‘The Internet is Here’ - iConference 2011

Discussion in 'News and Current Events' started by Anonymous, Dec 31, 2010.

  1. Anonymous Member

    ‘The Internet is Here’ - iConference 2011

    iConference 2011 Program
  2. Anonymous Member

    Re: ‘The Internet is Here’ - iConference 2011

    Sirs Underwood & Welster, count me in!
  3. Anonymous Member

    Re: ‘The Internet is Here’ - iConference 2011

  4. Anonymous Member

    Re: ‘The Internet is Here’ - iConference 2011

  5. Sponge Member

    Re: ‘The Internet is Here’ - iConference 2011

    I liked it but I also wanted some whywefail critical analysis in there too. I suppose that's a tall order what with chanology being so perfectly awesome and all ;).

  6. Anonymous Member

    Re: ‘The Internet is Here’ - iConference 2011


    snip: What makes Chanology so compelling is ultimately not why they protest, but rather how they protest. The combination of culture, memetic information, humor, and real world activism defied both reprisal from the Church of Scientology and the typical modes of activism employed by social movements. Chanology provides an exciting new model of social movement organization as well as a fascinating fusion of online and offline cultures. /snip
  7. Anonymous Member

    Re: ‘The Internet is Here’ - iConference 2011

  8. Anonymous Member

    Re: ‘The Internet is Here’ - iConference 2011

    I read it.
  9. Anonymous Member

    Re: ‘The Internet is Here’ - iConference 2011

    This is a highly detailed,well researched empirical study.
    Do you think they watched me fap?
  10. WillyWonkanon Member

    Re: ‘The Internet is Here’ - iConference 2011

  11. Re: ‘The Internet is Here’ - iConference 2011

    And nothing of value was ..... ?gained? ???
  12. Anonymous Member

    Re: ‘The Internet is Here’ - iConference 2011

    they are always watching us fap.
  13. mirele Member

    Re: ‘The Internet is Here’ - iConference 2011

    Paper is mistitled. Should be, "'OH FUCK: The Internet is Here': Emergent Coordination and Innovation of Protest Forms in Digital Culture".

    The meme means nothing without the OH FUCK part.
  14. Anonymous Member

    Re: ‘The Internet is Here’ - iConference 2011

    And we dance and have caek!
  15. Anonymous Member

    Re: ‘The Internet is Here’ - iConference 2011

    They like to watch.

  16. Anonymous Member

    Re: ‘The Internet is Here’ - iConference 2011

    hey, internet here,

    i did not approve this post.
    i am currently suing OP for slander and emotional distress plus +10 internets he stole from me and gave to trolls. i am currently consulting my jew lawyer to take his internets plus 401k
  17. Saberthrower Member

    Re: ‘The Internet is Here’ - iConference 2011

    Wow. Nice study. I can't wait to see the movie version.

    EDIT: Can anyone in Seattle go and tape the session? I really am interested in seeing this, but I am not at Seattle.
  18. Anonymous Member

    Re: ‘The Internet is Here’ - iConference 2011


    Seriously, that write-up is a keeper.
  19. Orson Member

    Re: ‘The Internet is Here’ - iConference 2011

    First, this is well worth your time to read.

    Second, serious conference is serious. Grade A prime Academia stuff. Presenting sponsors include the National Science Foundation (NSF), Microsoft Research and others with support from Google.
    More here: iConference 2011 Committees

    It is not a purely technical conference.
    Looks like you could seriously get your geek on at this conference. For those interested, the fee is $400 in advance or $200 for a single day pass. More information here: iConference 2011 Registration

    Given the nature of the study (and of course, since the authors blatantly state it), methinks someone involved in it has been lurking around here for a while. To that person I say, sup smartfag?

  20. Ann O'Nymous Member

    Re: ‘The Internet is Here’ - iConference 2011

    Interesting - at least what I read so far. Some minor mistakes, like this one:
    AFAIR "raids" was rarely used at first and became popular only in the Fall of 2008.
  21. Anonymous Member

    Re: ‘The Internet is Here’ - iConference 2011

    Or not. Google search on "raid Scientology" doesn't support your memory. Use of the term actually declined in the Fall of 2008.

