Thread by @QOrigins

OK, so. I've talked a fair amount about /general/ threads on 4chan -- for instance, I'm almost certain Q was a regular reader of, and probably a poster in, /PTG/ threads (that's President Trump General).

/HTG/ ("Human Trafficking General") threads were a QAnon precursor, too.

So they're a big deal.

What I WASN'T aware of was: there's high-quality research on them already! And not only is it high-quality, but it reveals the fact that I have ONLY SCRATCHED THE SURFACE of how /general/s work.

In particular, this blew my mind:

oilab.eu/the-bakers-gui…

I'm gonna talk about /why/ in a second, but I should also note that this OTHER article is a 3,000% more comprehensive data-science-y look at these threads than I ever dreamed of taking.

It earns the coveted rating of "Can't wait to re-read this."

oilab.eu/not-so-general…

OK, so. Now we're back to the original article, which I've linked to below.

Why am I so enthused? Bc it takes an obvious observation (that /generals/ tend to start with identical posts, which are copied from an off-site source -- a pastebin, usually)...

oilab.eu/the-bakers-gui…

and then asks a couple of LESS-obvious follow-ups. Like: is it typically the same group of people posting these threads?

And the answer was: yes.

The post below not only supports the hypothesis that there were "regulars" and "amateurs" among the thread-makers...

but ALSO leads to a secret bonus question:

how exactly do the thread-makers coordinate? How does one become a baker or a backup baker? How do you sign up for shifts or whatever?

The article leaves that unanswered, but the answer seems likely to be: off-site communication, maybe

And if I recall aright, it was this group of researchers that eventually started putting out material *about* how, yes, high-frequency 4chan users were often in Discords with one another, and influenced the direction chan discussion took -- that 4chan's less of a chaotic swirl...

than it seems from the outside, and that researchers should be skeptical about the sentiment of "the crowd" on 4chan.

Or it may have been an entirely different group of researchers; I'm not gonna hunt the papers down rn.

Anyway: is this all stuff 4chan users could've told you?

Sure! Absolutely.

Is it something that you should uncritically *believe* if they tell you? Hell no. 4chan is full of VERY unreliable informants.

And you gotta prove your theories out slowly and painstakingly.

So anyway, uh, long story short:

this is high-quality research on subjects directly relevant to me, with short, punchy writeups of interesting ideas.

And I am HERE for it. Here's a list of their blog posts; if you're curious about How 4chan Works™, go nuts.

P.S. Great dataviz too.

oilab.eu/publication-tr…

Aaargh. Two corrections to append:

https://twitter.com/QOrigins/status/1400429835965460482?s=20