4chan founder: Zuckerberg is “totally wrong” about online identity

Christopher Poole, the founder of controversial online image board 4chan, outlined his vision for Web-based community today at the South by Southwest Interactive conference — and yes, his ideas are in pretty sharp contrast to those of Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg.

Zuckerberg has spent a lot of time talking about his stance on identity and privacy, especially recently, as Facebook has taken more criticism for its various privacy policies. (To get the flavor of his remarks, check out VentureBeat’s post about Zuckerberg’s privacy stance from last May, as well as David Kirkpatrick’s book The Facebook Effect.) He’s been pretty aggressive ins advocating that users should have a single identity that’s consistent they are online, because that encourages them to be more authentic (and also means they can carry their social connections with them to any site).

Poole, who is also known under his 4chan username “moot”, said, “I think that’s totally wrong.” He’s had plenty of opportunity to observe the pluses and minuses of anonymity in action, since 4chan is well-known for its anonymous user base. (In fact, the activist hacker group that emerged from 4chan is known as Anonymous.)

Poole argued that anonymity allows users to reveal themselves in a “completely unvarnished, unfiltered, raw way.” One of the things that’s lost when you carry the same identity everywhere is “the innocence of youth.” (“Innocence” isn’t the first word that would come to mind when I think of 4chan, but okay, I’ll go with him here.) In other words, when everyone knows everything you’ve done online, you’re a lot more worried about screwing up, and you’re less willing to experiment. Poole compared this to being a kid, moving to a new neighborhood, and having the opportunity to start over. On the Internet, if you’re not anonymous, you don’t get that opportunity.

“The cost of failure is really high when you’re contributing as yourself,” Poole said.

In the case of 4chan, users feel a lot more comfortable trying to create funny images that can become memes, because content that doesn’t catch on disappears quickly, and they’re not weighed down by their failures. Poole said another benefit to 4chan’s anonymity, one that makes it very different from most other online communities, is that content becomes more important than the creator. Rather than prioritizing the most valued and experienced users, 4chan allows anyone to access the site and post something that could take off.

At the same time, it seems Poole’s attitude towards privacy has evolved. He’s working on a new community site called Canv.as, which actually integrates with Facebook Connect, although users can still post anonymously. Poole said the fact that “you know that we know” the user’s real identity, even if other users can’t see it, discourages people from indulging in the most obnoxious behavior.

The “Wild West” approach, while important for 4chan’s popularity, has had an effect on Poole’s ability to turn the site into a real business. Very few brands are willing to run their ads alongside content that’s so unpredictable and potentially offensive, he acknowledged.

Update: Online video star and fellow SXSW keynote speaker Felicia Day agrees.

  • Phil McK.

    Fantastic argument. Since when did self censorship become “authentic”.

  • LungBung

    Heck yeah man, Moot knows exactly what he is talking about. Wow.http://www.anon-tools.es.tc

  • http://viktorsblog.com/ Viktor Nagornyy

    I think both points are valid and it comes down to the individual. Do they want to create personal brand? Go with Zuckerberg. If they don't care and just want to use services, go with Poole.FYI, throw in light border around that image (#ccc) that top left corner is so distracting. You have to constrain the image and not let it spill into the content area like that when it's white near the edges.

  • http://www.drooltsunami.com Mr. Brimm

    He makes a good point. It is at the point where if you were to tie everything to your fb identity everything one does is accessible by everyone and leaves one open to criticism. Colleges and jobs asking for asking for access to your fb account? None of their business. If I want to talk politics or anything else outside of work that should have no bearing on anything I do at work. Most people are totally capable of having different opinions while excelling at any number of things.

  • http://ximagin.co/thecw/ The CW

    The Zuckerberg identity scheme is untenable unless all sites use facebook and facebook resorts to some draconian way to enforce true identities. The first will drive traffic to sites that don't use facebook. The second will drive users away from facebook.Sock puppets will always exist.

