>>7977
>If there were a genuinely good board for discussing any random thing, I'm sure most off topic reports would disappear.
lol

anyway, i've cleaned up the schizo spam on /qa/ on and off for months now. there are a few dedicated shitposters who use proxies and do not seem like they are going anywhere any time soon. if i camp the board 24/7, then i can keep it clean, but really, it's /qa/. who wants to do that? especially when there are so many other boards that are constantly in need of help

i'm not opposed to your idea really, but unfortunately i just don't think it's realistic with the tools we currently have available

File: thinkspin.gif (30 KB, 128x128)

30 KB GIF

>>7977
[s4s] is basically old silly /b/, by that virtue I personally think it has value. It has an innocence to it.

>>7978
The impression I repeatedly get is that nobody who is a regular user wants to post on /qa/, because it's a stupid cesspit, and jannies and mods don't want to bother with cleaning up /qa/, because it never gets better whatever you do.

This brings me back once again to the thought "Why does /qa/ exist?" Threads being moved to /qa/ is the same as moving them to /trash/, but much worse. If both anons and staff look at /qa/ as a useless abyss, why spend bandwidth and occasional energy cleaning it when it at best is a Discord circlejerk for chronic shitposters? Do we need to waste our time?

If we're to have something called a "Question & Answer" board, perhaps it should instead be limited to so that regular users can't actually post there, but rather admins instead answer submitted questions.

>>7977
>If there were a genuinely good board for discussing any random thing, I'm sure most off topic reports would disappear. The question is, do you think it's possible?
No because the reason people make a lot of off topic posts is because they want to discuss that topic, but within the community that it's off topic to, not because they have nowhere to post it.

>>7979
>but rather admins instead answer submitted questions
ngl when I read this I started imagining a system like the ban page. Like a user can go to the Feedback (or something else) page, select Q&A in the category with some other options like if it's a general question or a board specific question and hopefully a mod (or even a janny if they knows a lot about the subject and gets approved by a mod in some way) will reply to it. After that it gets added in the Q&A page where there'll be the question and the answer give, maybe even some way for that user to ask a futher question either because they're still confused or something else but I guess it'd be kind of difficult to implement. That said a system like this will probably be abused, likely less than current /qa/ but still abused; it'd also need a system to delete useless questions or shitposts, maybe also accessible to jannies. This system will probably never be implemented but I needed it out of my head

>>7978
I considered this too, and you're right that a board's culture is really hard to change once it gets established, so I think a good alternative is instead of using /qa/ for this, you make a new board with the stated purpose of being SFW /b/ or something similar, so that you have a large influx of new users from across the site which gives people the chance to discuss whatever they want, and also enforce global rules 6 and 10 so that if /qa/ or someone else tries to make it "their board" you can put your foot down and stop it from getting filled with trash.
>>7980
That's part of the issue too, but I'm sure a lot of this is due to the fact no good, SFW random board exists. Perhaps it wouldn't wipe out most off-topic reports across the site. Even then, it's something a lot of people clearly want. You could even make it a trial board, and if people are disappointed with how it turns out, then it can be scrapped.

It's not a "perfect solution" because there's a chance it doesn't work, but having a good SFW /b/ sounds great so it's worth a shot. If you make a new board and frame it this way then people will come.

>had a dream about /qa/
i blame you guys
>>7979
lots of users enjoy posting on /qa/. i'm one of them. just, as it stands right now, you have to ignore the schizospam.
/qa/ exists because it was deemed necessary to have a meta board. people can and do use it for meta purposes, but unfortunately these threads are often killed by catalog flooding and necrobumping. it's not a matter of the board being a useless trash heap, but more so the amount of time and effort it would take to clean that board up, not to mention the concentrated autism required, is disproportionate to the actual benefits which could be obtained, especially when compared to directing those efforts towards another board (e.g. /pol/) which is constantly, every single day, flooded in off-topic garbage to the point where it actively and significantly hurts the board and constantly in need of more people looking at it.

