What did /tv/ think of this?
>image.jpg
>likes pseudo-intellectual meme garbage
>>67016920
I was asking for an opinion, simmer down
>>67016939
Make me, Applenig.
>>67016907
I'll like it once it gets to dvd and I can see it I'm sure
>>67016951
Someone is on their period
>>67017009
Someone is getting triggered while furiously thumbing a 4 inch screen.
>>67017067
>thumbing a 4 inch screen
And what?
>>67017101
Yes.
>>67017141
I've never got what's so bad about posting from a phone anyway.
>>67017172
My problems with mobile users:
1) It's hard to type on touchscreens. This means people are more likely to make shorter posts, with shorter words in. This obviously leads to a lowered level of discourse.
2) It's hard to read due to the smaller screen. This applies to boards, threads and posts. A long post is more likely to be ignored on a phone as it is just so hard to read. If a thread is several hundred posts long then it just won't be read through, and the phone user's post has more chance of being irrelevant to the discussion. And it's harder to browse boards too, possibly meaning increased likelihood of duplication of threads as mobile users miss/can't be bothered to check for them.
3) Images. Many of us have hundreds if not thousands of images saved and meticulously catalogued. This is an image board of course. It's not outrageous to suggest that people on mobile devices don't have that many, and that they're not well organised. Plus, it's harder to quickly save a new image if you don't have one that fits to what you want, or if you're searching for something in particular. Not impossible, but harder. So, mobile users almost certainly have less images, which are organised poorly, and it's a pain to quickly get a new one. So what will this lead to? Spamming of the same few images over and over again. As more mobile users see these, they'll save them and keep posting them too. An epic new maymay is born.
4) Difficult to research on. I almost didn't include this, as many people on standard computers don't research either, but I decided to because it's so much harder to on mobile devices. Without easy access to information, discussion will just revolve around what people think and shout the loudest, rather than actually checking their facts with a quick ctrl-t.
cont.
>>67017253
5) Easy to ban evade from. As OP said, or even just connecting to multiple wifi networks as they go about their day. Obviously this could be done with a laptop, and lots of IPs can be changed with a router reset. However, this is not a reason to allow those who can do it so easily and perhaps without even realising.
6) Used when on the go so less likely to get deeply into discussion. If people can sit down at their computer and post, 99% of the time they will. Most people would only use their mobile device if they're out and about doing something, perhaps browsing during their break at work or during a gap in classes. I feel this style of browsing, this dipping in and out will lead to lower quality of discussion too. If you've only got a few minutes you're not going to open a thread with hundreds of long replies, then type one up yourself and reply to comments. No, you'll just find a short funny one and post a short funny comment and move on. Then later when you've got another few minutes you might come back to it, or go onto another easily digestible thread. I anticipate someone bringing up public transport here, to which I will just respond with "Why the fuck do you want to post on 4chan whilst on the bus?".
I could think of more reasons, but this is probably the bulk of my argument and is enough to be getting on with. A brief summary would be something like:
Mobile users are inherently less likely to post high quality content, both text and images, due to the limitations of the device. This combined with the site being more difficult to use due to the smaller screen means that low quality threads are more likely to be made, and filled with low quality replies and a small number of images posted over and over again. This low quality will be compounded by it being nearly impossible to ban anyone at all who breaks the rules on these devices, and by such users only using the site "casually" ie during a gap between other things.
cont.
>>67017279
So, we've identified a problem in theory and in practise. The vast majority of threads with the opening image entitled "image.jpg" are bad. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I've been trying to draw attention to this on /tv/ with a small amount of success.
I don't think mobile users need to be stopped from browsing the site, I don't even think the mobile version needs to be removed, as apps will always be there to help. I think they just need to be stopped from posting, or perhaps even just from making threads. Now, please tell me if I'm incorrect here, but I believe it would be possible to check what browser/device a user is on, and forbid certain ones from posting. I don't know whether it would possible for phones to trick the server into thinking they're a real computer, but even if it was then it would still cut down on mobile posting as it would be a major hassle.
>>67017309
You're taking this a bit too seriously m8, lighten up a little.
This is a post on the /tv/ section on 4chan, you're not writing a dissertation.
>>67017309
Hello, autism.
>>67017253
>>67017279
This is a Copypasta. I've already seen it in another thread.
Can we just talk about the fucking film now? To begin with, I thought the conflict between Puritanism and the supernatural was pretty eerie. It really reminded me of the Salem Trials.
>>67017428
>movie about witches set in 17th century America reminded him of the Salem witch trials
>this is the average /tv/ insight
>>67017428
What's the Salem Trials like? I've not seen it
>>67017478
It reminded me a bit of The Orphanage actually.
>>67017309
>stopping mobile users from making threads, or even commenting
Gee, where have I seen this sort of treatment before?
Nazi Germany?
South Africa?
The Deep South?
Jesus Christ. Why the fuck does it matter that someone is posting on a phone? It would take a really petty cunt to get worked up over such a trivial matter. "But muh post quality"! Not everyone who posts through a mobile is on the go. If I'm posting on a phone, I'll make sure to make a lengthy and detailed post, not some brief message like the ones that you claim are shitting on this board. Lower quality threads my ass. I've seen some massive walls of text posted by the most autistic and bitter fuck-nuggets on this site. Aren't they low quality? Shouldn't they be forbidden from posting? Of course not, you fucking idiot; you'd rather focus on your little mobile inquisition and kick up a fuss about fuck-all. Seriously, be an adult and take this crybaby criticism to the mods, because we don't fucking care. This is /tv/, not a safe space for mobile haters. If you want to contribute something useful to the film board, then discuss some fucking films. Stop moaning like a pathetic kid whose had his Twinkie Bar stolen. Honest to God, just get off this board. I thought the fucking /v/ invasion was over. Obviously not, as you've came along, plonked your fat ass on your chair and spewed some shit about mobiles. There are indeed mobile posters in /tv/. Now stop being a whinging cuckold and focus on relevant topics.
Need to watch it, apparently the girl has a nice ass too.
>>67017253
>lowered level of discourse
Have you seen this site? Have you taken a good long look at some of the fucking people on this site? "Lowered level of discourse". The discourse on 4chan has been a radioactive lumpen tumour long before mobiles happened.
>triggered by image.jpg
Not to sound contrarian, but I hate 4chan so fucking much.
>>67017309
You are incorrect Mr Reddits. Go drink a pint of Clorox.
>>67017253
I'm not even going to make a clever comment. With the upmost sincerity, you're a fucking cunt.
Where can i watch it? Been waiting for this movie since i saw the first trailer, but it's not showing anywhere near my city.
>>67017480
Lol europeans
