- Few sites give their users a platform to share ideas quite like 4chan’s—a virtual Speakers’ Corner—where anyone can express their opinions on equal footing. Every person who creates a thread has that thread appear at the very top of the index, and no amount of karma or social capital can save it from the depths of irrelevance. It’s ideas, not reputations, that shine here.
4chan isn’t without its problems and is by no means a utopia, but in many ways provides an accurate representation of who we are: flawed, imperfect. I see beauty in that, and something worthy of continued exploration.
I've had conversations with people that seem to think that anonymity means that people are more prone to lie. I'm not sure this is true, I'd be surprised if it were true here, at Hubski. I think it's the opposite. When you know that your neighbor, mom, sister, former classmates etc can all see what you are saying and associate it with you, you're more likely to lie and to say that which is socially acceptable. I think in a community where anonymity exists we tend to get more honesty (sometimes brutal honesty) from people. Many of us have usernames here that can easily be traced to our real names (myself included) but the anonymity is just enough to allow me to speak freely. I agree with Chris Poole that we could potentially lose something extremely valuable if anonymity were to be tossed aside.
There are three kinds of anonymity: - total anonymity. This is what you get at 4chan. You post something, nobody knows where it's from. - transitory anonymity. This is a blog comment with a throwaway name, or a Youtube comment. You can own your comments, but there's no reputation, there's no accountability. - conditional anonymity. This is what you get at Hubski, at Reddit, at eBay. You are anonymous, but your alias is not. There are consequences to your persona for misbehavior. There's a bifurcation between your "real life" and your "internet life" that forms a Chinese Wall between the two, preventing blowback from one injuring the other, but you are vulnerable to attack. moot is a firm believer in total anonymity because his head is completely up his ass. It's not entirely his fault; while most people's parents would have made them go to school and socialize with other humans, moot's mom let him set up 4chan in his basement. Nonetheless, he's now a grown human being that really ought to brush up on the insanely hurtful shit done in his name. There are no experts in the field that find total anonymity to be anything but hurtful to discourse. People who want to do good want the conditional anonymity - being the "man behind the mask" is enough. People who want to do bad want total anonymity - you want to make sure that nothing you ever say or do will get back to you. Total anonymity is a bank robber. Conditional anonymity is a "caped crusader" - or a serial killer like Zodiac or the Night Stalker. Total anonymity has its place, but "large online communities" ain't it. This has been abundantly clear since the days of Usenet. "The mob is man voluntarily descending to the nature of the beast. Its fit hour of activity is night. Its actions are insane like its whole constitution. It persecutes a principle; it would whip a right; it would tar and feather justice, by inflicting fire and outrage upon the houses and persons of those who have these. It resembles the prank of boys, who run with fire-engines to put out the ruddy aurora streaming to the stars".
- Ralph Waldo Emerson, Selected Essays and Lectures, Essay III, "Compensation"
Dude, I'll warn you once. Don't get all 'citation needed' in a conversation someone else pointed out to you that happened a month ago. Smiley faces don't hide shit. I will fuck you up. So let's start over again, as if this were a choose-your-own-adventure book. "You are traipsing through an online community to show off your coding project. You encounter someone who professes to have an understanding of the basis of your design. Do you: A) Ask him to elaborate so that you might learn something? or B) Snipe at his month-old statements in an attempt to find a reason to discount what he has to say?"
"inflammatory" implies you have a stake in the matter. You don't. You can't be "inflamed" by something that happened a month before you even got here that has nothing to do with you. On the other hand, going through point-by-point and attacking the delivery (rather than the content) of a message is inflammatory as fuck. I'm finding little reason to continue talking to you.
I find this an interesting piece, as it is one of the more important aspects of online communities that hubski has to deal with. What I think is that anonymity lends itself to more freedom, which has the implications that yes, there are more people lying than if there was no anonymity, but more people telling the truth too. I think we have a fair balance here, where it is completely possible to stay anonymous but if you don't mind your doxing profile that is equally possible. At the same time I don't want to think about the consequences of my writings. It shouldn't limit or change what I want to say.
I hate that he notes that anonymity is a more nuanced subject than a set of binary extremes but then simplifies everything with "Anonymity vs Non-Anonymity". I'm also not sure we should be looking to 4chan for inspiration into the future of identity or for how to build a healthy community.
