you are allowed to delete one website

Recommended Videos

dobahci

New member
Jan 25, 2012
148
0
0
Shanicus said:
Or the most popular Porno site out there - Then the world will truly burn, the day mankind is without it's pornography.
Take down one porn site and another will immediately fill the hole. If there's one thing the porn industry understands, it's how to fill a hole.
 

Bernzz

Assumed Lurker
Legacy
Mar 27, 2009
1,655
3
43
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Jesus, some of the people in this thread.

"Hurr hurr, Google/Wikipedia because people use it to do their homework for them/to appear smart hurr hurr."

What about the amount of computer/gaming related problems that can be solved in a simple Google search? Or if you wanna simply know more about something because you just do, what easier way than Wikipedia.

It would sorely tempt me to delete this site just to be able to watch the reactions (assuming I had a way) of all the elitist snobs, now they have no where to be snobby about shit.

But in reality, I'd either delete Encyclopedia Dramatica or www.godhatesfags.com. I don't need to explain myself here.
 

Tipsy Giant

New member
May 10, 2010
1,133
0
0
FOX NEWS

Maybe the idiots who believe their drivel would be forced to read actual news about actual events, rather than self created hysteria
 

Wintermoot

New member
Aug 20, 2009
6,563
0
0
Tipsy Giant said:
FOX NEWS

Maybe the idiots who believe their drivel would be forced to read actual news about actual events, rather than self created hysteria
Fox,s demographic is probably to stupid to operate a computer so it wouldn't fix anything.
 

Esotera

New member
May 5, 2011
3,400
0
0
bahumat42 said:
well than your wrong, if nobody is migrating it means nobody is on the site, and if nobody is on the site than it fails as a social media platform.
But if the people actually bothered to move over to Google+ and/or Diaspora, the community would be more active. It's not that they fail as a platform, it's that facebook is very unhelpful with transferring between sites (in fact, most social networks are).

bahumat42 said:
Fragmenting what site people go on is a real pain :p the only social media that can survive outside of fb are ones for datng ^^.
Well the whole google/social media singularity is sort of bad for the internet, as it makes it easier to spy on users, their privacy policies are typically intrusive, and it diverts traffic away from cool but less known sites.
 

Tipsy Giant

New member
May 10, 2010
1,133
0
0
henritje said:
Tipsy Giant said:
FOX NEWS

Maybe the idiots who believe their drivel would be forced to read actual news about actual events, rather than self created hysteria
Fox,s demographic is probably to stupid to operate a computer so it wouldn't fix anything.

Chuckle Chuckle
 

Wintermoot

New member
Aug 20, 2009
6,563
0
0
Tipsy Giant said:
henritje said:
Tipsy Giant said:
FOX NEWS

Maybe the idiots who believe their drivel would be forced to read actual news about actual events, rather than self created hysteria
Fox,s demographic is probably to stupid to operate a computer so it wouldn't fix anything.

Chuckle Chuckle
that joke was just to easy
 

Patrick Buck

New member
Nov 14, 2011
749
0
0
Twitter. Never used it, but it inspires irrtioal hatred in me. Urgh. Just don't like it for some reason.
 

JokerboyJordan

New member
Sep 6, 2009
1,034
0
0
Forlong said:
Tipsy Giant said:
FOX NEWS

Maybe the idiots who believe their drivel would be forced to read actual news about actual events, rather than self created hysteria
If Fox News is horribly inaccurate, then why is it the highest rated network? Not just above other news networks, ALL networks. That's like calling the highest rated show in the world dumb.
Try to get facts before making accusations, because people who watch Fox News sure do.
Number 1: Source?

Secondly, the highest rated Network in the world, would appeal to the lowest denominator, and thus would be classified as "dumb".
Fox News is horribly inaccurate, and just because something is wrong, does not make something unpopular. So that argument fails.

And guess what? This is the internet, I can slag off the entire viewership of a particular network and call them whatever I want, free speech is given to Fox News as equally as it's given to me, to be abused as I see fit.

And how can you defend them and say that those who watch Fox, are not idiotic drones, when you so readily call others that?


How can you talk about getting the facts right; when you and Fox News don't?
 

C F

New member
Jan 10, 2012
772
0
0
You know, I never did like Myspace. I could do Twitter, but there's a profile or two on there that I check up on every now and again. So it has its uses. Facebook? Tempting, but no.

I'd probably have to offline that Westboro Baptist Church place. Or Timecube, for the service of all. Or maybe... Wait, what's the biggest Scientology website? If only I could rig some sort of targeting triumvirate to somehow strike all three in one go.
 

Lev The Red

New member
Aug 5, 2011
454
0
0
either google or wikipedia. just to see what happens.

or Stormfront. fuck that place.
 

Westaway

New member
Nov 9, 2009
1,084
0
0
FalloutJack said:
Under the assumption that they can't COME BACK, I delete whatever site Anonymous congregates at so they're forced to bunk in with 4Chan.
1) they probably don't communicate via one website
2) they would have no reason to return there. They would fin another obscure website
 

Westaway

New member
Nov 9, 2009
1,084
0
0
henritje said:
FalloutJack said:
Under the assumption that they can't COME BACK, I delete whatever site Anonymous congregates at so they're forced to bunk in with 4Chan.
I think 4Chan is pretty much the only site where they congregate
It most certainly isn't. They were associated with the site extremely briefly, as in a couple weeks.
 

FalloutJack

Bah weep grah nah neep ninny bom
Nov 20, 2008
15,489
0
0
Westaway said:
FalloutJack said:
Under the assumption that they can't COME BACK, I delete whatever site Anonymous congregates at so they're forced to bunk in with 4Chan.
1) they probably don't communicate via one website
2) they would have no reason to return there. They would fin another obscure website
Under the idea that I may destroy one website in a 'for good' manner, I destroy 'that place Anon hangs out at', meaning that they can't have a hide-out, period. No negotiations. This is a case of reconstructing reality and I will not change my vote.