4chan is back after a nearly two-week shutdown, but it still has some serious problems

Engadget - Apr 27th, 2025

4chan, the notorious online forum, has resumed operations after a significant security breach caused a temporary shutdown. On April 14, hackers accessed 4chan's source code, leading to a catastrophic database attack that exposed personal information of both users and the moderation team. This prompted the moderators to shut down the servers to prevent further damage. Although the site is back online, posting and image functionalities remain disabled. In response, 4chan announced changes, including the permanent closure of the /f/ board and a temporary ban on PDF uploads. The forum is also recruiting volunteers to help restore full operations.

The incident underscores persistent challenges for 4chan, particularly in securing financial backing needed for essential updates and security measures. Due to its controversial content, finding advertisers and payment providers willing to support 4chan proves difficult, leaving the site vulnerable to future attacks. While the moderation team remains determined to keep the forum afloat, the lack of a sustainable funding model and outdated infrastructure suggests ongoing vulnerabilities, pointing to potential future disruptions.

Cybersecurity Internet Culture 4chan Hackers Database Breach Online Forums

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

6.2

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article provides a generally accurate and timely account of 4chan's shutdown and return, focusing on the technical and financial challenges faced by the site. While it is clear and readable, the piece lacks depth and external perspectives, relying heavily on information purportedly from 4chan's own blog post. This reliance on a single source raises questions about the article's balance and source quality. The story is relevant to public interest and has the potential to provoke discussion, but its impact is limited by the lack of corroborating evidence and broader context. Overall, the article serves as a straightforward update on a significant event but could benefit from additional insights and verification to enhance its credibility and engagement potential.

Accuracy

The article provides a generally accurate account of the events surrounding 4chan's shutdown and subsequent return. It correctly identifies the timeline of the site's downtime and the reasons behind it, such as the database attack and security breaches. However, the article's claim about the specific 'Still Standing' blog post and its contents cannot be verified with the information available. Additionally, while the article mentions the site's operational status post-restoration, this information is not corroborated by independent sources. The mention of financial struggles aligns with 4chan's historical context, but lacks direct evidence from the sources examined.

Balance

The article provides a singular perspective focused on the technical and financial challenges faced by 4chan. It lacks input from external experts or stakeholders who could provide additional insights into the implications of the hack and the site's return. The piece could benefit from a broader range of viewpoints, particularly from cybersecurity experts or financial analysts, to offer a more nuanced understanding of the situation. The narrative seems to favor 4chan's perspective, especially regarding its financial difficulties, without exploring the broader context of its controversial reputation.

Clarity

The article is generally clear and well-structured, presenting the sequence of events in a logical manner. The language is straightforward, allowing readers to easily follow the narrative. However, some technical terms related to cybersecurity could be better explained for a general audience. The tone remains neutral, focusing on the facts without sensationalism, which aids in maintaining clarity and understanding.

Source quality

The article primarily relies on information purportedly from 4chan's own blog post, which raises questions about the reliability and bias of the source. There is a lack of external corroboration from other credible sources, such as cybersecurity reports or independent analyses, which would enhance the article's credibility. The absence of direct quotes or references to third-party investigations limits the depth of the reporting and leaves readers dependent on a single perspective.

Transparency

The article does not provide sufficient transparency regarding how the information was obtained or verified. It references a blog post but does not link to it or provide direct quotes, making it difficult for readers to assess the validity of the claims. Additionally, there is no disclosure of potential conflicts of interest or biases that might affect the reporting. The lack of methodology or source attribution undermines the transparency of the article.