What a festering crock of SHIT. 4chan is a virtual "penthouse forum" where the most intelligent thought ever formulated starts with "be 14" and where the anonymity provokes not just antisocial behavior, but violence. We've been raided by /b/ twice and listen close my children - this is not some egalitarian force for truth, justice and the Internet Way. This is angry, antisocial 14-year-olds with no outlet for their aggression other than night letters against strangers. 4chan-grade anonymity doesn't just permit a degradation of human discourse - it sets it as the goal. Conditional anonymity keeps people in line somewhat but total anonymity is the rule of the mob. This is the shit moot is championing. I hope that fucker never gets a job.
I agree that Poole paints a picture that could lead my mother to think that 4chan was a place worth checking out. There are some very damaged people there. I have been told that some great discussions occur there, and I believe it. However, there can be no doubt that some use the combination of anonymity and audience for terrible things. Poole is right that there is value in anonymity. However, there are also some things that people will only do when they have that kind of cover. I don’t see 4chan as a fine example of the gifts of anonymity. I do find it interesting the difference between a community with pseudonyms and a completely anonymous one. IMO the difference is as striking as that between one using real-name and pseudonyms. The ephemerality part is interesting. I wonder what 4chan would look like if posts were permanent. IRL our conversations are real-ID but ephemeral. That’s the medium we use most. I can’t think of a large online platform equivalent.
I don't think anonymity is the sole reason /b/ is the way it is. I think the raiding, paedophilia and casual use of slurs became the thing people talked about when they talked about /b/, and people started wanting to live up to the stories it tells about itself. Maybe that wouldn't have happened without anonymity, but I don't think anonymity causes that to happen.
I have spoken to five different Archangelles. They enjoy being coy, but they'll admit they're Goons on a foreign adventure. It is one big troll, just like this one. The SRS playbook is, beat for beat, the Geno playbook as deployed against Habbo Hotel.
I really don't see that much wrong with SRS. They're extreme, and a circle-jerk, echo-chamber, but they're at least in on the joke. And Reddit is so awful with misogyny, racism and just general shitty-ness that its nice to see it get called out sometimes. Doxxing pedophiles is hardly the most evil demonic thing in the world that the rest of reddit makes it out to be. Anonymous does it and reddit loves them. I don't go on SRS or really have any connection to them but it seems from the very limited knowledge I have of them but I get the feeling that all the hate is more likely from Reddit's anti-feminism circle-jerk than from anything intrinsically bad about them. Feel free to prove me wrong, you guys may know more about it than I do.
The environment favors damaged people. This is no accident. Great conversations can happen anywhere, despite the environment. A good environment fosters great conversations. See response to TNG below. With all the screengrabbing, they often are. I will say this: I've seen more horrible shit inb4 ban than Reddit's worst.There are some very damaged people there.
I have been told that some great discussions occur there, and I believe it.
I do find it interesting the difference between a community with pseudonyms and a completely anonymous one. IMO the difference is as striking as that between one using real-name and pseudonyms.
The ephemerality part is interesting. I wonder what 4chan would look like if posts were permanent.
I've spent a lot of time on 4chan and can say that there is interesting conversation happening on that site. Even 4chan can't escape the eternal September. It's shit at the moment and I rarely see interesting content like I used to, but the content is there.......Buried beneath the trap threads and nigger nigger nigger.
To be fair your picture has absolutely nothing to do with 4chan (although I admit they could easily do something like that). As you say elsewhere in the thread: - total anonymity. This is what you get at 4chan. You post something, nobody knows where it's from. - transitory anonymity. This is a blog comment with a throwaway name, or a Youtube comment. You can own your comments, but there's no reputation, there's no accountability. - conditional anonymity. This is what you get at Hubski, at Reddit, at eBay. You are anonymous, but your alias is not. There are consequences to your persona for misbehavior. There's a bifurcation between your "real life" and your "internet life" that forms a Chinese Wall between the two, preventing blowback from one injuring the other, but you are vulnerable to attack. This was on reddit, not 4chan. So an example of conditional anonymity, not total anonymity. I don't think the problem is total anonymity, the problem is that people on the computer think they're safe and they can be an asshole. I see people ALL THE TIME say the most horrible things on facebook to groups and things like that, thats not anonymous at all.There are three kinds of anonymity: