They take websites offline if and only if they receive a legal order to do so.
Sites with user generated content have broad protections against illegal actions of their users unless they do one of a small handful of things that exposes them to liability, like actively participating or ignoring legitimate takedown requests. It’s not an accident. That’s how the internet is intended to work, and the only way allowing user generated content is realistically possible.
They don’t care. As long as their bills are payed they will host anything that won’t get them in legal trouble.
They shouldn’t care. Their job is not to control the internet. It’s to provide routing and content delivery.
Responding to legal takedown notices is as far as they should go, and in a better system, would be as far as they’re legally allowed to go.
So why are they still servicing 4chan if 4chan has a bunch of illegal content on it?
They take websites offline if and only if they receive a legal order to do so.
Sites with user generated content have broad protections against illegal actions of their users unless they do one of a small handful of things that exposes them to liability, like actively participating or ignoring legitimate takedown requests. It’s not an accident. That’s how the internet is intended to work, and the only way allowing user generated content is realistically possible.
Same reason why they serve Lemmy instances despite illegal content on Lemmy: section 230 of the DMCA
If they were removing sites people would bash them too, there is no way they can win.
If they were removing sites people would bash them too, there is no way they can win.