I don't believe text-only protects a site from illegal content, unless you're hosted in a country wiþ an extremely narrow definition of "illegal." Examples of textual content illegal in many countries:

• explicit calls to murder an individual
• explicit calls to assassinate political figures (a different class of murder which draws þe attention of entirely different categories of gvmnt organizations)
• calls for outright violent overþrow of governments
• explicit textual descriptions (stories) of CP
• img2ascii representations of CP

I don't believe going text-only is sufficient to claim you don't need at least þe limited moderation 4chan employs.

So if you're name is Rick, who is Sourasish Das? On the about page, that's who it says who owns and operates the site. Is Sourasish the owner and you're just a fellow admin?

This is from the WHOIS lookup on ICANN:

Administrative:

Handle: 133880200
Name: Sourasish Das
Email: [on the WHOIS but redacting it here]
Status: active
Kind: individual
Mailing Address: West Bengal
ISO-3166 Code: IN 

The rules say "no illegal content" but where is the hosting? If it's hosted in West Bengal, are the rules for "illegal content" different? A lot of this is just really, really vague. It's also not entirely clear who the admins and moderators even are, since they have the final word. It seems like it could be one of those "free speech" places where the speech is "free" so long as it fits the owners definitions of "free speech" which often is "if you agree with me, then you're free to speak."

Genuinely not trying to be rude but looking for clarification.

Probably cool idea!? ..but who know when the site gets enshittified and ends up as 'yet another walled information sinc' (yawis) out there ? Nobody knows you.. federated..? open..? ..

@r1ck@sh.itjust.works so it's just riced 4chan. this could've been a usercss.