>Is this a joke?
Why would it be?
>The rules are quite clearly stated
Again, that's the point of all this: questioning if these
rules are right.
>It's certainly not up to an individual.
Agreed. So your answer is that the board is not
teleological. That's fine, I don't see a problem, although
I would say that having a goal would make the community
get together more easily.
>>A: quality posts
>By whos' definition?
Here's my arguments. All of the following is based on
generalizations and cannot be viewed as a determined rule.
What I'm trying here is to have a basic foundation (axioms,
if you will), so we can create refutations and get into a
concensus (or not). It's a bit big and complicated, so if
you don't want to read it's fine, I can just leave. But I
think we should thinking about this subject with a serious
view, not just the lulz:
The foundations of the contemporary imageboard culture
scenary can be generalised as:
1 - Against online personal identification (anonymity)
2 - Satirism and Irony (lulz)
3 - Suspension of Belief (disregard about most of the
4 - Subversion of authority (all mods are always treated as
someone not so important; see point 2)
Although not a rule for all boards, it can also be
5 - Japanese culture is a influence
6 - Most of the people are introverted
Ok, so let's see specifically the boards /g/ or /tech/ (but
not game-specific boards):
A - Scientific method is generally regarded as valid
B - General privacy/security concerns about computing
(reinforced by all the foundations, except point 5; the
points 2 and 6 play the most importance for this school of
Assuming all the above, let's see the threads I'm
personally against of:
- Desktop and Battlestation threads: goes against the
point 2 (identification). Goes against point B, because the
image can be used as a datamining method.
Exposing screenshots and your hardware, has nothing related
about technology specifically, it's a aesthetic (not
functional) view of the computer graphics and design,
respectivelly. If you want to talk about configuration
scripts and things like that, no problem.
- Smartphone threads: goes against point B
(see GSM security and all the clusterfuck that is these
personal tracking devices)
- General personal questions and "Everyday Carry Threads":
obvious datamining. Goes against general foundation point 2
- Closed source software threads: if you don't have the
code you cannot of it's security or our privacy while using
it. So all closed source software (including Windows,
Mac OSX, etc) goes against point B.
- Buy recommendations, such as Thinkpads, Headphones and
others: not necessarily bad. But recommending hardware that
has Intel ME, AMD Secure Processor or any technology that
has clearly privacy issues (such as backdoored routers,
sound systems like Ipod, etc), goes against point B.
Of course, all of this is based on the arguments of the
foundations is correct. I'll not get into the matter of
dicussing cognitive science and sociology to explain why
most of the people using imageboards are isolated, or how
the "simulation argument" created a methaphysical view of
the internet, generating artistic movements based on
nostalgia feelings, etc. These "foundations" is mostly
based on empiricism, since I can't test some of it.
Now, the other point is: should freedom be preserved, even
if this means low quality content (coherence with the
above)? Many of the imageboard culture is subversive and
even anarchist in itself. If we take in consideration the
above points and regard coherence as more important than
freedom, then we have to do a moderation of all posts,
that maybe is not feasible in a large community (unless
moderation is distributed, see >>>/tech/11417
It's also a matter of political thinking.
Note also that I'm not a coherentist solely. I don't regard