>If we're to have something...
>>7981
i really don't think this is very realistic. the old q&a system rarely got any use. most of the people who could feasibly run such a thing are just too busy with other site matters that it's not realistic to expect them to manage that, too. sure, you say mods could do it, but i'm not sure if you have kept up with it, but oftentimes people see a modpost and freak out. it almost inevitably ends in someone reading into it, or twisting the words somehow, and basically just finding malice where there is none and ending up spreading some ridiculous conspiracy theory that just makes things worse than they would have been if we hadn't said anything in the first place. not to mention, mods are human, too. sometimes we fuck up or misunderstand something, or have differences of opinion, so it would be important to get everyone's consensus before releasing anything onto some public q&a system, which doesn't seem like a really good way to do things honestly, and would just deserve to distract people from helping elsewhere on the site.
honestly though i don't even know what sort of questions would go there. we have a very good faq, rules section, about page, etc. and google still exists. pretty much any question one might have about the site ought to be answered via consulting those resources. if it isn't, they are welcome to ask other users on /qa/ or even register and come to IRC to ask us directly if the question is that important to them. most of the time people are asking about things that aren't any of their concern, though, and which would just get ignored in a q&a thing anyway.
>>7982
how many random boards do we need? we have /qa/, /vip/, /b/, /bant/, [s4s], /trash/, /r9k/. i really have a hard time believing that adding MORE random boards is somehow the solution to this. what is the purpose of an SFW /b/? if someone really wants that, why not just have them disable the images and go onto /b/ or /r9k/? why make an entire board to cater to this very specific niche?

>>7983
>just deserve to
just serve to*

File: qa moment.jpg (26 KB, 500x613)

