So I was reading this article, with the long title of ‘The internet hasn’t made us bad, we were already like that’: The mistake of yearning for the ‘friendly’ online world of 20 years ago, and at first I kind of agreed with what they’re saying. The internet’s undoubtedly changed from how it was 20 or 30 years ago, and a major reason for that is because “‘The real world and the digital world do not exist as separate entities’” (no way whoever said that has not watched Lain). And I also agree with this statement: “‘There is still a lot of kindness on the internet’”.
But something about the article made me start thinking about a different topic entirely. The article proposes the question “Has the network changed or have we lost our innocence? Bottom line: When did the internet go bust?”, and its answer to this questions seems to be the internet became bad because people we don’t like started using it. The article speaks affectionately of the utopian time of the internet when “‘some hippies… thought they could fix the world with technology”, but then starts to imply that the reason this dream wasn’t realized was because “‘platforms allow fascism to grow, precisely when they do not take measures to moderate content’”.
I believe this line of thinking is faulty. There will always be people who think differently from us, but we have to learn to coexist from them so we can learn from them as a part of a larger society. Society is not just the people you like, it’s the people you hate as well; thus, trying to build some utopia where you get rid of all the people you don’t like kind of reminds me of something.
Join me, as I explore this strange world full intolerant people.
One of the most interesting things about the world and life is being exposed to different view points——exposure to different perspectives is important. That’s part of what made the early internet so exciting: now, you could browse the web and find differing viewpoints on everything from ordinary people. Before the internet, you’d only be able to get this kind of reach as a celebrity, politician, or journalist. The early internet granted the ability of ordinary people to exercise their right to freedom of speech like they never had before.
The article has this to say on the matter:
Was [the internet] free, for whom? The fact that you can say anything does not mean that there is more freedom. It means that the freedom of the strongest prevails. On 4Chan, people used to joke that there were no women on the internet, and if someone identified themselves as such, they were required to show their tits. These types of spaces (like the rest, of course) were not neutral.
I disagree strongly with this notion that the internet resulted in “freedom of the strongest.”
But first that 4chan comment——first, 4chan moderates a lot (at least now they do). Second, that comment about there being “no women on the internet” isn’t really meant to be interpreted as you’re a woman so your opinion doesn’t matter, what it actually means is we’re on the internet so whether you’re a woman or not doesn’t matter. The internet was formed as a place where all people were equal——on any imageboard like 4chan, all are labeled “Anonymous”, and you don’t even know if the person you’re having a conversation with is the same person between posts. Trying to bring in real life details——like if you’re a woman or not——was against the spirit of the free internet, where all posters were equal.
And that relates back to that quote’s main point: it claims that the internet was somehow free only for a certain “oppressor” group, while women are brought up as the “oppressed” group that was somehow less free. This type of Marxist thinking is unproductive and ridiculous to bring up, especially when discussing sites designed around anonymous posting like 4chan (or really anywhere on the internet before it became more normalized to use your real name on the internet for some reason). Marxism——a system that blames everything wrong with the world on class struggles——has no place anywhere, especially a anonymous internet forum where all notion of one’s social class has been removed through anonymity.
So if you teleported back in time to like 2008, posted on 4chan that you were a woman, then got sexist-sounding replies, it wasn’t the internet that was the problem: it was you.
People on internet sites like 4chan (as well as on any forum, subreddit, Usenet group, or whatever) develop their own culture based on the ideas they believe in. For core community of 4chan regulars, bringing up real-world details like your gender didn’t fit with their way. So, you’d get called out for it, get called names or get offended or whatever. Now, here’s where I take issue: do you now starting hating this group of people for not accepting you? Absolutely not.
A sensible, adult person should be able to understand other people, and other groups of people. Not everyone lives the same way me or you lives, are we really going to hate every community we’re not apart of? Better to respect and appreciate the existence of so many various cultures and communities than attempt to extinguish those we’re either not apart of or don’t like.
This all reminds me of The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger.
For those who don’t know, it’s a book about teenager named Holden Caulfield who is estranged from everything and everyone. He spends a great deal of the book talking about all things he hates, and one of the things he hates most are the people he calls “phonies”. A good example is at the beginning of chapter 19: “If you sat around there long enough and heard all the phonies applauding and all, you got to hate everybody in the world, I swear you did.” He goes around Manhattan for most of the book doing all these stupid things, hating everything just like that, because he’s the one standing around watching all the phonies and hating everything in the world.
This comes to a head in Chapter 22, when Holden’s telling his little sister Phoebe all the things he hated about the boarding schools he’s been going to, and she says “‘You don’t like anything that’s happening… You don’t like a million things.’” She asks him to name something he likes and Holden can hardly think of anything. She then asks him what he’d want to be and he says not a lawyer——"’they’re all right if they go around saving innocent guys’ lives all the time, and like that, but you don’t do that kind of stuff if you’re a lawyer… And besides. Even if you did go around saving guys’ lives and all, how would you know you did it because you really wanted to save guys’ lives, or because you did it because what you really wanted to do was be a terrific lawyer… How would you know you weren’t being a phony? The trouble is, you wouldn’t.’" Holden then says he wants to be “’the catcher in the rye’”——the author’s metaphor aside, Holden really wants to be a person who does that right thing and helps people because it’s the right thing to do, not a person who does what’s right to look or feel good.
Holden’s so right too. Everyone’s driven by their own self-interests, sometimes I feel like everybody’s a phony too. It disgusts me. That’s the thing really, every single one of us are just sitting around hearing and watching all the phonies and, as we all sit there watching them, we passively grow to hate everything in the world.
But things can’t be like that. I touched on this once in a previous article, but we cannot just live life watching the phonies from a distance, letting our hatred for them slowly build. We have to let the phonies——the people we don’t like——exist in their own world and surround ourselves with those whose company we enjoy. For Holden, that’s his sister Phoebe. Family and friends are what really matter, it’s better to focus on the people you care about than obsessing over the phonies.
I will write more sections of this when I feel like it, but I’m tired now.
Just want to say though, I don’t feel like I’ve exactly given a solution to this whole problem. I don’t really have a sufficient grasp on the answer. When I do I’ll be sure to write about it. For now I can think of two major reasons that seem reasonable to me:
Site Licensing Site last updated: 2025-07-04