Thinking through the significance that Slashdot is not a particularly significant site now and has not been for some time
In the mid-to-late 90s, the fact that it was possibly the only significant website that offered any new content in the 15 minutes since you last checked, its alignment with IT-nerd culture (who then represented a significant share of people on the web during work hours), and the comment (and user moderation and metamoderation as a sort of jury duty) system that offered discussion under each individual news item made it possibly the most significant site on the web, the medium in which user culture (suddenly learning about this new novelty site, hoping it had solid enough hosting that the sudden attention didn’t see it “Slashdotted” and overtaxed to the point of falling offline) lived
I still use it to test my internet connection because from this era they made a point of keeping it on a reliable connection and very light and quick to load
The Lowtax thing has a bunch of people coming out of the woodwork to talk about Something Awful, so I’m thinking about that now. I never used SA because I didn’t much approve of it, so take anything I have to say with a grain of salt, but I was surrounded by people who used it, and we’re all surrounded by the products of its existence, so it’s, I guess, relevant.
There’s a take people enjoy that’s like “SA got Trump elected by creating 4chan”, and that’s been trotted out for the occasion, and to be clear, this is a stupid take. There’s a real sense in which SA is responsible for 4chan, not just by kicking out the community that would go on to create it but also by defining the culture they took with them, a variant of the broader SA culture. But the chain of causality breaks down rapidly after that, and, like, the thing is: there are very few things about the modern world that SA can specifically be said to have caused. But almost the entire English-speaking Internet is downstream of SA. The influence was diffuse and indirect, but all-encompassing.
Anyway, my take on SA is basically: people who liked the site always advocated for it by saying that the heavy moderation lead to a higher quality of users and discussion – the argument was basically that it was the Singapore of the internet. The problem with this approach is that, in practice, SA was more like if Singapore was run by Trey Parker, Matt Stone, and the Kiwifarms people – it had a kind of “droog culture” that prefigured 4chan and was actually stronger in the staff than in the wider userbase, and while it prided itself on being more refined and tasteful than the rest of the Internet, in practice this boiled down to being the coolest and playing high school clique politics the best, which was IMO not a great fit for the level of authoritarianism involved. There was also just the fact that “banning people a lot leads to higher-quality discussion” was, while to some extent a real phenomenon, largely a happy accident – SA routinely banned people for really stupid reasons, and that’s because maximizing the number of people banned was central to their business model. That’s the opposite of what you want if you’re trying to run a site with strong norms, and all their other revenue sources were actively damaging to the site culture as well, so, like, it wasn’t great.
The weird combination of lumpen vandalism, haughty tastemaker shit, and posturing via competitive humour are really what I think define SA as a site, and they’re its gift to the larger internet culture – sure, you see something related from the alt-right, but you also see it from Harvard bluechecks; it’s everywhere so trying to trace specific “lineages” isn’t that interesting. If you want to talk about the site’s cultural influence in a deeper way than “look at all these seminal things that came from SA”, I really think it has to be about that sort of vague stylistic bequest.
This is so much better than what I have seen in the mainstream media, but it is missing something by focusing on the things the mainstream media gets wrong, rather than spelling out what’s missing.
One of the puzzle pieces missing from the discussions is yes, SA became the SJW site and 4chan became the reactionary site, and from 4chan came Encyclopadia Dramatica and 8chan and kiwifarms, but it’s not all about migrating user bases. After Reddit grew and grew and developed its own culture, it adopted many 4chan memes without adopting the 4chan culture wholesale, and thus Reddit became the ebaumsworld of SomethingAwful. They really hated Reddit. Reddit was the cutesy and sanitised 4chan. ShitRedditSays basically started out as an anti-Reddit SomethingAwful troll OP - or rather, the current iteration of the community came from there after new mods were appointed.
Another important thing to keep in mind is that even sites or communities that “failed“ or are “defunct“ or “have declined“, like everything2, metafilter, livejournal, slashdot, kuro5hin, adequacy.org, digg, geocities, fark, plurk, de.icio.us, flickr, sourceforge.net, advogato, soup.io, and so on have been hugely influential on Internet culture, even though they are not as visible today. I remember this documentary that said Mumsnet is one of the biggest and most important UK sites and it’s important for men to realise even though invisible to men and not a source of memes, it is still a huge boon for women. Yeah, this did not age well. All kinds of things came from all kinds of places, but SA mainly won through longevity, by never re-writing their whole site like digg.
Opened in 1998, I’ve been working on FantasyAnime.com for the past 23 years! Uuf, it doesn’t feel that long. I’ve had people message me saying, “Wow, you’re still online! I used to go to your site when I was in middle school.” - and then my hair instantly turns grey 👴
In this article, I’m going to talk about my experience maintaining a fan site for such a long time. I’m also going to reminisce about the early days of the Internet.
