aliakbarkhan

Couldn't they do like they did with drinking age laws and restrict federal road/other funding to jurisdictions that don't implement police camera programs?

Asking someone not to talk about something isn't the same thing as advocating that talking about something should be "outlawed".

Why does the amount of effort on the site matter? I don't understand how that tells you anything about the project or its likely outcome.

Why trust it to a service? Encrypt it yourself.

> This is impossible to guarantee today. Certainly if you run the zero-day magnets known as browsers, and even if not, there is always some possibility of physical intrusion.

Bingo. Even if you go all-out with security and only browse the web with a pure text web browser through Tor running on a VM that you purge after every use, use full-disk encryption with plausible deniability, fully shut down your computer and wait until the RAM is cool before leaving, inspect your computer for NSA/other implants every time before boot, tape your webcam and mic, never use your real name, and whatever else you can think of, you're just going to go nuts from all the paranoia, as well as from realizing all the myriad ways your security could still be broken (don't forget to check the keyboard for a built-in logger and look inside your case for PCI cards you don't recognize, and hope they don't have any implants that look convincingly like something you'd recognize as yours). Never mind that this isn't a very viable way to do most things most people actually use their computers for, like personal email, online banking, social networking, and so on.

Why do you think the 4chan source would be any less awful? If you're really curious you can look at the partial source that leaked a while back, but IIRC it's not exactly amazing. (I'm paranoid, so I won't link to it but it's trivial to find with Google.) Edit: Just saw that you've already seen it. Nonetheless, my other points still stand.

At any rate, I don't think we'll be seeing an open source release of the 4chan source in the near future. Obviously I don't know the specifics, but in my experience it seems like most purpose-built internal applications like the 4chan imageboard tend to be rather messy and filled with a lot of very specific code that's hard to repurpose for more general use. In order to release it publicly, the codebase has to be sanitized of private information, disentangled from any internal utilities or applications, refactored to remove ugly hacks that solve one-off problems (ex. legacy integration), and so on. Then they have to switch 4chan itself over to the new codebase if they ever hope to keep the public repo up to date. That's a lot of work for 4chan's volunteer labor force, on top of what they already have to expend to maintain the site.

There's also a good likelihood that the volunteers who contributed to the code have not done so in a way that would allow moot to release the source. I am not a lawyer so I can't speak confidently about this, but I'm pretty sure copyright is a major issue here. Unless every volunteer contributor has explicitly agreed to allow their code to be released or directly assigned copyright to moot, the first prerequisite to an FOSS release would probably be to get that permission from every contributor, both past and present. The present contributors may not be that hard to ask, but given the nature of 4chan I wouldn't be surprised if a few past volunteers have worked under personas they've since abandoned, effectively making them unreachable.

[citation needed]