    Google time line search for "raid Scientology"
  22. Anonymous Member

    Re: ‘The Internet is Here’ - iConference 2011

    Insightful paper is insightful.

    But seriously this is the best academic paper on chanology I have ever seen.
    The authors get it, they really get it. Probably get it better than many people here.
  23. Anonymous Member

    Re: ‘The Internet is Here’ - iConference 2011

    I don’t like the paper and I think they have made a few crucial errors.

    1. Analysing the protests independently of the protest target is fail.

    I’m not necessarily referring to morаlfaggotry here, but failing to take into the nature of the CoS as a source of abuse, its status as a long term foe of the internet, the sheer audaciousness of the troll it embodies, its lulzcow nature, etc. means that the paper completely misses much of the important nuance of what makes chanology what it is.

    Here is an example to illustrate this failure. When discussing the lack of connection between members the paper has gotten the causation backwards here when it notes: “This later advantage proved to be particularly useful against the Church of Scientology which had historically sought to stifle criticism by identifying critics and engaging them in costly legal battles”. Anyone who was about in early 2008 will remember the role of anonymity as a protection being heavily discussed, and indeed many of the resulting protest norms we now have resulted from such discussion (the code of conduct for example).

    This reversed causality bodes a much deeper problem for the paper’s thesis when it is noted that many of the tactics employed by chanology were derived from CoS’s earlier internet wars. By learning from the past, particularly how the CoS targeted OGs, many of the CoS-proof tactics of chanology were developed. The paper, by essentially concluding that such tactics were advantageous through fortune, misses a large swatch of how chanology developed. While the paper notes the highly adaptable nature of chanology, it fails to account the mechanisms by which that adaptability arose by neglecting the target of that adaptation.

    Non-internet-specific aspects of CoS are also relevant, and the paper also ignores these. Many of the participants in chanology were highly knowledgeable of either the CoS or general cultism prior to the protests. In my own cell, to take an example, the majority of participants either have cult experience (whether personally or with relatives) or were significantly more informed regarding cultism than the average person. In a culture where personal qualities do not seem to be uniting factors, this does seem to stand out as a heavy contributor to participation. Lᵁlzfaggotry certainly played a part for many people, but without this underlying basis even lᵁlzfaggotry would not have been enough.

    2. The paper’s analysis appears to rest on the incorrect assumption of ideological homogeneity.

    In its analysis the paper makes the mistake of assuming the ideological expressions of certain participants can be successfully generalised. A particularly egregious example of this is “Reflecting this ethos, one participant urged others to join in by saying “If we can destroy Scientology, we can destroy whatever we like. The world will be but our plaything.” The reason I call this egregious is because of the irony that this paper tries to find points of group solidarity while ignoring the single obvious uniting factor – namely the CoS itself as discussed above.

    The problem can be most clearly seen in the section discussion chanology’s origins. The paper writes:
    Early participants in project Chanology were intensely involved in online communities hosted at 4chan. Amongst other functions, this site was both the source of many internet memes, and a figurative trophy case for 4channers who prided themselves on their capacity and success at trolling, intimidating, and harassing others. Though hardly a noble qualification, 4channers, and by extension Chanologists, were battle hardened veterans of online warfare and masters of the dark art of trolling. Like gangsters turned cops, those participating in Chanology harnessed that creativity and knowledge, channeling it into a successful movement strategy.

    While there were certainly channers who continued their participation as chanology transitioned from its 4chan origins, by ignoring the influx of non-channer participants the paper misses a crucial point. The influx of new personnel brought both new focus and new ideas, and resulted in chanology moving to areas beyond the vision of its founding channers. By ignoring this the paper incorrectly concludes that the ‘out-flanking’ of the CoS was solely grounded in the 4chan trolling culture. This is grossly inaccurate, and is the type of mistake the paper makes by incorrectly assuming ideological comments can be extrapolated to reflect the group (and even assuming a ‘group’ is dubious).