The Lowtax thing has a bunch of people coming out of the woodwork to talk about Something Awful, so I’m thinking about that now. I never used SA because I didn’t much approve of it, so take anything I have to say with a grain of salt, but I was surrounded by people who used it, and we’re all surrounded by the products of its existence, so it’s, I guess, relevant.
There’s a take people enjoy that’s like “SA got Trump elected by creating 4chan”, and that’s been trotted out for the occasion, and to be clear, this is a stupid take. There’s a real sense in which SA is responsible for 4chan, not just by kicking out the community that would go on to create it but also by defining the culture they took with them, a variant of the broader SA culture. But the chain of causality breaks down rapidly after that, and, like, the thing is: there are very few things about the modern world that SA can specifically be said to have caused. But almost the entire English-speaking Internet is downstream of SA. The influence was diffuse and indirect, but all-encompassing.
Anyway, my take on SA is basically: people who liked the site always advocated for it by saying that the heavy moderation lead to a higher quality of users and discussion – the argument was basically that it was the Singapore of the internet. The problem with this approach is that, in practice, SA was more like if Singapore was run by Trey Parker, Matt Stone, and the Kiwifarms people – it had a kind of “droog culture” that prefigured 4chan and was actually stronger in the staff than in the wider userbase, and while it prided itself on being more refined and tasteful than the rest of the Internet, in practice this boiled down to being the coolest and playing high school clique politics the best, which was IMO not a great fit for the level of authoritarianism involved. There was also just the fact that “banning people a lot leads to higher-quality discussion” was, while to some extent a real phenomenon, largely a happy accident – SA routinely banned people for really stupid reasons, and that’s because maximizing the number of people banned was central to their business model. That’s the opposite of what you want if you’re trying to run a site with strong norms, and all their other revenue sources were actively damaging to the site culture as well, so, like, it wasn’t great.
The weird combination of lumpen vandalism, haughty tastemaker shit, and posturing via competitive humour are really what I think define SA as a site, and they’re its gift to the larger internet culture – sure, you see something related from the alt-right, but you also see it from Harvard bluechecks; it’s everywhere so trying to trace specific “lineages” isn’t that interesting. If you want to talk about the site’s cultural influence in a deeper way than “look at all these seminal things that came from SA”, I really think it has to be about that sort of vague stylistic bequest.
I’ve only ever seen scattered isolated episodes of Buffy and Angel but reading about Buffyverse and the discourses around it made me realize that the past 20 years of media analysis have simply been footnotes to late 90s/wary 00s Buffy fandom message boards
I was a kid before the WB and UPN (later merged as The CW) followed Fox, America’s 4th broadcast television network established in the 1980s, to become the 5th and 6th, so I remember unaffiliated local channels that would air stuff that was bid out to individual channels market by market in syndication (Xena was syndicated! Star Trek: The Next Generation was syndicated!) or like reruns from a generation previous like Small Wonder or What’s Happening.
And this was before the internet, this would be one of like eight things you could passively watch in realtime (like 60 if you had cable) if you felt like having some contact with the wilder world from a chair. A huge share of ‘90s and '00s culture was basically in reaction to everyone having had this as their main cultural context for decades.
Like, remember Jump The Shark, how once the Internet put us all in touch it turns out we were all fixated with broadcast television as both the backdrop of American society and deep reservoir of obscure Weird (this is the power behind contemporary Candle Cove myth)
I feel like if youve been online for years you get used to seeing the same discussions over and over again but for some reason Tiktok is the exception to that. Every single time I hear about a new popular discussion in Tiktok it’s just the most bonkers bullshit I’ve ever heard.
Don’t get me wrong, you see bonkers bullshit all the time in Tumblr and other sites but I feel there’s patterns here. You can kinda see where they come from. Tiktok discussions feel like I’m witnessing an alternate dimension.
Who remembers from the 90s kids convinced they were “energy vampires”?
At least our modern Otherkin aren’t Otherkin Supremacists like back in the day when it was mostly elves.
like a lot of internet culture history comes down to that’s how furries presented in the late ‘90s
honestly more recent trends have a lot to do with the fact that around 2010 trans stuff mostly matched that pattern too
Lol remember when people on this site tried to say you’re not allowed to make “mods are asleep post [blank]” jokes because supposedly this originated on 4chan with pedophiles saying “mods are asleep, post child pornography.”
I mean it wasn’t pedophiles, it was just people who if there was gonna be one rule were set on breaking it
