« Personal - Professional - Organisational: three basic online identities | Main | Interesting 09 »

11 August 2009


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I liked this post. I inadvertently got involved in a problem of identities and a person who did not want their virtual identity linked with his/her real identity. To me there was no harm in not combining the two identities, but someone else got very upset. I wrote a blog post to represent my view and changed sufficient details as to protect those involved (http://redgloo.sse.reading.ac.uk/ssswills/weblog/3303.html). Later talking to the one who was upset he/she said that the situation wasn't recognisable and it transpired that part of the issue was to do with making assumptions that had never crossed my mind to make when communicating with someone across cyber space.
I don't think there is any need for people to link their identities, we probably need to take pinch of salt with internet correspondents as with people we meet, some of them may not be exactly who they say they are.

there's another aspect 2 fakesterism + anonymity on the web: 1 that allows 4 deviations + social variance _without_ assuming or definitive co-option of identity mantles. this type of subversion serves a function not embodied in "straight" fakesterism:

"..._Encyclopedia Dramatica_ - and the affiliated imageboard/meme
propagation site _4chan_ - showcase the challenge faced by narrative
frameworks. Platforms like _Encyclopedia Dramatica_ encourage
troll-based comedic intent. Users remix absurd, and sometimes taboo,
content. In particular, invasion boards like _4chan_ utilize shock
networking*: where social content attempts to subvert social codas
through deliberate agitation. In comparison with established narrative
conventions, platforms like _Encyclopedia Dramatica_ offer an
experimental system which bypasses strict censorship and ethical
constraints. These platforms cater for unfiltered interactions that
operate via immediacy-of-response. They are highly idiosyncratic in
execution and linguistic formation: censorship and moderation may be
limited or non-existent. The output is propagative, with contributors
encouraged to riff and rip-off, replace, and even delete content.
Narrative is deformed beyond a sequential structure whereby the climax
or pay-off event becomes the spectacle....The group Anonymous* projects
attribution modding via collusive identity constructions. The
collective’s title is based on the method _4chan_ uses to brand all
contributors “Anonymous” by default:"...As making a post without
filling in the “Name” field causes posts to be attributed to
“Anonymous”, general understanding on 4chan holds that Anonymous is
not a single person but a collective (hive) of users." Anonymous is a
social-tesseractivist group who perform raid actions [think: the
immediate action to halt the abuse of Dusty The Cat and Project
Chanology's DDoS attacks]. The collective broadcasts non-attribution
ideologies where members are viewed as units of a social mechanism
with a deemphasis on individual identification. _Attribution modding_
illustrates the rise of collective identity cognizance and the
accompanying shift from expert-centric disciplines.

from: http://arsvirtuafoundation.org/research/2009/07/24/_social-tesseracting_-part-3/

Thanks for that Mez - I'm a massive Stewart Homes fan & like how 4chan relates to Homes's Festival of Plagiarism and to the multiple name Karen Eliot: http://www.geocities.com/soho/5921/identity.html

Someone needs to write a good paper on Fakesters, there isn't really much about. Anyone want to collaborate?

Yay. Another non-fan of Andrew Spleen :-)

Are you sure it's just them who are link-baiting though?

Ah, I don't dislike Andrew Keen, he actually makes me laugh quite a lot. I just don't agree with him that often. Who knows, he may not be real, we may have just made him up.

Who are you double-faking as a retired librarian huh?

The comments to this entry are closed.