    Chanology began as 4chan fucking with the CoS. It grew and developed from that into what chanology is today. A substantial guiding force in that development was in response to the nature of the CoS. Analysing chanology in any capacity without taking this into account misses a great deal. By doing so the paper is deriving explanations based on group dynamics that aren’t reflective of how chanology really operates.
  24. Anonymous Member

    Re: ‘The Internet is Here’ - iConference 2011

    Agreed. It would be really great to see their presentation. Wonder if someone local could inquire about access to record it for the net, or if the authors could be encouraged to do so themselves.
  25. Anonymous Member

    Re: ‘The Internet is Here’ - iConference 2011

    Are you one of the paper's authors?
  26. Anonymous Member

    Re: ‘The Internet is Here’ - iConference 2011

    my chanology is mine.
  27. Anonymous Member

    Re: ‘The Internet is Here’ - iConference 2011

    I like the paper and I think the authors have a better idea of how it works than most.

    I'd say your cell is rather unique in this respect - is it mostly OG?
  28. Anonymous Member

    Re: ‘The Internet is Here’ - iConference 2011

    A few points for consideration.

    1. Although written by sociologists, the audience for this piece is the IT crowd. What you're looking for has been well covered by Coleman and Dibbel (separately).

    2. I was here in early 2008. The paper, entitled, "‘The Internet is Here’: Emergent Coordination and Innovation of Protest Forms in Digital Culture" is focusing on the unique interactions and social movement that are made capable by digital culture, etc.

    With specific regard to Chanology, the technological capacity for what was being done, the techniques used and the methods employed existed as a result of straight trolling and had nothing to do with the target Scientology. The methods were there. Given Scientology's history of harassment and retribution, anon was the perfect nemesis to take on the cult.

    That inherent norm of anonymity enabled IRL protests as well. Information on the behavior and history of the cult was of course used to make adustments, as it would be for any target.

    I think your experience is unique. Plus note, the authors note that the methods employed were used to recruit others. Hello, others.

    Of course, you get homogenized into the whole pretty quickly, especially back then. Also, you underestimate the power of lulz at your peril.

    I've run out of energy and time. So, suffice to say I think my earlier points touch on all of this. You're missing the context of the paper mostly and looking for things that have been covered by other academics. Plus, pay closer attention to words like "initially" and "early" in the paper.
  29. Anonymous Member

    Re: ‘The Internet is Here’ - iConference 2011

    I agree, and this would seem to be due to the empiricism they employed. I just don’t think their data supports some of their conclusions though, particularly their attributed causality.
    Only one regular could be labelled OG as that person had protested before chanology. The regular ex’s we have never protested prior to chanology, and one of those ex’s only left after chanology began. We do seem to lean much more towards the morаlfaggotry end of the scale compared to other cells though.
  30. Anonymous Member

    Re: ‘The Internet is Here’ - iConference 2011

    My response to this would be to ask what other target group do you think could have inspired a chanology-like movement? I can’t think of any, which makes me question the development of such a movement without a Scientology-like target. While I would agree the potential for those techniques was already there, I would argue that without the proper target to act as a focus the development of such techniques would not have happened. In other words, while you are correct to state that anonymous was perfect for tackling Scientology I would argue it is equally important to note that Scientology was perfect for drawing chanology out of its originating culture.
    It appears we disagree as to how much or a role such adjustments played, with me arguing for a much larger role than yourself.
    I am willing to concede this point.
    As I noted, the paper attempts to attribute various qualities of chanology to various factors. I think it is folly to ignore imo the most relevant factor to try propping up other factors, especially of those are of a theoretical nature.
  31. Anonymous Member

    Re: ‘The Internet is Here’ - iConference 2011

    In order bolded above:
    1. Hmmm, Operation Payback and wikileaks comes to mind
    2. lern2anonhistory......dare I say, lurk moar.
    3. Welcome to Why We Protest
  32. Anonymous Member

    Re: ‘The Internet is Here’ - iConference 2011

    I also cannot think of targets that go out of their way to the extent Scientology does to create their own enemies.
  33. Anonymous Member

    Re: ‘The Internet is Here’ - iConference 2011

  34. moarxenu Member

    Re: ‘The Internet is Here’ - iConference 2011

    I welcome the paper because I think Chanology is a unique phenomenon completely deserving of academic interest. I think the critiques of the anon above are right on the money and have a few of my own to add.