26 KB JPG

>>7977
>Return] [Catalog] [Bottom]7 / 1 / ? [Update] [Auto]
>File: bigstock-Pizza-Delivery-M(...).jpg (1.04 MB, 1600x1067)
> Making a new (good) /b/ Anonymous ## Janitor 06/25/21(Fri)12:17:46 No.7977▶>>7978 >>7979 >>7980
>Judging by the massive percentage of off-topic reports on every major board, it's clear that people want a place to say is on their mind, but also feel like the current avenues for this (/b/, /r9k/, [s4s], /bant/, /qa/) aren't good enough. And I get it. Those boards are actually used for a pretty narrow set of things: /b/ is for porn, /r9k/ for relationships, [s4s] and /bant/ for... whatever it is they do, and /qa/ for schizoposting. So if you make a thread unrelated to what's popular there, it's not going to get replies. If there were a genuinely good board for discussing any random thing, I'm sure most off topic reports would disappear. The question is, do you think it's possible?
>I think most importantly here, it has to be SFW. But to prevent it from becoming like /qa/, there would also have to be some level of quality control. And this is the hard part. No one wants to post on a board that's 90% basedjaks, but how do you stop it? Would you just ban basedjaks? Maybe in the short term it works, but people will find something else to force, and you can't just keep adding new stuff to the blacklist. But you know, basedjaks and schizoposting already count as rule 6 violations, so without even changing any rules or making a new board, we could clean /qa/ up so that people are incentivized to post there instead of making off-topic posts all across the site. Just get a few janitors willing to enforce this and the other global rules, and it should be fine.
>What do you think? A lot of people dislike /qa/ because there's almost nothing but schizo spam, but if we clean it up by applying global rules 6 and 10 a bit more actively, I'm sure it would gain new life and give anons something they clearly want, which is a place to freely discuss whatever they want without getting drowned in porn and spam.
>>>
> Anonymous ## Mod 06/25/21(Fri)18:44:36 No.7978▶>>7979 >>7982
>>>7977 (OP)
>>If there were a genuinely good board for discussing any random thing, I'm sure most off topic reports would disappear.
>lol
>anyway, i've cleaned up the schizo spam on /qa/ on and off for months now. there are a few dedicated shitposters who use proxies and do not seem like they are going anywhere any time soon. if i camp the board 24/7, then i can keep it clean, but really, it's /qa/. who wants to do that? especially when there are so many other boards that are constantly in need of help
>i'm not opposed to your idea really, but unfortunately i just don't think it's realistic with the tools we currently have available
>>>
> Anonymous ## Janitor 06/25/21(Fri)19:32:27 No.7979▶>>7981 >>7983
>File: thinkspin.gif (30 KB, 128x128)
>>>7977 (OP)
>[s4s] is basically old silly /b/, by that virtue I personally think it has value. It has an innocence to it.
>>>7978
>The impression I repeatedly get is that nobody who is a regular user wants to post on /qa/, because it's a stupid cesspit, and jannies and mods don't want to bother with cleaning up /qa/, because it never gets better whatever you do.
>This brings me back once again to the thought "Why does /qa/ exist?" Threads being moved to /qa/ is the same as moving them to /trash/, but much worse. If both anons and staff look at /qa/ as a useless abyss, why spend bandwidth and occasional energy cleaning it when it at best is a Discord circlejerk for chronic shitposters? Do we need to waste our time?
>If we're to have something called a "Question & Answer" board, perhaps it should instead be limited to so that regular users can't actually post there, but rather admins instead answer submitted questions.
>>>
> Anonymous ## Janitor 06/25/21(Fri)19:41:00 No.7980▶>>7982
>>>7977 (OP)
>>If there were a genuinely good board for discussing any random thing, I'm sure most off topic reports would disappear. The question is, do you think it's possible?
>No because the reason people make a lot of off topic posts is because they want to discuss that topic, but within the community that it's off topic to, not because they have nowhere to post it.
>>>
> Anonymous ## Janitor 06/25/21(Fri)22:39:41 No.7981▶>>7983
>>>7979
>>but rather admins instead answer submitted questions
>ngl when I read this I started imagining a system like the ban page. Like a user can go to the Feedback (or something else) page, select Q&A in the category with some other options like if it's a general question or a board specific question and hopefully a mod (or even a janny if they knows a lot about the subject and gets approved by a mod in some way) will reply to it. After that it gets added in the Q&A page where there'll be the question and the answer give, maybe even some way for that user to ask a futher question either because they're still confused or something else but I guess it'd be kind of difficult to implement. That said a system like this will probably be abused, likely less than current /qa/ but still abused; it'd also need a system to delete useless questions or shitposts, maybe also accessible to jannies. This system will probably never be implemented but I needed it out of my head
>>>
> Anonymous ## Janitor 06/26/21(Sat)01:46:19 No.7982▶>>7983
>>>7978
>I considered this too, and you're right that a board's culture is really hard to change once it gets established, so I think a good alternative is instead of using /qa/ for this, you make a new board with the stated purpose of being SFW /b/ or something similar, so that you have a large influx of new users from across the site which gives people the chance to discuss whatever they want, and also enforce global rules 6 and 10 so that if /qa/ or someone else tries to make it "their board" you can put your foot down and stop it from getting filled with trash.
>>>7980
>That's part of the issue too, but I'm sure a lot of this is due to the fact no good, SFW random board exists. Perhaps it wouldn't wipe out most off-topic reports across the site. Even then, it's something a lot of people clearly want. You could even make it a trial board, and if people are disappointed with how it turns out, then it can be scrapped.
>It's not a "perfect solution" because there's a chance it doesn't work, but having a good SFW /b/ sounds great so it's worth a shot. If you make a new board and frame it this way then people will come.
>>>
> Anonymous ## Mod 06/26/21(Sat)11:53:49 No.7983▶>>7984
>>had a dream about /qa/
>i blame you guys
>>>7979
>lots of users enjoy posting on /qa/. i'm one of them. just, as it stands right now, you have to ignore the schizospam.
>/qa/ exists because it was deemed necessary to have a meta board. people can and do use it for meta purposes, but unfortunately these threads are often killed by catalog flooding and necrobumping. it's not a matter of the board being a useless trash heap, but more so the amount of time and effort it would take to clean that board up, not to mention the concentrated autism required, is disproportionate to the actual benefits which could be obtained, especially when compared to directing those efforts towards another board (e.g. /pol/) which is constantly, every single day, flooded in off-topic garbage to the point where it actively and significantly hurts the board and constantly in need of more people looking at it.
>>If we're to have something...
>>>7981
>i really don't think this is very realistic. the old q&a system rarely got any use. most of the people who could feasibly run such a thing are just too busy with other site matters that it's not realistic to expect them to manage that, too. sure, you say mods could do it, but i'm not sure if you have kept up with it, but oftentimes people see a modpost and freak out. it almost inevitably ends in someone reading into it, or twisting the words somehow, and basically just finding malice where there is none and ending up spreading some ridiculous conspiracy theory that just makes things worse than they would have been if we hadn't said anything in the first place. not to mention, mods are human, too. sometimes we fuck up or misunderstand something, or have differences of opinion, so it would be important to get everyone's consensus before releasing anything onto some public q&a system, which doesn't seem like a really good way to do things honestly, and would just deserve to distract people from helping elsewhere on the site.
>honestly though i don't even know what sort of questions would go there. we have a very good faq, rules section, about page, etc. and google still exists. pretty much any question one might have about the site ought to be answered via consulting those resources. if it isn't, they are welcome to ask other users on /qa/ or even register and come to IRC to ask us directly if the question is that important to them. most of the time people are asking about things that aren't any of their concern, though, and which would just get ignored in a q&a thing anyway.
>>>7982
>how many random boards do we need? we have /qa/, /vip/, /b/, /bant/, [s4s], /trash/, /r9k/. i really have a hard time believing that adding MORE random boards is somehow the solution to this. what is the purpose of an SFW /b/? if someone really wants that, why not just have them disable the images and go onto /b/ or /r9k/? why make an entire board to cater to this very specific niche?
>>>
> Anonymous ## Mod 06/26/21(Sat)11:57:26 No.7984▶
>>>7983
>>just deserve to
>just serve to*

