Sociology of 4chan Part 2

I've been really dragged into this, I have to admit finding 4chan and it's anonymity fascinating.

Who IS Anonymous?

That is, without a doubt, one of the stupidest questions ever asked. Yet it's one that people constantly try to answer. A general statement of how uninformed someone is can be found in their answer.

• Fox News: Hackers on Steroids (a youtube video of the infamous report).Verdict: Incredibly uninformed.
• Skeptobot blog: "A fan base of hormone riddled self aware geeky teenagers and should-know-better twenty somethings" (the blog in question).Verdict: Trying his little heart out, but still uninformed.
• 4chan: I was about to ask, but I then risked receiving the steely gaze of anonymous. Verdict: I imagine they're the closest to informed, but even they don't friggin' know.

Why are Skeptobot and Fox news so uninformed on this issue? Because it's not something they can really fathom.

Anonymous is not an organised group or a simple 'collection of geeks'. Trying to attribute anything to them, age, race, gender, socio-economic background, is ridiculous because by their very definition THEY DON'T HAVE ONE. In fact, trying to lump them under one singular group and call them a 'their' is a simple fallacy.

The closest definition I can think of at the moment is that they are a collective of individuals. They're united by two facts.
1. They feel no great need for identification
2. They share a similar sense of humour.

Notice that those facts were incredibly flexible.

• Some do want to be identified and can be identified (among some particular groups like /TG/, individuals are identified by their produced works, such as drawings or stories), while most are content to have recognition come from enjoyment of what they produce, rather then aimed at them personally.
• Often individuals within the group argue over if a single product of the boards can be listed as funny, showing a difference in sense of humour, but if both individuals continue to remain on the board (something impossible to determine) then surely they find the overall humour derived from the board appeasing.

So how can I define a group if their only identifying factors are flexible and their membership is fluid and unprovable.

It's simple. I can't. That's what makes the Anonymous factor so amazing. They are a collective of individuals. The two primary words are 'collective' and 'individuals'.

Collective: The boards give them a uniting purpose and ability to facilitate the actions that get them noticed. It's a factor of self-identity different to the self. By going to the boards one isn't "John Smith, Tech Support", you're anonymous. You become a part of the collective by either tacitly or actively endorsing it's actions (arguing against it's actions is effectively futile, since there is no one debater you can pin down and 'defeat'), with the only option of protest being to quit. This isn't to say that you are subsumed within Anonymous, it just means that any actions you undertake in their name are actions credited to the collective, you can receive no praise or blame.

Individuals: There is no organisational facility attached to 4chan, no leaders to dole out orders or any form of hierarchy. There is NO way to compel 4chan into action other then appealing to its individuals. Creating a good enough idea and posting it on the boards will inspire individuals to act upon it, there is no way to force them to do so. When Anonymous went to 'war' against Scientology, news organisations tried to report it as an organised uprising, but it isn't. Someone on 4chan said "Let's do this", and a collective of INDIVIDUALS agreed with the idea as it stood. There were no orders, people just thought "this is a good idea" and did it. Any action undertaken by 'Anonymous' is NOT the effort of Anonymous, it is the effort of an individual within the collective who appreciates the idea being put forward.

Where Fox News fails in their understanding of this concept is that they assume organisation where there is meritocratic anarchy. There IS no controlling force of Anonymous, and attributing actions to them is impossible, since they are always the actions of individuals under the guise of an identity-less figure.

That is not to say that Anonymous does nothing. It is still a collective, but it is a unique collective in that there is no guaranteed way to be a member other then to receive approval by the individuals that make up the membership. In that fashion 4chan (and other bastions of 'anonymous') are incredible, since they are probably the only group to exist that is only responsible for an action if they admit responsibility. If the collective as a whole decries an action it is not theirs. It may be inspired by Anonymous with an individual seeking acceptance by undertaking the action believing it will be accepted, but if they do not accept an action, it cannot be truly accredited to them. There is no governing body approving actions before they happen, and no way to know what a member of the collective will do before it is done (unless they publically state they are going to do it, a rarity for certain), so attributing actions to them is an incredibly difficult endeavour.

Where Skeptobot's understanding is flawed is in an entirely different direction. The identification of who Anonymous is under age and personality based guidelines. Actually, thinking about it, Skepto-bot may be closer then I initially thought. He may not be stating outright "this is who these people are", rather "this is the image they place to the world". They DO seem like, if you met them in the street, none of them would have ovaries (although a few might have bosom) and most would have what they affectionately term a neckbeard (if you see one of these things in the street, flee).

So, in answer to the question at the top of this post: Who IS Anonymous?

They have no nation, no gender, both genders, no age, no socio-economic background, and no distinguishing features. You CANNOT tell who Anonymous is, because Anonymous is Anyone. Not everyone, not no one, Anyone.

You could go far enough to say that the very question 'Who is Anonymous' is a contradiction.

I so need to write a thesis about this shit.