Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
The idea that anonymous boards automatically produce better content than named ones
The central argument is that, when nobody is identified on a board, the words become the central focus rather than the people saying them, and this encourages people to speak their minds and do their own thing without fear of personal backlash. Here's a direct quote from Reddit on the subject:
>Building off of that, society judges you within its own boundaries, so you become forced to act how everyone else acts. It takes a very strong willed person to do something as simple as go in the city without shoes on.
First things first: couldn't it be argued that that's exactly the same situation with the anon boards? That is, acting different from the usual board "zeitgeist" as it were gets you in trouble with the others? To mention a liking for certain genres or artists on /mu/, for example, is a deathwish.
(Also, I wear shoes into town because sidewalk and pavement aren't pleasant to walk on.)
As for content, consider Something Awful; their content is great, and you have to pay to register a name there.
Comments
Indeed. It takes a strong will to ignore how painful walking down town can be.
People wear shoes downtown because it's a good idea
Meh, there's nothing different between personal and impersonal backlash, and chanboards suffer as much from herdthink as the other way around. Besides, even chans have tripfags.
I don't think there's any real evidence that anonymous forums have better content than normal ones. It completely depends on the quality of the people using them, and I think places like 4-chan scare good people off because they've acquired a reputation as the Internet equivalent of Dodge City.
I'd just find it weird interacting with completely anonymous people.
Saying that anonymity ensures good discussion is just as dumb as saying forcing people to pay ensures good discussion.
I do think there is something to be said about anonymous discussion, insofar as I've actually had good discussions in 4Chan. Of course, thing is, I've had good discussion here and we're not anonymous. Well, we're pseudonymous, I suppose, but it still works.
Pseudonyms are pretty bad, in my opinion. You should never underestimate peoples' capacity for dickishness in pursuit of glory, even e-glory. They'll form circlejerks and fruity little cliques; they'll use karma ratings or post counts to brag.
Anonymity - literal anonymity - mostly (but not entirely - that's impossible) separates human ego from the discussion and allows people to say what they actually mean without playing to the crowd. It allows people who say something that gets shot down to jump back up again in a later thread, no worse for wear.
^It also allows people to act like complete cocks with no regard for normal social consequences, so it's a zero sum game.
They act the way people really are. And if you're going for freedom, that's perfect for the discussion.
...hahahaha what
They act that way because they know it will get a reaction, which actually means they're still dominated by social constrictions, just in a different way. Saying that's conducive to discussion is like saying Team-killing over X-box live enhances a gaming experience.
@ this topic:
The idea that anonymity allows people to behave "the way they really are" is logically flawed. Anonymity is an extremely unnatural and unusual state for human beings to be in, so how can it be said that how they behave when anonymous represents the way they truly are?
It's like putting two starving rats in a cage together, seeing that they kill each other and saying "Well, that proves rats are naturally savage animals."
Removing the confounding variables of culture and identity are a good way of examining how humans behave.
Implying that this is humanity's natural state when we do not live like this is silly. Especially because we created the concept of identity
That and appeal to nature in general is a rather fallacious argument.
All it really allows people to examine is how humans act in an anonymous environment
Not to mention the culture of how you can and can't act in actual places of consequence still influences your actions.
Also, Juan, I believe you meant to say fallacious.
ETA: oh hey, editing doesn't suck anymore.
There is one factor that accounts for roughly 90% of the quality of a forum. That factor is the size of the forum; once a forum reaches a certain size, it becomes too big to really function as a community.
Hmm, this discussion makes me want to join an anonymous board. Seriously.
Because I've figured out recently that I hate communities.
you don't "join" an anonymous board. With that said, there's always Four Chan.
I am really tempted to snowclone this thread but replace "boards" with "bands", especially since I find the subject fascinating and I just discovered Ghost yesterday and they are good and also completely anonymous.
^ See also The Residents (if they're still going) - they were anonymous and used to dress as giant eyeballs on stage.
Giant eyeballs? I must see that!
@ship beholderess / other beholders
Captain: Oh believe me, I know. Mainly I just knew them and Doctor Steel beforehand.
The longevity of the Residents is indeed impressive. I think they use the eyeballs less though...
I just found out that the guy I quoted responded to me. I wrote this:
>I wear shoes in the city because sidewalk and pavement aren't pleasant to walk on. Get over yourself.
And here's what he said back:
>Actually, they're only unpleasant to walk on because your feet aren't used to it. Go shoeless for a month and you'll adjust.
Discuss.
Well, the thing is, it's an unnecessary change. What're the benefits of doing so? Not just from a social standpoint but from a pragmatic standpoint.
Ask him what I do about glass on the road