So some identifiers are apparently OK. But it's beyond the pale to reveal openly as female in your anonymous paradise. "Show me your tits or shut the fuck up!" And you think this is perfectly good and inclusive?
"Tits or GTFO" is used because it has a lot higher success rate than one would imagine. It detracts greatly from being able to have actual discussions, but if you're on /b/ you waddle through it.
I would say the response "Tits or GTFO" is not so much as to say that "we aren't interested in your gender" as the more popular ending of a post "I'm a grill btw" was. This was a play on people that, when telling a story or asking a question, where their gender played no role at all, stated their gender for no reason other than to gather attention.
They also frequently identify themselves as gay. I have seen more gay shit on 4chan without trying than any other website I have ever been to in my entire life. It's not easy for a 13 year old boy to see three men making love while dressed up like bunny rabbits. But hey, that was the internet, and that was 4chan. You had/have truly free speech. The beauty of the old internet in which OP is talking about is that everyone is discriminated against equally. No one gets a pass. If you reveal who you are, you are opening up yourself to heavy criticism. This is true in the real world, people just aren't honest about it.
Source: I'm gay as heck.
You're right. I don't speak for all gay people and that's why I said often. I certainly have talked to a lot of gay people about this topic.
So you find it difficult to believe someone who's gay would feel alienated by 4chan. What is that belief based on exactly?
Some people cannot conceive of handling the thoughts of another without an identity attached to them. Thus, the need for all thoughts to have identity attached. It is believed that linking a certain identity to certain thoughts lends them weight and credibility, and linking a different identity to the same thoughts saps them of any credibility.
In either case, some people choose not to deal with ideas as separate from identity.
I, personally, don't particularly agree. I think it's far more common for identity to be used as a cognitive shortcut by people looking to avoid engaging with and thinking about a message.
And yet I'm pretty sure that most people interacting with other anonymous people on 4chan assume that they are interacting with a male until proven otherwise, hence memes like:
* There Are No Girls On The Internet[1]
Or
* "Internet, where men are men, women are also men, and children are FBI agent"
> Even identifying yourself as a female results in "tits or GTFO" responses.
I'm not sure if you realize it, but "Tits or GTFO" responses do not mean "We don't care what your gender is, so don't bother to reveal it to us." If you believe that "Tits or GTFO" is an inclusive phrase, then you're either a massive troll, or I've got a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn...
That response traces its origins to the proliferation of attention-seeking "camwhores," and the idea that Anonymous is male until proven female. Neither of these things has anything to do with 4chan being a gender-neutral inclusive community.
[1] http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/there-are-no-girls-on-the-inte...
You're not seeing the side of this where identity is seen as a negative thing. This shows itself in the response to tripfags on almost every board that's not /o/ or /p/. Regardless of the use of the meme (it was an example, not gospel) it boils down to the same roots which implies "this is an anonymous site, you are not to be identified and if you out yourself then we will troll you". This happens to anyone of any identification. Identification is not important to the community and thus your interactions with others are judged on content and message and not identity.
EDIT: I'm commenting on the quotes specifically. I think the first part is probably correct.
Generous interpretation
Yes, but these are assumed to be male, white, American (or European), not poverty and right-wing ones, respectively. If you intentionally or unintentionally reveal that you are not one of these, you're in trouble.
You're defeating your own argument. Assumption doesn't mean it's the rule or it's true. There's no census on 4chan and there's no reason to assume that the assumption is correct.
I could argue against your views by citing the 4chan conventions which had quite a number of women and minorities. Obviously the largest group was 18-25 white males but this was by no means a significant majority.
I can also cite my own experiences in 4chan IRC channels where a lot of our members were located outside of Europe and America.
Or how about doing a census on /cgl/? It's well known among experienced users that the vast majority of users there are women.
You're not stating a fact.
Whether the assumption is correct or not is immaterial to the point I am making.
> I could argue against your views by citing the 4chan conventions which had quite a number of women and minorities.
That doesn't go against what I'm saying. Re-read my comment.
On the other hand, you also get a white male middle-class privilege by default, don't you?
This is why when communication is anonymous, not only does it change the message, it also breaks it in many ways. If we hear Obama say something, we will hear something else than if Trump said it, even if the words are exactly the same. And what if either said something anonymously? We would certainly care less, if at all.
It is only natural to consider the source of the utterance together with the utterance, and vice versa. When we speak, we skip a lot of what is included in our identity and the context we bring along with it. The kicker being, even if our identity is not part of the message, the message is still signed with it. We think of you when you speak, even if you're talking about someone else.
Not quite anonymity, but body language and tone also provides bandwidth. That is why emails can be dangerous when sent to someone who infers emotions from words that would otherwise not have been communicated in person.
Communication is complicated.
It doesn't break the message to lack identity. It forces you to consider the message on its own, stripped of whatever cultural context or baggage you might attach to it.
Though it can take practice, we can and do make use of anonymous messages. It is merely a new "mode" of communication, and it gives rise to certain types of communities. However, anonymity must be consensual for it to work. Law enforcement will still come after your identity depending on what you say, and that is a case where the consent is broken (or never acknowledged according to them). Messages become drive-by shootings, and this has an effect on the exchange.