    My jumping off point is this from the Conclusion:

    I find it difficult to believe that Chanology could be adopted as a model by any of four signficant contemporary protest movents: the anti-war, anti-Global Warming, Free Tibet, and (pace lefties and inb4racistmorons) the Tea Party movement.

    In addition to failing to take into account the nature of our failfag cult enemy, the analysis neglects the inherent artistic creativity of channer culture and that fact that Chanology is entirely the creation of millennials since 80% of Anonymous is under the age of 35.

    The origin of Anonymous culture is the decision of a 15-year-old animé fan (moot) to create the first English image board. Rapidly anons became not only users of art but constant creators of art. There is not only the art of shoops, macros, vids, and memes, but also of rhetoric of which the Jewtube declaration of war of January 21, 2008 is an outstanding example followed by megaphonebitch's transformation of MLK's "I have a dream speech" in The State of the Insurgency address. There is also the art of trolling, and particularly relevant, the art of raiding.

    The choice of the little niggra avatar for raiding Habbo was an esthetic choice of the first importance, and self-organizing a well-formed swastiget amid chaos is the height of operational elegance.

    Likewise, our choice of the Guy Fawkes mask was an aesthetic choice of genius. It manifested our connection to an anti-totalitarian hero in our culture and gave the broader anti-Scientology movement what it lacked for sixty years - a striking, readily identifiable symbol.

    Millennial anons were not only born into the technological arts of the internets but into Pokémon, animé, graphic novels, cyberpunk, sci-fi, movies, and gaming, where artistic visuals are as important as technological awesomeness. No other protest movement has this depth of aesthetic richness and creativity. They are srsly malnourished in memes and lulz.

    Here are a few other cultural things I found off the mark:

    Our humor is not at all aburd if you understand our culture. I have heard the wrong-head Dadaist description several times.

    Dada was created by 13year-old basement dwellers to troll the tight-ass bourgeoisie of Switzerland, the homeland of our own Ann O'Nonymous. That was over 100 years ago and now Dada is as dead as teh Dodo. But they made cool art and would have made great shoopers.

    Memes as inside jokes: To have an inside joke you need to have firm barriers against outsiders, which do not exist either at 4chan or Chanology because they are completely public. Anonymity allows for the widest participation without regard to creed, color, race, age, or political or relgious self-identification. It is a cultural Marxist PC-tard's wet dream, except of course we loath PC faggotry.

    It is remarkable that Anon culture has concommitently defined its language and linguistic memes at Urban Dictionary and the Institute of Internets Studies and Meme-ology to make the culture even moar understandable and available to the public.

    More remarkably it has continued to record its history in real time and with dox at Encyclopedia Dramatica. It is the only place where the chronology of Project Chanology is easily found, and where you can learn, for example, that the DDoS attacks on the evil cult in January 2008 lasted precisely all of thirteen days, from the "It's time for /b/ to do something big" thread on 4chan on January 15, to Wise Beard Man's vid on January 28.

    It also records the drama of the summer of 2008 which nearly destroyed Chanology. (I skipped all that. As a Hamburg fag said, "We don't give a shit about server drama." It's good to have ED to find out what went on.)

    I can't see this happening with the four protest movements I have cited. The supreme value of Anon is near-absolute "anything goes but CP" devotion to free speech. Troll an anti-war or teabagger protest or zee Chinese Commies and see how devoted they are to free speech.

    I found much of the discussion about decentralization, flexible group structures etc. insightful. I lol'd at the Table 1 "pc=>.9000" statistical analysis. They are academic sociologists and so they have to put this shit in or the paper wouldn't be published.

