Jump to content

Hacked Radio Stations Broadcast Furry Sex Talk Nonstop


DrGravitas
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guessing a weak password isn't exactly 'hacking', is it? 

I think this is pretty funny though. :3 Let us be thankful that the people who commandeered the station chose to broadcast awkward furry love instead of propaganda of the Islamic state, or some other dastardly material. 

  • Like 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just imagining some poor bastard on his commute listening to shit wondering what the fuck he was listening to. 

rip

EDIT: lol "furry sex podcast". Anyone know the exact audio/show that was used? I wanna listen to it so I can laugh and then feel bad. 

Edited by PastryOfApathy
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, PastryOfApathy said:

I'm just imagining some poor bastard on his commute listening to shit wondering what the fuck he was listening to. 

rip 

Trapped in his car, he reaches to the radio to change the channel, but finds that the dials and buttons have become jammed. The traffic is heavy and his car draws to a stop; it's gridlock and there is no escape, but he...doesn't seem to mind. He doesn't want to, but he can't help it; he's actually enjoying it. 

10 minutes later he is desperately pawing and crying. He will never go back. 

  • Like 12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you even say to such a thing?

Oh murr?

They were just being silly murry purry furries?

Well, that's another strike for the fandom? 

Where do I sign up?

Oh wow this is just too good!

 

Stay classy, furries. ;) 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DrGravitas said:

Two radio stations were hacked to play furry sex discussion podcasts on repeat for about 90 minutes. The "hacked" equiptment is believed to have been left in default configurations and with at least 2 of the passwords guessed being only 6 characters long. Discuss.

 

I approve of this message.  

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Mr. Fox said:

What do you even say to such a thing?

Oh murr?

They were just being silly murry purry furries?

Well, that's another strike for the fandom? 

Where do I sign up?

Oh wow this is just too good!

 

Stay classy, furries. ;) 

I feel like it's no more likely that the perpetrator(s) was a furry than they weren't. Clearly, they intended to embarrass the stations with vulgar and sexual content. It maybe that they were furries who chose familiar content, but it could easily be that the podcast simply provided an easily attainable selection of the content they wanted.

Would be nice if they caught them and we could find out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, DrGravitas said:

I feel like it's no more likely that the perpetrator(s) was a furry than they weren't. Clearly, they intended to embarrass the stations with vulgar and sexual content. It maybe that they were furries who chose familiar content, but it could easily be that the podcast simply provided an easily attainable selection of the content they wanted.

Would be nice if they caught them and we could find out.

Well furry porn talk has that extra "wtf" factor to it that like Howard Stern or something doesn't have. Also it's infinitely more niche.

Only thing I can think of that would be worse would be like a brony tulpa fucking podcast.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PastryOfApathy said:

You know the exact uh, "episode"?

Since the hackers pulled from that archive stream, I'm having trouble finding anyone that can conclusively pin down what exactly ended up going over the air. (I'm assuming the archive stream would kick in at an essentially random episode? I'm at work so I can't check.)

One poster on Ars identified this one:
https://furcast.fm/episodes/fc-224/ (NSFW)

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do feel genuinely bad for FurCast, but besides that, I find this amusing as hell.

I can only imagine how the average Texan or Breckenridgean tried to parse the contents of that podcast. The very thought has me in stitches. :D

Describing FurCast as a "vulgar furry sex podcast" positively screams "double standard," though. I started listening to episode 224 this morning, and aside from the actual obscenities, the sexual jokes and innuendos were roughly equivalent to things I've heard from morning deejays, or at the most, Howard Stern. Maybe I just haven't gotten to the really raunchy part yet, but really, anyone who's shocked by the content has clearly never been around 20-something-year-old guys, especially gay or bi ones.

Anytime a radio deejay makes a sexual or "adult" comment or joke, we should just describe their whole schtick as "sexual" or "vulgar," just to be fair. ;) I think that would be pretty instructive.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Furries tend to be far less prudish than FCC-sanctioned society at large, thus all furry podcasts automatically default to being sex talk podcasts.

I bet dollars to donuts FurCast was chosen precisely because it's an uncensored furry stream that has a CDN big enough to support hijacking for widespread pirate broadcasting.

Also, FurCast's statement.

Edited by ArielMT
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, ArielMT said:

Furries tend to be far less prudish than FCC-sanctioned society at large, thus all furry podcasts automatically default to being sex talk podcasts.

I bet dollars to donuts FurCast was chosen precisely because it's an uncensored furry stream that has a CDN big enough to support hijacking for widespread pirate broadcasting.

Also, FurCast's statement.

...Odd use of the word 'wherein'. 'Wherein it is marked for'. 'Which is marked as' would have been better. 

 

I wonder whether the publicity will increase FurCast's traffic. 

Edited by Saxon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/8/2016 at 1:46 PM, Troj said:

I do feel genuinely bad for FurCast, but besides that, I find this amusing as hell.

I can only imagine how the average Texan or Breckenridgean tried to parse the contents of that podcast. The very thought has me in stitches. :D

Describing FurCast as a "vulgar furry sex podcast" positively screams "double standard," though. I started listening to episode 224 this morning, and aside from the actual obscenities, the sexual jokes and innuendos were roughly equivalent to things I've heard from morning deejays, or at the most, Howard Stern. Maybe I just haven't gotten to the really raunchy part yet, but really, anyone who's shocked by the content has clearly never been around 20-something-year-old guys, especially gay or bi ones.

Anytime a radio deejay makes a sexual or "adult" comment or joke, we should just describe their whole schtick as "sexual" or "vulgar," just to be fair. ;) I think that would be pretty instructive.

 

I guess I can't take Ars Technica seriously then. I asked them if I don't sensor my speech, does it count as sex? They haven't responded yet, but I am curious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Augmented Husky said:

 found this quote from Furcast particularly amusing especially for the nature of who they spread the content to with the hack

"We have no interest in being discovered by a mainstream audience."

The context of "mainstream audience" is in contrast to "niche audience," which, let's face it, the furry fandom is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...