But the phrasing almost implies it's not a true accomplishment because "scientists" didn't discover it.
Reddit has shades of this, but it was never truly focused. The upvote system kills small discussions.
But yes, the noise was also a part of the surprise factor here. Many people have this perception that intelligent people are dignified, studious,and fancy in their demeanor. So someone like that hanging out on an "anime forum" can be shocking to some.
That feels untrue. 4chan was launched only in 2003. Forums are much older than that.
Especially if you count forum-like things that aren't called forums, like usenet or bbs.
Web forums are basically as old as the web; I have accounts that are older than 4chan on forums (what I believe is the oldest forum that I have an account on, which also has my oldest continuous forum account [though not my first forum account] launched in 1996 -- I didn't join until 2002.)
Online forums, more generally, are older than the web, whether you are talking about email listservers, nntp groups, or CompuServe forums.
the smaller boards and threads could get some interesting stories and content (of all were of course, of reasonable falseness and potential homosexuality). The vibe was fine as long as you avoided the modern attitude and approach everything with hostility. Unlike say, modern twitter, everyone in 4chan was in agreement that they were full of shit. It was never trying to be this platform of serious debate. Understanding that ironically enough frees you of a lot of inhibitions.
----
All the "elites" were definitely gone by the middle of the 2010's, though. Probably to less controversial and more popular platforms. It's nearly impossible to replicate this nowadays.
It reminds one of the wisdom of the masses experiments. If you take a bunch of people and ask them how many peas are in a jar, the average will come out extremely close to the right answer. But if you let those people collaborate, debate, and try to pick the smartest answer - it tends to be far less accurate.
It's part of the reason that I think decentralize everything is the way to go. You'll never reach the utopic highs that a perfect centralization might offer, but you'll also never reach the dystopic lows that a flawed centralization can impose.
No it absolutely does not. It enables people to hold whatever positions are immediately expedient regardless of personal beliefs. There is no way to call an anonymous person a hypocrite when you cannot connect their directly contradictory statements due to their anonymity. 4chan is a perfect example of group think overriding other opinions.
Humans are not consistent. We hold conflicting views, and in a decade we'll think a good chunk of what we believe today is idiotic. It's all fine and normal.
I would also add that in many cases claims of hypocrisy are themselves somewhat disingenuous, because scarce (and perhaps even undesirable) is the human that holds any given view as absolute dogma. We all hold views and values on a spectrum. For instance utilitarianism and taking the 'intuitive' solution to the trolley problem are not mutually exclusive, because one's adoption of utilitarianism is often of the nature of simply generally preferring utilitarian solutions, rather treating it as the be all, end all, of decision making.
Why, whats wrong with 4chan? Outside of /pol/ and /b/ its just an image board with many different users.
The issue is it's not a fun website. The creative spark is gone.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boogaloo_movement
...also, a huge number of mass shooters have been 4chan regulars...
I love the fact we have somewhere unambiguously lowbrow on the internet. It's fun to watch how highbrow places talk about it.
Of course, if seeing the N word makes you obsessively clutch pearls, then it's not the place for you. If you can let stuff roll right off you, it's fun, and there can be dialogue of interest here and there. /g/ being most similar to here, of course.
For what it's worth, copypastas are the highest (and likely the oldest) form of meme.
...or I can just participate in communities which are still plenty irreverent but doesn't have any of that?
Goddamn people - stop romanticizing 4chan or acting like it somehow gives us something special or unique.
But you would find it strange if the article said, "Oncologist stumbles upon cure for cancer while testing new colon cancer treatment." Because in that case, the scientist is seemingly doing what he set out to do--it was not unintentional.
It seems like the 4chan poster knew enough about mathematics to recognize the stated problem as a mathematical problem and write a proof for it. That already demonstrates a degree of specialty and intention that makes "stumble upon" seem dismissive, to me. The fact that they didn't know they were solving a a more general, already-known problem is irrelevant, IMO. It would almost be like denying them credit because they didn't fill out the paperwork correctly.
I wouldn't really find that strange. Finding a cure for cancer is not an expected outcome of testing a cancer treatment and certainly isn't what the oncologist is trying to do. It's directly related to what you were trying to do, and better, but it's still a lucky find that you weren't looking for.
Doesn't matter; that's not relevant to my point. When we attempt to find cancer treatments, we don't expect to find cures. (That's why we say "treatments"!) The goal of research into colon cancer is not to find a cure for colon cancer. It's to get the amount of remission that patients can expect to enjoy higher. Eliminating the cancer entirely is a completely different kind of result, and it would be the goal of a different kind of research.