    Measuring degrees of interconnectedness by messages on the user pages of a Wiki (perhaps the lamentably defunct /i/nsurgency wiki ) is srsly defective. Everyone knows that srs bzns is carried on by IRC, texting, and sekrit tree forts.

    Compelling to whom? Academics, the public, or us? What we protest and how we protest are as inseparable as the dancer from the dance.

    One of the most uncanny things about Chanology is that hivemind intuited just the right target at just the right time. None of the big human rights organizations gave a shit about the cult's suppression of free speech and abusive treatment of its members and their families.

    Anon picked an organization whose dismantling was quite doable, unlike the Chicom government or the weather. And of course the cult is the biggest lulzcow around and everyone has hated it for years.

    Anti-war fags, Free Tibet emos, AGW hysterics, and teabaggers still be hatin', meanwhile Chanology has won because We Run This.

    Still, it is good to have academics to start thinking and writing about Chanology. Even moar interesting than how Chanology succeeded is how it has avoided anheroing.

    So welcome academic newfags, and carry on.
  35. Anonymous Member

    Re: ‘The Internet is Here’ - iConference 2011

    Would operation payback, specifically the elements that mimic chanology past the DDOS stage, have developed without chanology as a template? I think the answer is no and serves to support the point I was making. I note the lack of substantive examples for 2 and 3.
    A good point that is worth quoting.
    You managed to sum up in one sentence what I tried to in a tl;dr.
  36. Rockyj Member

    Re: ‘The Internet is Here’ - iConference 2011

    My tribe mostly recognizes "Spliyay" (Coyote) as the trickster & other tribes it the trickster could be could be Crow, Raven, or other animal or bird.

    Native American Trickster Tales


    me like this^^^

    Coyote Blues: The Native American Trickster - Panama City paranormal |
  37. Jeff Jacobsen Member

    Re: ‘The Internet is Here’ - iConference 2011

    I've read "‘The Internet is Here’: Emergent Coordination and Innovation of Protest Forms in Digital Culture" by Patrick Underwood of the University of Washington and Howard T. Welser of Ohio University. Both are from the Sociology department from their respective schools.

    This paper is similar to my own (article by Jeff Jacobsen on Project Chanology) in that it is an attempt to understand Project Chanology, an offshoot of the online group known as Anonymous. I am happy that others have taken up this important subject. However, I do have a few quibbles.

    tl; dr -> the authors should have 1) told what the timeline was they were researching and 2) gone to protests. They didn't quite get the non-structural nature of Anonymous.

    While the authors state that their research material was derived from Internet discusssions amongst Project Chanology participants (p. 2), they do not give a timeline for when these discussions took place. This is important because the beginnings of Project Chanology were chaotic and scattered, while today the actions of the movement have somewhat stabilized. It would have been nice as well for them to have named the sites they used for their research. I am a bit disheartened that they did not apparently choose to actually observe a protest as far as I can tell. At least they don't mention having done so. I assume they watched youtube videos of protests.

    And now on to the article. I'll quote a piece and comment on it. I'll say here that I do not consider myself to be part of Anonymous. I do, however, participate in Project Chanology.

    "Project Chanology represents in [sp] interesting instance in which identity commitment appears to be centered on having fun and the image of the self as trickster." (p. 2) Does every Anon consider him or herself a trickster? Trolling is a backbone of Anonymous, but I don't think everyone considers themselves to be a troll. Also, I don't think they considered that not all who participate in Project Chanology came from Anonymous. But this is a minor quibble.

    "The centrality of skillful use of cultural capital also provided a cost of entry for newcomers. In order to be accepted as legitimate insiders, those new to Project Chanology had to spend time observing and learning the culture of Anonymous. Those asking questions were often greeted with cries of “lurk more,” a phrase which refers to remaining in the background and observing without actively participating. In essence it is a demand to learn more about the group and its actions before participating. It appears that this cost of entry also helped to strengthen bonds between insiders by enabling a shared sense of possession of somewhat rarefied cultural knowledge." (p. 4) Does PC really care if a participant is an "insider"? I mean, if you go protest, who cares if it's someone's grandmother who's never been on /b/ before. The whole idea of Anonymous is that an Anon could be anybody. So do they really need insider status? I'm confuse. Also, arguing is one of the social norms of Anonymous.

