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

By: This Week in Sharing - 3D Printing Business Directory

This Week in Sharing - 3D Printing Business Directory — Sun, 05 May 2013 14:46:55 +0000

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

By: This Week in Sharing | 3D Printer Business Directory3D Printer Business Directory

Thu, 18 Apr 2013 11:23:37 +0000

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

By: How many of “You” are there? « mathieu serwin

How many of “You” are there? « mathieu serwin — Sun, 17 Feb 2013 02:28:37 +0000

[...] there are numerous examples of “trolls” and deception, we have also seen groups like Anonymous come from these areas to positively contribute through the veil of anonymity. It does allow [...]

By: When The Cops Want Your Username « Gadgetizing

When The Cops Want Your Username « Gadgetizing — Tue, 04 Dec 2012 15:46:59 +0000

[...] anonymous profiles that aren’t based on their real offline name and identity. It’s a highly controversial position, one that rejects the Internet’s tradition as an open forum encouraging free anonymous [...]

By: Про комментарии. Facebook vs DISQUS - Цукерберг позвонил

Про комментарии. Facebook vs DISQUS - Цукерберг позвонил — Mon, 02 Jul 2012 22:44:07 +0000

[...] Пула, более известного как moot (создатель форума 4chan), In other words, when everyone knows everything you’ve done online, you’re a lot more worried about screwing [...]

By: Resources for exploring digital identity, privacy and authenticity « catherinecronin

Wed, 29 Feb 2012 09:21:27 +0000

[...] 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 way̶…. [...]

By: Internet e Identidade « Index-a-Dora

Internet e Identidade « Index-a-Dora — Mon, 27 Feb 2012 00:57:01 +0000

[...] 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. [...]

By: Mein Filter ist im Kopf | Social Media Club

Mein Filter ist im Kopf | Social Media Club — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 11:10:39 +0000

[...] – 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- [...]

By: This Week in Sharing | 3D Printings & Additive Manufacturing

This Week in Sharing | 3D Printings & Additive Manufacturing — Wed, 07 Sep 2011 14:40:04 +0000

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

By: Too much information » Lesezeichen

Too much information » Lesezeichen — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 21:31:03 +0000

[...] 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. [...]

By: Universal_Mind

Universal_Mind — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 10:27:29 +0000

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

By: Universal_Mind

Universal_Mind — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 10:23:22 +0000

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 !

By: davidahn

davidahn — Sun, 20 Mar 2011 05:16:23 +0000

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.

By: Viktor Nagornyy

Viktor Nagornyy — Tue, 15 Mar 2011 23:37:49 +0000

Agreed.

By: Douglas Crets

Douglas Crets — Tue, 15 Mar 2011 23:37:47 +0000

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?

By: Ducati Rider

Ducati Rider — Tue, 15 Mar 2011 23:36:24 +0000

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.

By: Douglas Crets

Douglas Crets — Tue, 15 Mar 2011 22:53:03 +0000

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.

By: Travis

Travis — Tue, 15 Mar 2011 03:14:28 +0000

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

By: lynn boyden

lynn boyden — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 23:40:12 +0000

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

By: Mercadder

Mercadder — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 23:39:35 +0000

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

By: barneyc

barneyc — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 17:39:31 +0000

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.

By: Anonymiss Express

Anonymiss Express — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 17:29:15 +0000

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 …

By: rmp135

rmp135 — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 17:24:53 +0000

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.

By: Nicholas Got

Nicholas Got — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 14:05:10 +0000

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.

By: Gail Gardner

Gail Gardner — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 13:54:36 +0000

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.

By: neotorama

neotorama — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 09:53:03 +0000

derp herp

By: Max Enzo

Max Enzo — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 07:22:23 +0000

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.

By: Brandon Mendelson

Brandon Mendelson — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 06:40:34 +0000

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.

By: The CW

The CW — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 06:38:24 +0000

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.

By: Mr. Brimm

Mr. Brimm — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 05:54:14 +0000

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.