> scoundrels and horrible people deserve no less protection under the law than the rest of us.

And they got it. "I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake." But that doesn't mean anyone needs feel sympathy for the devil. We're not obligated to cheer when the wretched hive of scum and villainy keeps its liquor license another year. The law was followed and we can move on.

> If your disgust for an entity prevents you from being able to recognize when they're doing something that's an unalloyed good

... It is usually the case when we're talking about 4chan (and always when talking about Kiwi Farms) that "unalloyed" is doing a lot of the kind of load-bearing one probably wants an alloy for. 4chan's most positive benefit to society is as a litmus test for precisely how far the [xkcd-1357](https://xkcd.com/1357/) principle goes. They are 100% welcome, per their freedom of the press (and the freedom of speech of their users), to host their website. On their infrastructure. With their own DOS protection. In a country that recognizes those rights and protects them. That's the system working as intended.

▲

simoncion 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> ...that "unalloyed" is doing a lot of the kind of load-bearing one probably wants an alloy for.

No? Saving a child from being swept away in a freezing river is an unalloyed good, no matter how terrible the scoundrel that did it.

Like I mentioned, it looks like you still have quite a lot of emotional maturity to develop.

(You might also benefit from checking out 4chan boards that aren't /b/, /pol/, and /gif/.)

▲

LoganDark 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> Saving a child from being swept away in a freezing river is an unalloyed good

What if it's only as part of kidnapping the child and forcing them into grueling slave labor until the day they die? Is that still perfectly unalloyed?

(Not that I'm saying 4chan is metaphorically doing that here; just for the sake of argument.)

	▲	shadowgovt 18 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Your twist on the argument is a fair one since the commenter you're responding to is equating fishing a drowning child out of a river with fighting formal scrutiny regarding their lax approach to policing CSAM on /b/ and /hc/. Emotional maturity is important. So is platform maturity. We are long past the point where "reader beware" and "it's just a hobby site" are good enough in an era where under-policed fora result in actual harm. I appreciate 4chan's strong stance on the topic of it not being their job to police their house... But I do often find myself cheering when someone compels them, as a site that receives 22 million unique monthly visitors, to act like they have any host responsibility. It's hard for me to be deeply supportive, beyond my legal requirements to be so, of a site that hosts /b/, /pol/, /hc/, and /gif/ because it chooses to host them too.