Also, user names are not the equivalent of anonymity. On HN, karma is a feature of each identity, and baggage can be attached just as easily. And if someone says anything interesting, we can read their other comments to learn more about them. As we read more of what they've said, their user name will begin to have a unique aura. Now if we happen to read a new comment and recognize the name, it will ring a bell automatically, and we will already be working with more information than what was included in the utterance alone. At this point, we are not forced to consider the message on its own. We are working with identities that just may or may not be real.
It's kind of a mess, and it's really not fair to anyone.
Anyway. Yes, anonymity carries its own baggage. But it's a separate sort of baggage, out there to be assumed by anyone at any time. There's a long and proud history of anonymous authors affecting politics or writing biting satire that would have been impossible without anonymity.
'Identity' really isn't necessary, anyone and everyone can see the logic in something (or perhaps lack thereof). I guess what I'm saying is identity is tied to things that are often controversial like sex or race, but also issues that should be universal (like respect for all races and sexes), but it doesn't take an identity to make those things true, those things are true because (hopefully) we believe people deserve to live and live as they chose.
Identity is mostly shaped by reputation and by impression, both of which are not in our full control, and both of which just happen. So there isn't anything to believe. Identity is already part of every message, and the lack of identity is already consequential, unless one deliberately dismisses those consequences. At this point, anonymous exchanges require skill, and this is a new skill that, for example, my parents would not ever be comfortable with. The idea that "no one is talking" is new and quite novel actually. And has only become possible at large scales (as communities) with the internet.
And there are plenty of times on 4chan when people identify as male without any aversion to the label. It sounds like some people just don't want the "others" to identify themselves.
If you're a woman online trying to hide your gender from bigots/sexists/perverts, you have to make sure you don't say anything that'll give you away. You can't talk about being pregnant or morning sickness or any kind of events in your life that are female exclusive... or near exclusive. And online videogames that have realtime audio/visual with other players? Those features are pretty much off limit since your appearance/voice will most likely reveal your gender... most of the time.
If you're a minority online trying to hide your identity from bigots/racists, you have to avoid talking too much about your family history or parts of your childhood growing up because usually those contain events that'll give strong hints to your nationality. For example, if I wanted to hide the fact that my family is from Nigeria... I can't talk about my trips to visit my family in Nigeria. I can't talk about the fact that my wedding was in Nigeria since I know what most people would assume and/or ask once they learned that fact. I can't tell you how/where I first saw my wife. I probably can't tell you some of my favorite meals. Sure, on some sites like HN that's mostly tech focused I can probably go a pretty long time without anyone figuring out I'm black. But sites that aren't tech focused, sites that are more... i dunno... human focused, with topics all about life in general, not bringing up my background will be harder if I want to partake in conversation.
Historically discriminated-against sectors of our society shouldn't have to double-think every statement they make online or offline to keep some part of their identity a secret. If we go that route, then the those sectors are on constant defense and the bigots are on constant offense... and eventually, bigots win because their biases will only grow. This is equiv to the military's "Don't-ask-don't-tell" position on Homosexuality. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_ask,_don't_tell ...at best, it's a temporary "solution"(BIG quotes here) but it did not solve the problem at all.
Ironically, the kind of Internet you push for is flawed because it will make everyone self-censor and "doublethink; which is dangerous. We must protect unabridged free speech, even if it is ugly, lest we fall into the trap of an Internet where a lot of people are speaking but are not really saying anything.
As an increasingly global conversation on the internet is taking place with people in places and groups that didn't have a place or a voice before we're muddying the waters of stereotypes and accurate attempts of guessing someone's background.
Anecdote 1: I have a friend I met online. I've known him for about 6 years. We never talked about our families, shared pictures of each-other, shared real names, or shared anything personally identifiable apart for similar interests and vague references. After about two years of talking to this friend every day, I knew a few things: his family wasn't rich, he lived in a crime filled area Richmond, he smoked weed every day, he loves hip-hop, and he's not a fan of school. Now, most people with their biases and stereotypes would say "oh he's probably a young black male" and they'd have a good chance of being right. Around this time we all started talking about our personal lives. I then find out that this guy is a 25y/o white male studying a masters degree in physics who sports and amazing beard. My initial image of him is gone completely.
By anonymizing interests, beliefs, and political standings we can then apply them to anyone of any race of any gender because we don't know the truth. Our guesses could be wrong, and often are, and the ability to stereotype breaks down. Comments could suddenly be from anyone and we are forced to pay attention to the argument and not who's arguing.
You replied with an anecdote that illustrates how you got someone else's race wrong, but telling the parent poster that you disagree with his personal experience and coping mechanisms? That doesn't sit right with me.
I don't think you meant it to sound like "you're wrong about how you've learned to deal with bigots"--which would be a pretty awful thing to tell him!--but it did sound that way.
I wonder if there's a way to rephrase your rebuttal with more empathy and understanding.
