8chan and Reacting to Online Radicalization

08/22/19 • 35 min

The recent shootings in El Paso and Gilroy are a reminder of the power of the internet to build communities for niche interests, from vampire fan fiction aficionados to neo-Nazis. The El Paso shooter posted his manifesto to 8chan, a hub for dank memes and hateful content alike. Timothy McLaughlin joins the show to explain where 8chan came from and the personalities people behind its founding.

Then Paul, Matthew, and Will discuss the ways that online radicalization of the alt-Right is both similar to past waves of terrorist radicalization and dissimilar in that it is stochastic and requires less organizational structure. Finally, they caution against government overreaction to the legitimate problem of online radicalization, given that most of the proposed measures wouldn’t work, might even backfire, and would create significant, ill, and unintended consequences for positive online social movements.

What is 8chan? How is 8chan organized? Who created 8chan and what was its’ original purpose? How should forms of exchange be regulated in the wake of horrific events? Does the use of mass communication inspire people to commit terrible acts of terror? Why are criminal manifestos posted on 8chan? What is stochastic terrorism? How should government respond to the problem of online radicalization?

Related Content:

Haters Gonna Hate Speech, Building Tomorrow Podcast

How the FOSTA Rules Create a “Bootleggers and Baptists” Scenario for the 21st Century, written by Paul Matzko

What Made the Internet Possible?, Building Tomorrow Podcast

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Previous Episode

A Smarter Kickstarter (with Alex Tabarrok)

If you, as a private citizen, want to build a bridge across the river to shorten your commute, you run into a few problems. The incredible cost of the proposed bridge puts it beyond your limited resources, so you try and convince thousands of your neighbors to chip in donations. But you don’t want to contribute money unless you reach the total amount necessary to build the bridge; a half-built bridge is worse than no bridge at all.

One answer to this problem is to use the State to coerce contributions (taxes) from the community, but that comes with ethical problems and inefficiencies from bureaucracy and regulatory capture. Recently, new internet-based alternatives like Kickstarter have fueled the rise of private sector crowdfunding (properly known as assurance contracts), solving the fundraising problem by guaranteeing that contributors will only be debited if total contributions reach the required amount.

However, there is still a free rider problem given that people who want the bridge will be unwilling to contribute since there’s a chance that the bridge will be built regardless of whether they, personally, contribute. They can have a bridge without paying, thus the temptation to free ride. To mitigate that problem, Alex coined the idea of the dominant assurance contract, which gives potential free riders an additional incentive to contribute. And dominant assurance contracts could be combined with smart contracts on the blockchain to remove the need for as much trust in the good intentions of strangers.

What is a dominant assurance contract? What is a public good? How much of each public good do we want? How are assurance contracts just like crowdfunding? What is Kickstarter?