>>7983
>if someone really wants that, why not just have them disable the images and go onto /b/ or /r9k/?
That wouldn't work because the popular content on a board affects how all other content on that board is received. NSFW stuff and politics aren't inherently bad but there's a reason both are off-limits on blue boards - they mostly just get in the way of other stuff people want to talk about. You could apply that same logic to any blue board: "What's the purpose of a SFW /v/?" etc.
A lot of people have complained about how porn takes up a massive amount of space on /b/, so for that reason alone I would say this isn't a niche idea at all, and rather something a lot of users would be interested in. I suppose you can disagree but still, don't you think it's worth trying to get a decent random board? Making it SFW would solve a lot of the problems right away. Enforcing global rules a bit more closely would help even more.

/bant/ was created with the idea of a "trial board" in mind. That is to say, if it's not good enough, it can be scrapped later. I think that's a good mindset. If we only stick to what's guaranteed to work, we miss out on a lot. /r9k/ was a cool experiment, it would be cool to see something like that again.

>>7986
how would a sfw /b/ have any affect on lewd things or politics? i can guarantee that people would extensively discuss both on such a board. politics is a topic which is guaranteed to get replies no matter what because it pisses people off, so of course they will make threads about it

>>7987
What I'm saying is you could make a rule that prevents discussing politics if you think it would improve the overall quality. But getting rid of politics isn't exactly necessary. I'm mainly thinking about the porn. Is it guaranteed to be good? No, but there's a chance. It's easy to be pessimistic about these things but I believe it may turn out well.

>>7983
Is this the reason why there aren't any mod posts answering questions on places like /qa/? Because things can be misinterpreted by the userbase?
I've thought that some more direct mod interaction on the boards would be good since I see a lot of sentiment that the moderation team is pretty disconnected from the site. Though I guess people would never be happy with the moderation no matter what you guys actually decide to do.

