.
Yours truly,
a complete and honest retard."
No.5465242
>>5465221
As an ideal, yes I get it. As a practical, functional right without limits? The world doesn't work that way. It never, ever has and never will.
Freedom of speech is important, and should be defended, especially for offensive and controversial things. However, "anywhere, at any time" is not workable or desirable.
In a library or movie? Time to shut up. On a public street but outside someone's window at 2 AM, drunkenly ranting about the Jews? Disturbing the peace, go sleep it off. These are common sense things that, as I said before, basic decency and decorum help dictate. They allow others to live their lives without having to listen to your bullshit.
Of course these can be abused and used to silence people unjustly, but so can unlimited freedom of speech to make a horrible din of grating nonsense, especially if everyone decides to say whatever they want, whenever they want, all at the same time.
No.5465248
>>5465231
>there are certain circumstances that make freedom of speech legitimate
No, there aren't nigger. Freedom of speech is one thing, it is about expressing any opinion that you may have, regardless of your race.
Does it hurt?
No.5465252
>>5465237
>>5465239
>>5465242
Wait, so you are saying freedom of speech has limits? Do you not understand the meaning of freedom?
No.5465255
>>5465252
I think we all know who here has problems with understanding definitions.
>>5465248
BlackFreedomMatters
No.5465260
>>5465255
>I think we all know who here has problems with understanding definitions.
So a simple definition from a source that you chose can change the entire meaning of a word? Gee, it's like I was just visited by someone from tumblr.
No.5465262
>>5465252
Sure I do. Freedom implies you are the only person in the world with no need to consider others, that there are unlimited resources, and your abilities have no limit.
It's a wonderful dream, like never growing old and never dying. If only freedom, of anything, actually existed in reality.
No.5465274
>>5465262
>Freedom implies you are the only person in the world with no need to consider others,
No, it doesn't. I don't know where you got this shitty definition from. Probably some communist website.
>that there are unlimited resources, and your abilities have no limit.
So believing int the opposite of this would be thinking the opposite?
So do you believe in no resources and having no abilities?
No.5465278
FREEDOM OF SPEECH = SAYING ANYTHING REGARDLESS OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES
Is that so hard to accept? You can say anything you like even if it is against your opinions. Does that hurt your feelings? Fucking pussies.
No.5465279
>>5465157
>>5465179
funny how on this board, 2 thought-out posts kill the thread. sometimes it's spam, sometimes it's pol, this time it's a 100post squabble over a definition.
is this a policy or a by product of random gibberish, I wonder?
No.5465284
Quite binary my friend, there are limited resources and limited abilities. One's freedom only extends as far as these allow. And until your rights infringe on others.
So if you live inna woods, off the land, you indeed have a lot of freedom. If you live with others, there are limits. And that is quite binary: limits are the opposite of freedom.
And also the reality, of everything. This is not to say that the ideal is not worth striving for. But practicality gets us closer than following blind idealism.
No.5465286
>>5465279
I dunno anon but I like those pork nutz.
No.5465290
>>5465278
These are shops, right? Current Year doesn't actually give the finger this much, does he?
No.5465294
>>5465290
It's not a shop.
No.5465295
>>5465290
based Paul is based
No.5465305
>>5465290
he was pissed off about not being allowed into the debates. It really happened.