/b/, /vg/, /v/, /pol/ and sometimes /g/ all have strong alt right representation. (actually /g/ is still much more libertarian but you get some bleed in here and there).
Even /sci/ has changed. You have race IQ intelligence threads all the time compared to 2011. Instead of the daily Putnam problem thread, you get that garbage.
NYT is pretty on the money here.
If this were 2010, I'd disagree with them, but not nowadays.
disclaimer of my own bias: I stopped using 4chan in 2012 because of how much of an alt right mess it became after /r9k/. Didn't have the words to describe it back then. I remember people making endless Dragon Age memes in the pinned thread in /v/ in response to the mass shooting by a particular Anders in 2011. They were celebrating it, and it was the most active live thread on the site in that moment.
>Even /sci/ has changed. You have race IQ intelligence threads all the time compared to 2011. Instead of the daily Putnam problem thread, you get that garbage.
Is race IQ intelligence discussion really "garbage"? To my knowledge there isn't strong evidence confirming or disproving the theory, but the science on the genetic component of intelligence is pretty solid, and it isn't implausible that certain ethnic groups have genes that confer more intelligence, similar to how certain ethnic groups have genes that make them taller or better runners (see for instance, the olympic winners for sprints).
regardless of whether or not you think the topic is a worthy intellectual pursuit (i do not), the frequency at which it is discussed implies a racist agenda
And what's the frequency that doesn't imply "a racist agenda"? I went on skimmed all the OPs and found a few threads about intelligence/IQ, but couldn't find one with a racist bent.
Most of these race/iq threads end up concluding that East Asians and Ashkenazi Jews are the most intelligent racial groups, not exactly the poster children of white nationalism.
there is also the narrative that these tests are designed by secret groups (ran by whom you ask?) to have such stack ranking to keep white people down and not realizing their true potential. i don't know how anyone sees racial IQ discussion and not realize it is always going to devolve into nazis.
True, American racists are, for instance, quite often neoconfederates. OTOH, the Confederates were among the direct inspirations for the Nazis, so in a sense that makes those racists Neo-Proto-Nazis.
The board specifically set aside for politics on 4chan is probably the most popular neo-Nazi discussion forum on the internet. "Far-right" is a completely fair description of the political leanings of that site.
/pol/ most certainly is that way. I've been on 4chan for more than 15 years and I research far right extremism professionally. /pol/ isn't the most right wing or extreme place on the internet, but claiming it's not like 'traditional racial supremacy [..] neo-nazis' is nonsense, that's 20-25% of /pol/ threads.
Please elaborate. This is a common claim among "disinformation experts," when what they really mean is they occasionally browse /pol/ while telling themselves it's an academic exercise and they're obviously better than everyone posting on that "cesspool."
If reading /pol/ for hours a day is enough to say you "research far right extremism professionally," then I'd posit that every one of the most active users of /pol/ is more of an expert on it than any pseudo-intellectual making a spurious claim to authority based on their "professional expertise." By that metric, nearly every one of your "research subjects" is more of an expert than you, so if we want a fair assessment of 4chan, we should probably ask someone who uses it genuinely rather than sanctimoniously.
I was a chan user long before I took up this work full time. I didn't say I was a 'disinformation expert', I mostly study mass shooters, would-be terrorists, and violent street groups.
This comment is written in bad faith - generally on HN we try to take what people say at face value. They said they research far-right extremism professionally. The good-faith interpretation is that they do this as part of their job, as that is what "professionally" means.
>But they have never been "far right" in the way that the traditional racial supremacy kind of neo nazis are.
There is no way you are talking about /pol/. I refuse to believe you have spent any amount of time on /pol/ and haven't seen the countless race IQ charts.
The_Donald was (1) banned and (2) not the official politics forum. It's more like characterizing Reddit as a whole as left-leaning because /r/politics is, which is, in my book, a fair claim.
I mean the goofiness comes from "what are the politics of a website" being inherently kind of a strange question with no clear answer. The motivations and values of the people who run these sites are mostly not legible to us. We can look at what the sites are used for.
If someone is using their own money to host a forum for neo nazis it's very coherent to describe this behavior as, at the very least, supporting neo nazis. If they are also hosting a motorcycle forum with their money, does that cancel out the neo nazi support? Is it reasonable to say either site IS a nazi forum?
What if most but not all members of the motorcycle forum are also nazi forum members? What if only a few of them are? What if they share login systems and comment histories?
There aren't clear boundaries between these things. The nazi forum is definitely a nazi forum. Whether the motorcycle forum is a nazi forum depends on how much userbase and culture and branding they share, and how high your tolerance for nazis is; an individual assessment without an objective answer.
I thought Stormfront was the big website for them? /pol/ is a bunch of nutters but it's not well organized. Arguably there's more visible White Nationalism on Twitter.
There is a substantial cohort of 'libs' who started calling themselves 'leftists' post-George Floyd, but when probed about their opinions on e.g. means testing, prison abolition, or asked to define even something as basic as Marxism, miss the mark so widely on the fundaments of those ideas that it appears they've labeled themselves without actually contending with certain core concepts that literally define the distinctions between left folks and others.
Of course, the boogeymen borne of tribalistic (politico-cultural) battlegrounds mean that those on the broad right look leftward and see people calling themselves 'leftists' dragging the classical left tenets toward strange, centrist-ized, often authoritarian lines and assume without further evidence that this applies to the left generally.
I promise you there's still plenty of folks who competently understand the labels they choose to inhabit.
Both “anarchism” and “anti-globalism” (the former largely as a result of fairly recent cooption, the latter inherently in being a label of opposition not specifically tied to the ideological reason for opposition) have both far-left and far-right versions, and that remains the case. Neither is universal on the left or the right, either, because while anarchism in the narrower historical sense is connected to socialism, there are obviously socialisms that are not anarchist (even without going to the extreme of Lenin/Stalin/Mao vanguardist approaches).
I disagree that, within the left and far-left, the anarchist or anti-globalist segments have recently retreated. OTOH, in the United States, the old (peaking around 1990) overlapping center-right neoliberal globalist faction forming the moderate wings of both major parties has faded in the Republican Party, leading the remaining segment of it – which is the dominant faction of the Democratic Party – to be called “left” (and sometimes “far left”) by Republican partisans.
The far right has a number of anti-capitalist. Usually around capitalism undermining social order and traditional bonds.
If we're talking 4chan specifically still, then the idea that capitalism is a jewish plot to... something? (the what varies a lot as far as I can tell) is probably more likely.
My guess is (since I don't claim to be a 4chan expert), in the beginning, 4chan users were just being edgy by being trolls and being for the choices that would lead to chaos (by being not politically correct, by supporting Donald Trump), but this attracted many genuine right-wingers, and if they do bother to hang out there, that would mean 4chan has become a far-right message board.
Saying 4chan isn't a far-right message board is like saying HN isn't a tech forum, and citing the existence of non-tech threads to support that argument.
It's 2023. The site has been around for 19 years. If they haven't gotten it right by this point, they never will. And its "probably" that way by design.
Even /sci/ has changed. You have race IQ intelligence threads all the time compared to 2011. Instead of the daily Putnam problem thread, you get that garbage.
NYT is pretty on the money here.
If this were 2010, I'd disagree with them, but not nowadays.
disclaimer of my own bias: I stopped using 4chan in 2012 because of how much of an alt right mess it became after /r9k/. Didn't have the words to describe it back then. I remember people making endless Dragon Age memes in the pinned thread in /v/ in response to the mass shooting by a particular Anders in 2011. They were celebrating it, and it was the most active live thread on the site in that moment.