File: 1605341401782s.jpg (2 KB, 125x91)

2 KB JPG

>>7979
[s4s] is just old silly /b/ with its own memes and its own culture with things like the doremiposting rings, discords and games
also, nice digits

Why stop with SFW /b? I would enjoy SFW /r9k/ and SFW /soc/ too.

The future is SFW and blue.

>>7989
I can imagine, because some people are extremely retarded and autistic (or actually insane), so even a pretty clear and well put together post by a mod that any average person can understand will be interpreted in wild ways by someone.

Then there's the kind of guy who'll intentionally misinterpret what you said to be a shit, and you might as well not bother. At best it satisfies curiosity of some users, at worst bad users turn it into ammunition for shitposting.
Arguably maybe the FAQ could, for each rule, include some pictured examples of a deleted post a user got warned or banned for, and explain why it breaks the rules, but I'm pretty sure someone will do something shitty with that too.

>>7991
It's fine if you think the idea is shit but you don't need to go taking the piss like this

>>7993
I'm completely serious though. I would genuinely like a place for lonely people to socialize and make friends without being inundated with genitals.

>>7989
>>7992
That's pretty much what just happened in the /happening/ thread on /qa/ when a dev posted about why the site went down.
I only just became a janny in the newest hiring wave so I haven't had a lot of time to see how everything works behind the curtain but I wanted to know if there is some way to ease tensions at least a little bit with the users. I still don't like the absence of official mod posts but I'm not sure what could really be done.

I do like the examples of deleted posts for the rule page since a lot of people complain about rules not being consistently enforced. Though there is a problem with rules being enforced that aren't even on the official rule page.
One recent thing is the fang threads on /v/ being banned but the reason for them being removed was never said. I'm not a janitor on the board so I don't know if they were told directly but as far as I know, the users were never told the reason why.
Out of the blue deletions like that just make the moderation more mysterious and the anons end up creating crazy conspiracies. I'm not sure if that is preferred or not by the mods rather than being misinterpreted.

File: 1574727370252.png (141 KB, 800x840)

141 KB PNG

Good thread. If it's for having random discussions free of lewd images and a forced culture, why not try again a textboard BBS like world4ch? AFAIK they were shut down due to inactivity because imageboard system was more attractive for users, but we would have a greater chance with just one board.

I think the only danger is politics. It divides communities as there are always users of conflicting views, and they just ruin all the "fun" and quality discussion, breeds extremism and cheap slurs which scares away good users, causing the community to collapse and be yet another dumping ground for garbage etc. I am well aware taking measure against these stuff is easier said than done, but I can't think of any other way to achieve what OP is suggesting.

>>7977
Interesting idea but I don't think it's possible to solve this problem. The way I see it, the problem isn't that there aren't enough places for anons to discuss their off topic subjects, it's that they only want to discuss certain off topic things with users from a particular board.
For example, threads are frequently made on /fit/ asking for advice with women, and these are usually deleted or moved to /adv/ which is a more appropriate board for the subject. I'm sure some of the people making these threads didn't even know there was such a board as /adv/ and understand why their thread gets moved, but many are likely aware of that fact and yet still specifically want the advice of people that use /fit/, not the people that go on /adv/.

On the matter of /qa/ I personally think the whole idea is just ineffective. The 4chan userbase is far more fragmented than almost any other forum I've seen so making a meta thread on /qa/ to discuss a certain board won't actually result in many people who frequent that board seeing the thread. From this perspective I can definitely understand why so many people liked the "one meta thread per board" rule that we had for a short amount of time, since at least that way you could discuss meta with people who actually had something to say.

>>7991
>SFW /r9k/
That's just /adv/.
>SFW /soc/
There's already a ton of "Clean" threads there and many more where you can "make friends without being inundated with genitals". /soc/ might be a trash pile of cock selfies but with some filter work (or not giving a shit) you can just use it for whatever it is you're going there for.