    And here is where it might be good for the authors to have gone to protests. The discussions online assumed that the participant was at least up to speed with Anonymous and the basic ideas and goals of Project Chanology. If you tried to participate and showed a lack in these areas, you were told in typical blunt fashion to GTFO and come back when you knew what you were talking about. When the "Old Guard" - those people who had been protesting Scientology before Project Chanology - showed up online, there was intense debate on how or whether to interact with them. But at the protests (I went to every monthly protest for the first 2 years), nobody really cared who you were, it was just nice to have you there. If you had a funny sign or costume or chant, so much the better. If you brought cake, you were a god. But if you didn't know all the words to "Never Gonna Give You Up" nobody cared.

    "By orienting their protests towards enactment of this culture, members of Anonymous participating in Chanology both reaffirmed their shared identity and signaled to other members of Anonymous that Chanology was something which fit within the normative boundaries of the broader collective." (p. 4) But this was a big issue. By going out to IRL (In Real Life) protests, it violated rules 1 and 2. Many anons were angry with this idea. It wasn't just moving Anonymous out to the streets This was a major shift. It was the first time Anonymous ever WENT into the streets. The "broader collective" was rattled by Project Chanology.

    "We often observed individuals explicitly stating that they were drawn to Project Chanology mainly because the protesters they saw seemed to be having so much fun. Members often joked that Project Chanology was a 'social club for nerds.' We also observed individuals stating that they had never thought of themselves as prototypical social movement participants, but that the radically playful nature of Chanology was something with which they were immediately at ease." (p.4) I saw people at the first protest who were AFRAID! This was "serious business." Scientology's reputation of "attack the attacker" was known to most protesters, yet they still came out. Yes it was fun. But it was that Anons made serious business fun, NOT that they would go have fun and maybe indirectly succeed in some serious business. Again, it would be nice to know what time period the authors' observation involved.

    "...those most active in Project Chanology tended to be the most isolated." (p. 5) Wut.

    "Just as in Chwe’s models, the decision of individuals to participate in a given course of action within Chanology was highly contingent upon knowledge that others would engage in the same action. The fear of embarrassment and vulnerability to retaliation from the Church which small numbers entailed was commonly cited as a primary reason for hesitance to engage in the
    protests." (p. 6) How does this explain the first protest, which was the 2nd biggest? NOBODY KNEW how many people would come out. The organizer in Denver told me he didn't know for sure if anybody was coming. These were mostly people who did not know each other, who didn't know the reliability of each other. The amazing part is that the first protest materialized from people who didn't know each other, and who didn't even know if they were the only Anons in their city or not. There was none of this wait-around-and-see-how-it-goes until later protests. But even then, the first two protests were so wildly successful that I would think most people would have lost their hesitancy.

    The whole page 6 thing about cells just doesn't fit too well with the first protest. So I assume they're talking about subsequent protests? The idea that you get a direction from a central hub, then go back and convince your cell on the idea makes no sense to me. There's no reason to go explain something to a "cell" because anybody can see the original idea at the hub themselves. I mean, the hub-as-internet-discussion and cell-as-geographically-connected-anons works for me. But then to use that structure as the way decisions were spread is just wrong. Anonymous is essentially individual decision making.

    "In Scientology, Chanologists had found an organization which behaved, in their eyes, according to the abusive, aggressive, antagonistic methods of trolling." (p. 6) You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
    [ame=]YouTube - You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.[/ame]
  38. Anonymous Member

    Re: ‘The Internet is Here’ - iConference 2011

    I saw Batman. I liked the Joker.

    Can I have my PhD now?
  39. Anonymous Member

    Re: ‘The Internet is Here’ - iConference 2011

    Author needs to lrn2sockpuppet.
  40. Vexius Member

    Re: ‘The Internet is Here’ - iConference 2011

    i love you, will you birth my chilren?

    i myself believe to be a form of "the joker" and/or a replica of his majesty.

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins