That's more or less it. Silence can be as telling as its absence in cases like these, I think.

> That's not being suggested.

Fair enough, apologies for creating the impression if that happened. How should we address this problem without cutting off things like 8chan, though? I think that once people start advocating against the right of others to exist it's time for society to act. It makes sense that we should focus on the individuals actually contributing to these boards and de-radicalise them where possible. So doing, that reduces demand for things like 8chan. But that doesn't mean that 8chan itself isn't inherently problematic.

To be clear, this is not to say that message boards are all inherently problematic and we need to think before acting. Insofar as you urge caution on this in general, I agree. 8Chan has gone out of its way to eliminate any grey area on this subject, though. The behaviour of its administrators towards law enforcement in the aftermath of the Christchurch attack isn't even that unusual for them.

> I simply think it's unlikely

Totally, lol. I think that's a fair conclusion to draw. I just don't want it to overshadow what I think is a positive action.

> consequentialism

All I'm saying is that if violent radicalism is the enemy of a coherent society that respects everyone's right to exist (which these guys pretty clearly say), society should be prepared to do something to protect itself. And that means shutting down the services that recruit new gunmen, because they're a part of this. The ends don't justify the means, the actions of 8chan participants do.

Edit: Thanks so much for taking the time to write all that, by the way. One of the main reasons I come to this place is for people willing to walk through their arguments like this.