>>7977
You could not pay me to regularly use /qa/, I only go there to discuss meta occasionally and that's it. On the other hand I like using /bant/ since it's one of the few places on the website where you can actually funpost. Similarly, you could not make me use /b/ no matter how non-shit it suddenly became; I could not care and likely would never even know such a thing happened as a user thus nullifying all the effort put into such an initiative which would only "benefit" those who already use it (if not just shit on them since people will likely get banned in order to achieve this).
And no, it won't gain new life because just as it has been pointed out, anons who make Off-Topic posts like to make them on THEIR boards, hence why Off-Topic meta varies from board to board and finding some trash can where you can dump threads doesn't actually convince people to make them there (which is what happens with /pol/ -> /bant/ moves for the past 3 years).
There's been several attempts by Mods to change /b/ and it all crumbles once they stop enforcing their lawful evil tyranny on them; and that's a good thing. It means that the random boards are actually random and that their users have a say on the topics. In my opinion you should leave these places as they are; they're that way for a reason. No amount of heavy handed moderation will achieve good results and 4chan as a whole is better off if you focus on actually rule breaking posts.

>>7998
>You could not pay me to regularly use /qa/
everyone has a price

>>7998
Good post.

File: I don't money.jpg (74 KB, 640x720)

74 KB JPG

>>7999

>>7991
I do think /soc/ is one of the worst boards. Maybe it wouldn't have an audience if it was blue but I would like to blur out the dicks on the catalog.

(History lesson: moot always wanted to make a "local area board"/dating site/Nextdoor kind of thing. Every time we tried this it ended with the current dev burning out and leaving.)

>>7996
world4ch was mostly shut down because we wanted to unify boards to get a bigger userbase, yeah.

It also had entirely different software and we didn't have enough of the imageboard jannies/mods onboarded to mod it, and we never hired any jannies for it either. I was the admin but I didn't do a great job since I was trying to keep it running.

>>8010
an imageboard with only people from within a certain radius of you sounds like a lot of fun. not sure how feasible this would be to moderate given the premise but it seems like a good way to find people

>>8012
I've only ever seen maybe 4-5 people use /soc/ from my country, and I'm European. We have imageboards of our own so this would be largely redundant (not to mention that /int/ is a thing).

>>8013
for americucks it could be nice, there's not really an equivalent for that
but yeah it would be redundant

>>8012
I agree. Could such a thing be implemented, just people from like your general area?

File: 1583552277_1583546574578.jpg (213 KB, 904x711)

213 KB JPG

>4chan would like to know your location

>>8015
https://gala.jp/pdf/epr_20161226.pdf
https://gala.jp/pdf/epr_20170929.pdf
It has been made but it was shut down in about a year; my guess is that it wasn't financially viable, they had plans to expand it by 2018 to Japan and even the rest of the world but that never came to fruition. The app was made for the Philipines and Korea though, and I'm guessing it relied on mobile GPS capabilities.
As for making this for desktop, just use something federalized like the Fediverse, the nightmare of making this shit centralized haunts me and I've only thought about it for a little bit; I will not elaborate any further.

>>8010
>>8012
i like the idea of a /lan/ board a lot too :)
i think it could work pretty well as a regular board with different threads for different cities and areas (sort of like a /socg/ or an /intg/)
extra features like location tags and IDs a plus

>>8017
you know, i bet you could make a shitty mobile app that replicates an anonymous textboard or something for locations. like facebook pages but you can say faggot or something. i'm sure this has been done but it'd be easy to make and fun to use
>>8016
topgep

>>7985
dangerously based mod.

File: 1617601010552.png (628 KB, 479x650)

628 KB PNG

>>7977
sticky a caturday thread every saturday
might attract some trolls at first, but i think it'd be a good idea. there was a great one last night and it's the old traditions of the site that really attract more quality posts and overall board health.

