The Possibilities and Pitfalls of Web Communities

The internet is an interesting social experiment. Information flies to and fro with mind-boggling speed and frequency. The world is getting smaller and smaller as it is possible to reach almost any industrialized area of the world.

This is great from many perspectives. This is great because there is an ever-watchful eye wherever there is a modem. Victims of social injustice need only blog about it for people around the world to take notice. This is great because of the possibility to grant the poor of any nation a means for self-education.

Of course, there are downsides to every upside. For instance, a company can now collect information about your internet browsing to target you for their products. The government has another means with which to track its citizens. Criminals can directly and anonymously target their prey for identity theft, and congregate in internet safe-houses to commune for the purposes of sharing child porn, sensitive national information, or bomb recipes.

The internet is a digital wild west, a massive frontier, even after 20 years of it being heavily populated. It is near impossible to effectively police, because for every 10 people you imprison, 100 new people step into the void. For instance, despite nearly a decade of the RIAA and MPAA trying to curtail copyright violations through file sharing, the act of downloading a song illegally is easier for the current generation than during the initial Napster fiasco.

So, how is this mini-essay a discussion on Web Communities? Well, since the internet is, for all intents and purposes, without law, it exists as an Anarchy. Now, I mean an anarchy in the political sense, not in the Britpunk "smash-em-up" sense or the term that is used synonymously with "chaos." Anarchy is (theoretically) an orderly society with the absence of a centralized governing body, in which each person within contains absolute freedom. This ideology is usually dismissed as idealistic and naive, basically presupposing that human nature is primitive and selfish and that a centralized government is essential to the survival of ALL at the expense of the minority deviants.

However, with the existence of Web Communities, we can witness experiments in anarchy. Exploring certain websites can reveal somewhat orderly anarchist societies that exist within their national government structure.

Content Aggregates:


Fark is one of a few websites (others being SomethingAwful.com, Slashdot.com and Collegehumor.com) that exist as content aggregates, posting stories and links that are contributed by users, and then discussed. Now this is barely an anarchist structure, but it serves as a decent basis of comparison. These websites are frequently moderated so as to enforce general legality (to protect the site from lawsuits and police raids) and to promote a positive community atmosphere (no racism, warnings before posting explicit material).

These websites are fairly good examples of a community that establishes itself within a global community, sets its own guidelines, and essentially operates on its own without governmental interference. There is no president or centralized figure in the traditional sense, although it could be argued that the site owner Drew set the rules, and can change them at any time. But for this argument, Fark is a self-policed community that exists with relatively little interference.


Social Bookmarking Sites

Digg.com, del.icio.us, Stumbleupon and the ilk are information sharing sites. Digg in particular is very much like Fark, in the sense that it's a community with it's own language and it's basically a news aggregate. The difference in these sites is that the content is contributed and VOTED on by the users, so that the most popular sites, information, photos and videos rise to the top and the least impressive content is forgotten.

This is an interesting bridge between the former websites and the websites that we will discuss after, because the moderation of the site is done primarily without centralized figures. The community decides if a comment is "buried" based on the amount of votes it gets in either direction (dugg or buried). This is essentially an anarchist society. They interact positively and are generally courteous to each other, have spirited debates and the website doesn't cave in on itself. Now of course this can be argued that this is also not a true anarchy because it was established with a certain rule set established by the creators. But it's close.

Imageboards (Futaba clones)


These sets of websites are not only the most interesting, but also the most resembling anarchy. Websites like the "chans" (4chan, 7chan, etc) are essentially forums, based on the Japanese Futaba Channel imageboard, wherein a post consists of an image and a text post. However, contrary to other online forums (which most often reflect totalitarianism), these forums thrive in the anonymity of its users. Typically, no user is named, and each post is made by "Anonymous." Yes, the infamous Anonymous that has been labeled the "Internet Hate Machine" by ill informed media.

The users of these "chan" websites (henceforth referred to as Anonymous for ease) have been responsible for several organized "invasions" of other websites, wherein they join a website, whether it be forum or social roleplaying sites like Secondlife, for the sole purpose of harassing it, typically with racism and extreme pornography. They have been responsible for a nationwide phone pranking of the videogame chain Gamestop. They are essentially responsible for the "Rickroll" phenomenon, as well as many other internet memes.

