4Chan Founder: Mark Zuckerberg Is 'Totally Wrong' About Anonymity

4chan founder Christopher Poole (also known as "moot") has come out swinging for web anonymity.

Though Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg asserts that one's online identity should be tied to one's real life identity in order to preserve authenticity, Poole said of the Facebook founder's position, "I think that's totally wrong," in a talk at SXSW, according to VentureBeat.

Launched in 2003 by the then 15-year-old Poole, 4chan is a web board for sharing and discussing Japanese anime, comics and culture, and on the notorious 'random' board /b/, for sharing just about anything else. The site has launched numerous viral videos, memes, and the hacktivist group Anonymous. It's likely it could only function with the anonymity it currently accords.

"Anonymity is authenticity," said Poole. "It allows you to share in an unvarnished, unfiltered, raw and real way. We believe in content over creator."

And with anonymity, users feel free to experiment without fearing reprisal, he noted. "The cost of failure is really high when you're contributing as yourself," he said. "To fail in an environment where you're contributing with your real name is costly."

Poole is currently working on a new project called Canv.as, an image sharing and editing site, which utilizes Facebook Connect, but still allows anonymous posting.

Comments

[Balzac]

04:17 PM on 03/18/2011

Each of their websites is a triumph and a travesty at the same time. But I know who makes more money.

[trojoe]

09:21 PM on 03/17/2011

Scary.

[pjwrites]

05:21 AM on 03/17/2011

Federalist Papers.

Anonymity allows one to throw out ideas without the prejudice inherent in identifying an individual. Anonymity is about ideas and the merit of the idea stands or falls on its own.

[ImmanuelGoldstein]

09:58 PM on 03/16/2011

As far as I am concerned there is no debate. I control what information about my real identity goes online period. I have absolutely no interest in what anyone thinks about the matter. My reasons are my own and good enough for me. Mark Zuckerberg simply wants to be better able to market my personal information and that simply is not a priority for me. All this rhetoric about the development of the internet is just apologetics for that goal.

[truthserum808]

07:28 PM on 03/16/2011

The fear of reprisal for stating ones views is NOT paranoia. There is NOTHING keeping someone from putting your promotion/job application to the bottom of the pile after reading that colorful Facebook rant you made a few years ago.

[Torrentlover]

07:30 AM on 03/16/2011

Mark and GS have got to sell this quickly to the public. People might catch on that the ridiculous valuation for Facebook is based on it capturing and selling the utmost private info to highest bidder on a systematic basis. Unfortunately GS has the connections to foist Facebook into a position giving it regulatory power on others.

[General Public]

09:10 PM on 03/15/2011

Well of course Mark Zuckerberg is totally wrong... Mark Zuckerberg doesn't believe in privacy at all and thinks nobody on the Internet deserves to have any privacy for what they do. He doesn't believe in anonymity and sells Facebook users' personal information to advertisers, which is why he's a billionaire, having exploited hundreds of millions of users for our personal information.

[mikeyaz17]

05:45 PM on 03/15/2011

anonymity is the pu**y way out...

if you believe in something stand by it all the way to jail if you need to

[Helzapoppin]

08:41 PM on 03/15/2011

tell that to Benjamin Franklin

[General Public]

09:15 PM on 03/15/2011

Right, that's why journalists never use anonymous sources, why we don't allow people to vote with a secret ballot, why there isn't any witness protection program, why spies always use their real identities, why dissidents in totalitarian nations never do anything anonymously, and why WikiLeaks doesn't actually exist. Nobody in society ever has any need for anonymity. You are totally correct in every way, and so is Mark Zuckerberg.

[Brad McCormick]

05:21 PM on 03/15/2011

Ah..young Ben Franklin used fake names all the time when he sent overtly political letters to the editor or woudl ridculule Harvard:: http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/Hoaxipedia/Silence_Dogood/ Check your history book Mr Zuckerberg!

[TD123]

02:27 PM on 03/15/2011

I prefer www.reddit.com, less emotionally scaring than a single visit to 4chan...

[Anthony Nogales]

04:00 PM on 03/15/2011

Only if you're weak. :P

[Ryan Noh]

03:37 PM on 04/01/2011

only if you're sane (am 4chan user and I do not succeed in life)

[trundlingbyandjustsaying]

02:21 PM on 03/15/2011

zuckerberg made the internet as uncool as himself. i think facebook has a shorter shelf life than people imagine. it's just an online rolodex. we make something sleeker, better (and full of color!) without someone selling us out.

[wonmean]

02:44 PM on 03/15/2011

"we make something sleeker, better (and full of color!) without someone selling us out."

Care to elaborate?

[Aries Warrior]

02:12 PM on 03/15/2011

zuckerberg is see eye a.....isn`t it obvious ?

[Nominus]

02:09 PM on 03/15/2011

Of course Zuckerberg would maintain that revealing your true online identity preserves authenticity. Anonymity is antithetical to Facebook’s perceived purpose and also devalues the property making it more difficult to sell at a premium to the marketplace should your users choose to remain anonymous – this might also make Zuckerberg’s and Goldman Sachs’ job harder to substantiate the ridiculous $50 billion price tag. The key to generating advertising wealth from corporate clients is to offer an accurate profile of who can be targeted by using Facebook. Facebook presents a community that willingly provides this information.

Unfortunately the potential for abuse by revealing one’s true identity using a client specifically designed to exploit this identity in a medium as ubiquitous as the internet should be apparent.

[Phil Suzzi]

04:27 PM on 03/15/2011

throw a couple more 5 dollar words in there like antithetical or ubiquitous, because as it stands now it looks like you're not trying hard enough. having said that i more or less agree

[Rich Bronson]

01:57 PM on 03/15/2011

In my personal experience anonymity is a breeding ground for hate.

[wonmean]

02:09 PM on 03/15/2011

And an open invitation to TrollFest.

[chiodo08]

03:06 PM on 03/15/2011

spoken like an insecure daily victim....

[A Radical Moderate]

02:20 PM on 03/15/2011

Since another poster beat me to it I will merely copy and cite his comment. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Faux/4chan-founder-mark-zuckerberg_n_835424_80777071.html

“We choose to filter ourselves based on what others will think of what we say. If there is no risk of someone judging me there need not be a filter. Consequent­ly anonymity allows me to speak without fear of social reprisal. I can say what I genuinely think. Ergo, authentici­ty.”

[wonmean]

02:39 PM on 03/15/2011

Is authenticity the only thing we want?

[Rich Bronson]

02:45 PM on 03/15/2011

Certainly so if you truly think that all people of a certain race should be lined up and shot you are free to say that without fear of reprisal.
The Westboro Baptist Church inflicts tremendous amounts of pain and suffering. Imagine all the people who would say similar things but do not because they do not want it attached to their identity.

[studioh!]

01:50 PM on 03/15/2011

moot.point.