  • http://www.brandonmendelson.com Brandon Mendelson

    Good post, but I think you're unfairly characterizing 4Chan for the actions of /b. Although /b may be the most visible to the public, the rest of the 4Chan community doesn't share many (if any) of their characteristics and behavior.Also worth pointing out: Although major brands (the kind Venture Beat readers may be familiar with) may avoid 4Chan for the stuff that runs on /b, there are plenty of others who would still run ads on there and help the site turn a profit. Profitability isn't exactly the point or the goal of 4Chan though, as Moot pointed out, the content is supposed to grow beyond the creator. You can't really achieve that when you're slapping ads and profiting from other people's efforts.

  • http://twitter.com/enzomax Max Enzo

    Moot is totally right about content being more important than its creator. If Zuckerberg was a politician than he would probably identify and prosecute anyone who disagreed with his policies. Moot on the other hand would listen to the criticism and not worry about individuals behind it.

  • http://twitter.com/neotorama neotorama

    derp herp

  • http://GrowMap.com Gail Gardner

    Google + Facebook + Microsoft + Telco companies want to know everything about everyone and where you are every minute and anywhere you would go. Doesn't that set off at least some red flags for thinking people? Cell phones can track you even if you turn them off (unless you pull the battery – maybe that still works). Did you know it is MANDATORY that your phone have allow someone to remotely activate the microphone so it can be used as a listening device without your knowledge? (Probably the camera too and my that little window captures such a nice, clear thumbprint.) Your car keeps track of where you go, what time, how fast you were driving and all kinds of other information). Your laptop has a microphone and possibly a camera that can be remotely activated to listen and watch what you're doing and some believe as many as 95% of PCs have key-logging or other software on them. (A microphone or camera you can turn off – or better yet unplug – could be a better idea.) Does this not remind you of anything? Check out the videos I put in my post about Google doing a good imitation of Big Brother. The last time someone wanted to know where everyone was they ended up on a train bound for nowhere. If you don't want to end up the same you may want to be paying attention and think about it.

  • http://twitter.com/nicholasgot Nicholas Got

    Facebook has a twisted view on online identity. In my opinion, my identity is my own and the ability to assume anonymity gives me the freedom to express myself whichever way I feel suits the occasion.

  • rmp135

    I have to agree with moot. As more companies use Facebook for doing background searches in their employees, I'd be very careful not to deface any company using my personal Facebook. This (as TechCrunch as seen) can create an almost sycophantic commenting, not benefiting anyone.

  • http://twitter.com/OpPinkPower Anonymiss Express

    yeah. Amazing the mischief that can be caused in a house where no one in authority thinks you exist. And Anonymous and Anonymiss look human. You look human, too. Human is a very popular look at the moment …

  • http://www.exponere.com barneyc

    Neither party are really right. A person really only has a single identity – which is actually an amalgamation of many different roles each of which may have an identifier. So Chris Poole (an identifier for his registered person) is a role, he may be Christopher to his mum and any number of differing names online. The amalgam of which is his identity.

  • http://twitter.com/mercadder Mercadder

    The problem with 4chan is I think publishers likes real person, to sell real things.

  • http://twitter.com/lrb23 lynn boyden

    hey hey, guess what, on the internet we CAN tell you're a dog!

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_3TPSSF35PTVSNWUCZMJX5IH7A4 Travis

    I don't think you've heard of Obama's plan to implement a “internet ID” through the chamber of commerce. It's pretty much like a driver's license. Get caught surfing without it and you'll be breaking some draconian law. It's already being developed unbeknownst to the public…. look it up and check out rep. David Segal (Independent)-Rhode Island

  • http://www.douglascrets.wordpress.com Douglas Crets

    I think that one could extrapolate from this that identity is not something one carries as one's own, but that it's fluid and it depends on the context in which it operates and the other users with whom it collaborates. Perhaps we do have more than one identity, depending on the function we are trying to enact.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_XGNKDBCMNHNHCVU2SHT66IFW2Y Ducati Rider

    Actually, I would articulate Poole's argument a bit differently … having Facebook-like identity model leads towards an online community where ideas are not central, people are … in such a community, an idea doesn't carry enough value by itself no matter how good it is, its the person who lends credence to an idea… this might be ok in many cases but it falls apart for many social discourses … anonymity levels the playing field in such a way for good ideas to rise to the top on its own credence.