Upon initial perusal, a casual browser would be appalled by the content on the chans. Many of the posts represent what is most vile about human nature, such as the human fascination with gore and taboo words, with explicit material and Schadenfreude, with spectacle and sexism. But, it is common to human nature to be fascinated with those things in real life. This website just doesn't suppress it.

Now, as for it's anarchist nature, the website does have moderation. However, due to the computer prowess of most Anonymous users, moderation is essentially useless. Most users surf the site through proxies, so that if they are banned or moderated, they simply come back with a different proxy. If they are successfully banned, then they just float to another "chan" which are all interconnected through their common audience. They remain in the link.

Most recently, Anonymous has begun to make itself known, not through silly pranks, but fighting a real threat. They have made it their mission to combat Scientology. They have even organized protests throughout America to bring attention to the seemingly wicked ways of the Church of Scientology.

Now, this was a loosely organized effort on the part of Anonymous, but it's immensely important in terms of Anarchy and its ramifications. Here is a group with no centralized leadership, deciding and enacting its own rules. No centralized leadership, and yet the ability to organize several national protests against a group that it deems dangerous.

Aside from Anonymous being a successful real life application of Anarchy, the ramifications of its organization are extremely important. The successful organization of Anonymous shows that it we have a new power available to us. It shows that the protection of the internet is essential towards preserving our civil liberties. The internet is in its essence our unalienable right to organize, to band together against injustice, and to, if need be, combat evil forces that threaten to take away our rights.

While Anonymous represents a lot of what's reprehensible about humanity, it also represents its resourcefulness. Governments can't necessarily shut down these sites, because as one gets shut down, 3 sprout in its place. They operate similarly to a terrorist cell, in that they are all independent, although interconnected. With no centralized figures, or even individual identities, Anonymous shows a strong internal structure, because if one member or group of members should go down in their illegal or subversive activities, the rest of Anonymous can continue operating without fear, because they are all kept ignorant about with who they are working. Should a nation be invaded, or attacked by its own government, Anonymous shows us that we can fight back. We are safe as long as we are interconnected.

Now, imagine that Anonymous' war on Scientology is just a warm-up. Imagine that they as a hive-mind start developing a conscience, a need for social equity, a desire to see the world better than it is. Imagine if they start working together for good, instead of for self-satisfaction (for the LULZ.)

Imagine then what amazing things they could accomplish.

Update on Pandering

And this is the long version.

This honestly makes me ill that we have to sink so low.

The Green Fad and Earth Day

You're going to see a lot about Earth Day today. Not because the media companies care about the Earth, not because celebrities care about the way things are going, not because corporate entities feel the moral obligation to undo the damage that they do to the planet.

You're going to see a lot about earth day because the fad is currently profitable.

Article about Companies producing "green" products

Clorox Green Works homepage (something about a bleach company trying to tell me that their product is safe for the environment doesn't sit well with me.)

On one hand, someone could argue that this fad could end up benefiting the Earth in that it'll get people more aware of the problems.

I argue that it's detrimental, because the fad will only stimulate solutions that are short-sighted and lack long-term vision, which could severely damage the Earth more than help. I mean hell, look at the problems with ethanol. More on that later tonight.

The "Epic" Battle for President

Politics can certainly be exciting.

But, are we as Americans so starved for action that we have to make this political race a battle of epic proportions?

The media leads us to believe that every political debate is a fight, a knockdown drag-out winner-take-all match of fisticuffs. Each criticism of the other candidate is considered a 'barbed' comment, or that one is 'sniping' at the other. Why can't they simply be discussing important subjects passionately?

Why must every headline you see pertaining to the primaries contain provocative wording? OBAMA VS. HILLARY THE FINAL SHOWDOWN. Duke it out? Epic victories? What the hell is this, football? Professional wrestling?

Now, it's bad enough that the media hooks the public into this divisive battle of epic proportions, but the candidates themselves start to pander to this media coverage. It's a vicious cycle: the media manufactures a battle where there is none, the audience eats it up because it's engrossing (think Greek coliseum warriors), and the candidates, thinking that they have to garner the audience's approval to collect their votes, pander to this character that has been created for them.

The following video is the end result. I couldn't tell if it was satirical at first, but then I realized that it was an ad for the upcoming WWE show. My heart sank.



If the candidates truly want to be taken seriously, and truly care about the issues at hand, then they shouldn't encourage this kind of attention. Because when it comes time for the real issues to be addressed, people aren't going to be listening. They're going to be waiting for the next spectacle.