Venture out into the big wide world and become men?

>>437876

Nah, sod that.

I suggest we use the hashtag #britfags on Twitter to announce the backup URL or figure out a plan B.

There's a discord link toward the end of the /e/ sticky. That's how most found the IP, so it seems.

>>437878
I tried Googling 'Britfa.gs Discord' but it was primarily the expired link in the /e/ thread that came up.

The domain going down is easy to deal with, I could simply run a cron job to resolve the IP every day and if it ever throws NXDOMAIN I could simply reirect e.g. shedchan.uk to the latest IP address. The trick would be having people remember to use shedchan or whatever if britfa goes down.

If the server itself goes down / sets on fire / gets held hostage by the popo then that's a whole lot harder to deal with.

Years ago I used to archive this site with a set of basic python scripts and it wouldn't be that hard to start back up again. The problem there would be if people started using the cloned site and then a week later the real site came back up.

I guess I'd actually have to install Discord (whatever the fuck it actually is) and hash it out with the mod lads in the case of an actual TEACON1 "purpz dropped the server in a giant glass on vegan wine" situation.

Sage for addled rambling.

>>437880
Someone suggested Twitter in the other thread, if someone has a spare mobile number to set up a teacon account with that the mods have access to that would work. Just have a visible link to it somewhere on the site so we all remember it's there and what to search for when it's needed.

>>437881
Why is a mobile number needed?

>>437892
Because Twitter has a habit of suspending accounts it thinks are bots based on fuck knows what criteria and the only way to un-suspend it is by setting up 2fa.

>>437881

Both "britfa" and "britfags" are taken, since 2009 One even (coincidentally?) somewhat echoes this place's manifesto: "Reassuringly apolitical" .

>>437893
I do wish more sites would let you use a yubikey or a duosec app for 2fa. SMS is totally insecure for that purpose. Then again, what they want isn't to protect your account; they want to tie your account to your identity.

What'd be a more open alternative to twitter? Do we finally create r/britfa and have a sticky post that gets updated in times of crisis?

>>437898
>Both "britfa" and "britfags" are taken, since 2009
So is "teacon" but it's not hard to think of a variant for it.

>>437898

There are loads of open alternatives to Twitter, but the advantages of using Twitter as the bat signal are (IMO) that it's unlikely to ever go down, it's the sort of place you'd check if .gs has gone down and it's indexed quite well by Google.

If you want to create a totally resilient backup, I'd suggest reading up on IPFS.

>>437901

That's probably a bit overkill. Having a backup server/vps somewhere that gets the database and images rsync'd over every twelve hours and a secondary domain name britfags.uk isn't currently registered that isn't a complete and total pain to renew / handled by a bunch of cunts would probably be all you need.

I'd be happy to stump up the £5/month to run a digital ocean droplet for the backup server but we'd have to figure out a way to do that at least semi-anonymously so that I don't wake up one day to find one of you weirdos breaking into my shed and taking apart from lawnmower motor or whatever it is you lot do in your spare time Other than voyeuring on your neighbours and shagging your birds in the staff bathrooms of select branches of Timpsons that are next to a Gregs, I mean.

I looked up .gs on Twitter and there was a girl talking about it in 2015, crazy.

>>437911

This tickled me.

>>437911
Most of the Twitter mentions appear to be image links. I think we do or at least did strangely well in Google Image Search and so there's no guarantee most of those people really know about this place.

>>437915

I thought that too, though I don't know how many people not aware of this place would paste a link with "fa.gs" in it. Though maybe if you're that computer illiterate you don't even look at the url.

>>437914
I kind of miss when people used to act like Charlie Brooker and Mark Corrigan.

It's been about 10 years since Screenwipe ended and 8 since Peep Show did. Has there been nothing in the past decade or so that has connected with our user base in a similar way?

>>437918
They are thinking of putting BBC Three back on the air, what do you think?

>>437922
It was largely shit, from what I can recall.

>>437922
That would seem a bit backwards, since the whispers were that the BBC would rather ditch linear television entirely if they could.

>>437924
Really? According to t'internet, the average BBC1 viewer is 61 and the average BBC2 viewer is 62 years old -- a fact that should make even this site's userbase feel young. I guess that's why they can't ditch linear?

Is there anyone on this site that watches The One Show? I feel like if you're ready for The One Show, you're ready for death.

>>437936

My grandma watches The One Show, and she's at an age and state of health that people are frequently surprised she's still alive.

I quite like Father Brown. I've already made my thoughts known on Bunty.

>>437936

So then if you enjoy watching BBC Four, you're 64 on average?

It would also mean that BBC Three was hopelessly out of sync with its audience.



I'll get my coat.