  • http://www.douglascrets.wordpress.com Douglas Crets

    Well said, but one would have to argue there are no ideas with people. In
    fact, don't the ideas come from the interaction with people and their core
    identities?

  • http://viktorsblog.com/ Viktor Nagornyy

    Agreed.

  • davidahn

    They're both right. Using your real identity will lead to more authentic dialogue, more like face to face communications. You filter yourself, choosing to edit out things you aren't willing to put your name on. Anonymity gives you license to spew out thoughts you would never say to anyone's face, which are your true thoughts. But a lot of thoughts we try out in our minds probably shouldn't see the light of day. It may be more honest to tell your wife those pants make her butt look big, but probably more consistent with your love for her not to.

  • Universal_Mind

    He's correct. Because I haven't posted on TC since they've adapted the new FB comment system.AND WILL NEVER COMMENT USING THAT SYSTEM AS LONG AS I WALK THIS PLANET !

  • Universal_Mind

    (you're correct)To use your own identity only benefits Facebook. And will destroy you in the process down the road.

  • http://toomuchinformation.de/2011/07/15/lesezeichen-421/ Too much information » Lesezeichen

    [...] 4chan founder: Zuckerberg is “totally wrong” about online identity | VentureBeat – Christopher Poole, the founder of controversial online image board 4chan, outlined his vision for Web-based community today at the South by Southwest Interactive conference — and yes, his ideas are in pretty sharp contrast to those of Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg. [...]

  • http://living-websites-2.eu/additive-manufacturing/2011/09/07/this-week-in-sharing-3/ This Week in Sharing | 3D Printings & Additive Manufacturing

    [...] Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg be wrong about user privacy? 4Chan founder Christopher Poole thinks so. [...]

  • http://www.socialmediaclub.at/2011/10/privatsphare-auf-facebook-ist-illusion-mein-filter-ist-im-kopf-video.html Mein Filter ist im Kopf | Social Media Club

    [...] – alles verfolgt werden kann. Auch wenn Mark Zuckerberg und 4chan Gründer Christopher Poole darüber deba- ttiert haben, ob die Privatsphäre tot sei oder nicht, müsste man eigentlich anders den- [...]

  • http://indexadora.wordpress.com/2012/02/27/internet-e-identidade/ Internet e Identidade « Index-a-Dora

    [...] Ano passado li alguma coisa sobre o conceito de identidade na pós modernidade e isso me fez entender melhor certas coisas e aceitar o fato de que podemos, sim, ser muitos e isso não é de todo insano. Quando surgiu o Google Plus, vi um vídeo do Epipheo que falava sobre a diferença básica entre o G+ e o Facebook, e o conceito de círculos, que em certa medida, relaciona-se com o conceito de identidade, uma vez que no G+ podemos compartilhar conteúdo de acordo com cada grupo diferente (família, amigos de infância, amigos de universidade, colegas de trabalho, entre outros grupos). Ou seja, pra cada grupo diferente, assumimos um tipo de identidade diferente. No entanto, é bom lembrar, que o Google vetou, se não me engano, a criação de contas fakes no G+: os usuários foram obrigados a colocar seu nome verdadeiro, caso quisessem ter uma conta por lá. O que não é também exatamente muito diferente do que o Zuckerberg pensa, aliás. [...]

  • http://catherinecronin.wordpress.com/2012/02/29/525/ Resources for exploring digital identity, privacy and authenticity « catherinecronin

    [...] The private/public debate is fascinating, and one in which students can actively engage. For example, while Mark Zuckerberg has asserted that sharing or “public” is the new social norm, 4chan founder Christopher Poole argues that anonymity allows users to reveal themselves in a “completely unvarnished, unfiltered, raw way&#822…. [...]

blog comments powered by Disqus