We’ve returned from ROFLcon II (April 30 & May 1, 2010) and are eager to share all we learned with anyone who will listen… 
Huge ideas abound and it was an incredibly helpful (and dare we say important) conference to witness. It was only the second time in two years they’d even held this exploration of internet culture, memes, academia and society at MIT. Anna (first-timer) and I (returning for round two) soaked up every minute of the packed two days. There’s so much to share, but we wanted to be sure to get some key themes in writing first:
- The entire conference started out with Ethan Zuckerman’s (The Berkman Center for Internet and Society) brilliant “From Weird to Wide” primer on important philosophical questions about culture, the internet and memes. This included not only a bright debut of Kenyan’s first meme explosion, but also an important discussion of a significant point: Be an anthropologist, not a bouncer. In other words, embrace rather than exclude. It would set the tone for some interesting underpinnings for the rest of the conference
- Apparently the rest of The Internet agrees that YouTube comments are the most ridiculous in the universe
- Another giant point writ large: Know your history. There were many great moments in a variety of panels that included memes and networks old and new, but the overall one can’t be hyped enough: know where we’ve been. For example, the open community of Usenet, with its challenges, imperfections, sub-communities, stalwart user trust and very existence pre-AOL set the stage for one of the toughest but singularly important lessons of the entire conference…
- “AOL” and “Training Wheels.” The Tweets heard round the world. As the very last panel at ROFLcon II tried to wrap its arms around the topic of “Mainstreaming the Web,” Ben Huh and Moot (from LOLcats and 4chan fame, respectively) deftly created a distinct separation between the open sub-communities that operate online (some anonymously) and those that allow for a mainstream audience to operate in a larger but closed system. With over 950 attendees, ROFLcon included employees from ominous internet giants such as Google and Mozilla, but as this panel pointed out, not a soul from Facebook (or none that would admit it). This lead to the single most Re-Tweeted line from the conference, uttered by Ben:
“Facebook has become like AOL, it’s like training wheels for the internet. It’s a safe place, except for your privacy.”
And thus what was once considered a fringe medium was correctly pegged as having moved into a mainstream culture controlled by a single corporation. We’ve been here before. With 400 million users, with meaningful proportions of diverse generations, races and cultures, Facebook is not unlike the closed system of AOL. This doesn’t make it right or wrong, but it does make it everywhere and closed – and drastically different from much of the sub-cultures brewing away contently in the rest of the web.
For Feedback one overriding point was clear: the social web hardly, barely begins and ends at the doors of Facebook and Twitter. Certainly a critical mass at those two giants means we must implement there to reach a large population of consumer. But even more importantly we must dive deep, see fewer obstacles and research even smarter and harder beyond these barriers into the sub-cultures that exist in the interest, cultural and geographic communities. There are enough self-proclaimed social media gods to take care of staring at Facebook and Twitter only. But it’s not unlike marveling only at a capital city and not noticing the swarms of people outside, down the roads, in other states, in other countries… The future of the net and community is not only also out there, it may indeed only be out there. Think I’m just being overly dramatic? Ask AOL.
More to come on some of our favorite moments by myself and Anna (@alucas9). We certainly had fun too and some photos are up on our Facebook Page right now. In the meantime be sure to check out her interview with Christian Lander of “Stuff White People Like” fame.

26
The Future? Transparency.
by FeedbackEvery day, millions of web users censor themselves in order to maintain control over the online image they portray to the world. This censorship takes place on multiple levels, given that we all have multiple audiences we seek to interact with and be accepted by.
Censorship may be the physical act of filtering what we say and removing pictures we deem unacceptable. We may post photos that don’t completely convey what we look like in reality. Or, some people choose not to filter anything at all. Consider the constant need, for those who were recently in college and are trying to find jobs, to remove incriminating photos with alcohol. They aren’t abiding by government censorship, rather, just that of society.
Yet, even the choice to not filter yourself is a form of censorship – you censor the socially acceptable parts of yourself and unleash the ones you think most Internet users will relish.
Outgoing Google CEO Eric Schmidt recently stated that no anonymity and transparency is the future of the web:
We begin searching for our identity when we are adolescents. The online world is greatly contributing to how we as human beings go about doing that. Social media tools in particular are accelerating that process, and it all begins with a name. I’m sure you’ll remember when AIM was a big part of our lives.
Unbeknownst to most of us, our screen name became a part of our identity whether it was “hotchick12,” “animalhousecrazy,” or “susie_johnson.” Each of these accounts says something different about the user and for friends and strangers this affects the conversation topics they enter in to. This transcends to any other username/handle we use for a myriad of accounts we may have. These multiple identities allow people to explore and discover themselves, thus shaping and creating his or her identity of self.
This sense of self and the portion of it we choose to convey affects the content we produce on certain social media platforms. Let me use a personal example.
When my real name is used in my username or handle I have to ensure that that self adheres (somewhat) to the “me” that people see at work, at home and in the general public eye. I filter what I say/post in the hopes that there is no disparity between the person people “know” and think they know. With accounts using an alternate (or anonymous) identity it’s a free for all. Here boundaries are crossed and rules broken, testing the waters of How Far Is Too Far?
Last year, Reporters Without Borders posted an article about the crackdown on anonymous postings in Belarus stating that, “By subjecting online access to an identity check or to prior online authorisation that depends on the content and the applicant, this decree will force people to censor themselves. This is obviously the intention, regardless of the government’s insincerely reassuring comments about online free expression.”
The elusive Anonymous that overruns 4chan, wreaking havoc on all who make the mistake of crossing its path, is one such example. These are the guys that sent innocent little children to porn sites when they tried to watch a Justin Bieber video on YouTube. Anonymity allows for individuals choosing to operate under its guise to abandon the rules of the Internet and post whatever they please, like the uncensored versions of R-rated movies, without suffering the consequences (for the most part).
If Anonymous allows this form of chaos that people seem to want to peddle in, then why do so many people feel the need to censor the content they publish? I think it comes back to the desire for order: Chaos can be fun in moderation for most of us, but we still have a need to fit into a variety of social circles. In order to do so, we censor our image in order to be deemed acceptable. Even when we operate under an anonymous account you adhere to the rules of anonymity, or the rule of that rules don’t exist. Censorship is always happening whether you want to admit it or not. Take a look at your accounts and gauge how you censor yourself. I bet it’ll surprise you.
-Brittney (@bntrim)