[FRIAM] Modeling 4chan: roles, topics, beliefs, strawman, anonymity, etc.

[Marcus Daniels]

< Carry on with what looks to be over thinking a simple topic though. >

There are seven topics named in the subject line alone.  And that’s before unfurling even one of them.
(As much as I hate to argue for Glen’s position.)

Marcus

From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Gillian Densmore <gil.densmore at gmail.com>
Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
Date: Monday, January 28, 2019 at 10:30 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Modeling 4chan: roles, topics, beliefs, strawman, anonymity, etc.

Sigh...their are a bunch of things about this thread...I just can'tness 4Chan started as a buliten board a long time ago- as far as I know it's mostly Anonymous talk for the collectives: PhpSec and Anoynouse for sure.  I think the other factions got booted off around 2012 or so for being to extreme even by their standards. LolSec for example had threatend peoples lifes wich while some in computer underground culture might think it'd be a good idea to beet the asterix star collon semi collon out of people..they were willing at one point to go their and got thrown out.
Since then Anonymouse has (infamously ) grown from basically small interuptions to bring attention to social problems where the powers that be...litterally all over the world were ignoring.

As of late 2017(?) or so when one of their top guys was assisnitated in france durring the Charlie Hepo (parden me that I haven't a clue how to spell in french) they've to sometime around 2018 taken on larger and larger targets. I think they took on ISIS(that one) ...
Point being 4Chan isn't all that complicated.

Carry on with what looks to be over thinking a simple topic though.

On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 5:45 PM Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com<mailto:marcus at snoutfarm.com>> wrote:
I think generative learning (e.g. for deep fake videos) could capture Hendrix or Page.   Studying the deviations from the likely governing equations could be interesting (and probably could be quantified) but it also just could be some idiosyncratic bit of developmental history that means nothing.   With governance, I want to get some evidence of the rough features of where they stand and how they are likely to act.   I don't see it as relevant how they interact with their friends or their children because I am not looking for a friend or a parent.   In technical conversations, I don't see it as necessary to pre-approve or seek pre-approval to segue from topic to topic -- to know the discussants role.

On 1/28/19, 4:04 PM, "Friam on behalf of uǝlƃ ☣" <friam-bounces at redfish.com<mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of gepropella at gmail.com<mailto:gepropella at gmail.com>> wrote:

    Hm. As shallow as I think Trump is, or as much as I think Warren is a gaming politician, I don't think any of it is (merely) a distraction.  I'm rather fond of the concept of code switching (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code-switching) and it's extrapolation into other domains (e.g. https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/).  It would be a stretch to believe in the Freudian Slip.  But such things do have meaning and can help understand deeper layerings of messages.

    This is one of the reasons I'm saddened by the category of things that includes instant replay refereeing, hyper-realistic animated movies, deep fake videos, technically perfect guitar playing, etc.  The very reasons I like Jimi Hendrix and Jimmy Page better than Joe Satriani (or even Stevie Ray Vaughn) are those little *errors* where the implementation doesn't quite match whatever "governing equations" you might infer they're trying to implement.  The kerfuffle about the Saints' loss is a symptom of our being poised between the real and the fake.

    And to deny our political transition from newspaper/radio into TV, where any candidate must be somewhat telegenic would miss the social impacts of technology on politics (and every other social aspect of our lives).

    So, these are not distractions, at all.  I'd claim they are indicators for deeper messages, waiting to be interpreted.

    On 1/28/19 1:57 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
    > Or they can just be a distraction, like Elizabeth Warren showing that she drinks beer.   If the actor creates a rich dictionary to bind the symbols of the story to, then that can add value.    Other actors like Donald Trump only have the performance art, and no actual story.


    --
    ☣ uǝlƃ

    ============================================================
    FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
    Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
    to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
    archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
    FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20190129/92150042/attachment.html>