>>8077
cute

>>8077
i just lurked one and it was really good
a few logposters here and there, but that's /b/ for ya

File: kway.png (113 KB, 566x599)

113 KB PNG

It's been a year daddy...
For what it's worth I genuinely enjoyed having a blue meta/random/off-topic board. There were some nice threads, before the soi and cheese spam took over. Even at the end I had some nice convos. It was comfy. I enjoyed how people would come from all over 4chan due to meta threads being moved. I've seen other posters around the site mention lately that they liked the idea of a blue random board as well.


[spoiler]At the very least, maybe the happenings thread could be unfrozed on /qa/?[/spoiler]

>>8802
The happenings thread moved to /trash/. They seem to be doing okay there.

>>7977
I miss old /b/ just as much as you do brother. But one thing you fail to understand is the old /b/ existed in a different time in the internet.

Today, the millennials who enjoyed 14 year old internet shitposting back in 2005-2010 are grown up. They can barely be bothered to venture away from Facebook and twitter anymore.

Why? because this is by design. The big social media companies used the mobile phone internet revolution to hijack the internet and mold it into what it is today.

Part of the reason, in my opinion, 4chan has suffered lately is because of these ridiculous captchas. There's been so many times when I access 4chan from my safari on my iPhone and try to make a good comment or participate in quality conversations but the insane sliding captchas are just soooo off-putting. The first time I get a "captcha incorrect" message after trying to type that long weird bullshit I just abandon the comment altogether. Are these captchas really necessary? Are they really better than standard recaptchas? have standard recaptchas been beaten by bots? They seem to be used everywhere else in the world so I tend to think not...

In fact, 4chan is the only website I've ever come across that uses these insanely difficult captchas.

You know who doesn't? Facebook, reddit, twitter, and all these other platforms that have taken over the internet. They actively encourage posting whereas 4chan actively makes it more difficult, leaving only the most dedicated trolls and shitposters left. No longer are there casual 4chan posters, the new captcha has weeded them out. All that's left are the bottom of the barrel posters who post the SAME "celeb" thread 10000x a day.

When did /b/ become a place to spam SFW pictures of celebrities from social media? When did /b/ become a place to spam SFW pictures of regular girls off Instagram??? It amazes me that a place that used to be the most vile collection of goatse, tubgirl, terrorism, beastiality, CP, and violence has

(1/2)

>>8805
now become a place where people spam clothed girls from facebook? It baffles me.

One thing to understand is that internet usage has shifted in the last 15 years. We live in an age where if an article isn't in pictures or bullet points we literally cant read it.

We live in an age where if a video buffers for more than literally 1 second we just hit the back button and move on. This affliction of INSTANT-gratification (and i mean INSTANT) effects millions if not billions of people. Shit, I am 30 and I admit to being affected by this too. Which contributes to why it's so bothersome to perform the new captchas just to participate in a conversation that likely will receive no response.

Modern day 4chan doesn't fit the new-age instant gratification model that the big social media companies have created.

1. It sucks on mobile.
2. Posting is hard because captchas are hard
3. You only accept bitcoin for 4chan gold so its inaccessible to millions of people who would've otherwise paid with a card
4. Even when posting a high quality response or comment, there's like a 99% chance no one will even respond to you, so there is no "social" media aspect to 4chan.
I'm not saying all this is bad. I'm saying this is a major contributor to why 4chan and /b/ is the way it is now.

I love 4chan, it is truly the last beacon of free speech. The last place where I can speak my mind, tell the truth, confess secrets, and yes, view fringe porn. But the current state of /b/ is a product of the world we live in and its incompatibility with mobile-addicted instant gratification conversationalists.

I agree that the current sliding mechanism of the captchas doesn't play nice with some touch-based browser interfaces. Like in firefox mobile on my device, you have to be very precise to actually register a pres-hold for the "t-slider" range input, and failing that you end up moving the entire pageview.

Implementing a custom slider for the mobile CSS would likely help:
https://www.w3schools.com/howto/tryit.asp?filename=tryhow_css_rangeslider

>>8858
>because filtering mobileposters is a bad thing