Yes true. However his race didn't ultimately affect how I viewed our friendship or how I interact with him. It's an example that anonymity can break the stereotypes that we put on activities and people by removing identity. If I was wrong in my assumption about him then I may be wrong in my assumption about smtddr after learning things about his life.
>I don't think you meant it to sound like "you're wrong about how you've learned to deal with bigots"--which would be a pretty awful thing to tell him!--but it did sound that way.
You're correct here. I did not intend that. I'm going to read over both posts again and see why you think that and how I can better phrase my arguments in the future.
>That doesn't sit right with me.
Well thank you for expressing it without resorting to personal attacks and anger.
e.g. a conversation about bra quality; one can talk about how sexy they look, and if someone brings up "but lacy bras can often be overpriced and underfunctional" they more or less out themselves as a person who may know much about bras. Similarly if someone wanted to talk about mythologies, if someone goes "actually nowadays people utilize this in their traditions; I was visiting family in P region where they still practice this and they just use B now" clearly outs them.
Anonymity also tends to just have everyone assumed to be default, which is white/male and breaking out of that is assumed to be "breaking anonymity" when in reality it's merely... not being the default.
("We will never ship a product without bugs, there will always be bugs somewhere." OK, so which bugs are we going to fix? Well thats a judgement about how serious the bugs are. And people affected by different bugs will give different judegments there.)
Because a person's identity informs their thoughts. Knowing who someone is allows a reader to evaluate the validity of what they're saying. This is a primary component of information analaysis: source evaluation.
I know a lot of people want to be anonymous on the internet - and that's fine but it's depressing to see someone pretend to be an authority figure on a subject just to find out the person is a high school student (trolling or not). And it's usually pretty easy to spot.
If this [1] person was actually experienced they would know that the menu setups change depending on how you answered the question when Visual Studio first runs (at least it used to) - and menus/buttons may be missing/moved depending on that answer (I've seen this first hand and it's quite annoying trying to explain to click on something that doesn't exist). But instead he degrades the person asking for help.
How often have I wished I could at least see the age of someone when reading through comments.
I don't know if age is as useful as something like list of projects, publications, or contributions. Something to denote saying "yes - this guy has been down the path I have and released it's a dead end" rather than just spewing what he learned in class or some random article on the internet.
Someone laughed at me on reddit when I told them you didn't need a lot of money to make a good game (as you can outsource if you need to - trust me there is someone in India who is willing to create that sprite sheet for less than $20 versus your artist friend would charge $200+). They claimed you needed like $X million. An obvious counter-example would be Terraria - I know not everyone likes it but I think it's a pretty successful and well put together game. It was made by 2 guys sitting in a home office somewhere. I asked him how many games he worked on - I believe he responded with, if I remember correctly, 3.
Source criticism turns into individual criticism which turns into bigotry by certain individuals.
It's been a while since I've messed about on here: http://turing.gatech.edu/ (I don't even remember if it's the same thing I was involved in)
People are pretty good at guessing whether someone is telling the truth about their identity on the internet. Anonymity adds unnecessary obfuscation, makes for a game of trying to guess the other person's perspective. Non-anonymity should be a choice, and I believe that it adds value to a person's perspective.
We need to be comfortable with the differences between persons, we do not need some cosmic blur sweeping across our identities.
I agree. Anonymity is a tool, not a solution. I think it can help change opinions but it needs to be used properly. It's not an easy problem to solve.
The way women are treated online is horrific but Pao gave people ammunition and stoked the fires and the worst time to do so. You don't beat people with a stick when they're angry and expect to remain unscathed.
The massive leap you're making to bait the other commenter is tacky.
Grasping at straws. She was met with a massive, organised campaign of hatred. This isn't explained by being "old" or having a "poor business background".
But being a 1) female, 2) asian person who had 3) recently lost a highly-publicised gender discrimination lawsuit and 4) enacted an anti-harassment policy would explain the hatred. There is a large number of people who are misogynist, racist and/or openly hostile to what they view as "political correctness". And a much larger number of people who will listen to and possibly be pursuaded their lies.
The previous (interim) CEO, Yishan, was also Asian and did not receive any kind of negative sentiment due to it or even any mention of it.
The word "organised" was a poor choice on my part. "Mass" might be more accurate.
Though I know it wasn't an entirely disorganised thing.
You think that's any better?
Here. This doesn't make sense. Why are people, or do people feel the need to link their identity to their thoughts online. If you're pushing for equality then why are you assigning a gender, race, or political affiliation to your comments? If we are all equal then why separate yourself with labels?
This is why having your online identity linked with your real identity is a bad thing in lots of cases. This is why anonymity is important.
Every conversation I've had on 4chan I have no clue what gender the other person is, what race they are, where they live, how much money they make, what organizations they support, or what their name is real or not. The only thing that matters is what they're saying or what pictures they're posting. Even identifying yourself as a female results in "tits or GTFO" responses. You can see this as hate speech against women or the community saying in it's own fucked up way "we don't care and you shouldn't announce these labels to us". But in the end it pushes away the labels that people have such a problem with. And nobody's comments are getting downvoted so there goes the echo chamber mechanic built into Reddit.
In an ironic twist the "internet hate machine" can be far more inclusive than Reddit.