Skip navigation

Right at the start I am intrigued to be reading a text on Anonymous that has been approved by a professor of mine, because to date, I have not seen a media report whether on television or an article online that does not completely miss the point or misunderstand the notion of 4chan and anonymous. I hope, as I read on, that the incredibly fascinating 21st century social and digital amalgam that is 4chan/anonymous is investigated with the same attention to detail as other critical texts. (Update: 1 paragraph in and I have a good feeling about the rest of the article.)

I find it interesting that Coleman sees 4chan’s labeling as cyber vigilantes a “misunderstanding”, as it seems, while much of their antics are done with a veil of trolling and mischief as their chief motivation, my perception of them is that in the end of the day this cyber vigilantism is at least some part of their culture. It must be right? Or else why would they do these things?

I think that this quote captures what I find so intriguing about anonymous. “But acting “on the wing” leverages Anonymous’s fluid structure, giving Anons an advantage, however temporary, over traditional institutions—corporations, states, political parties—that function according to unified plans.”  This idea that their nebulous-ness is their power, especially in this digital age in which perhaps this sort of power structure could be replicated. I also enjoyed learning a that a legitimate ethnographic phrase exists for the behavior that I very much associate with 4chan, which is their incredible frustration at the media’s inability to properly represent them: “superaltern”.