
The Tyranny of Structurelessness (1970) - pron
http://www.bopsecrets.org/CF/structurelessness.htm
======
patmcguire
I always want to paste the same excerpt from War and Peace when this comes up:

"When Boris entered the room, Prince Andrey was listening to an old general,
wearing his decorations, who was reporting something to Prince Andrey, with an
expression of soldierly servility on his purple face. “Alright. Please wait!”
he said to the general, speaking in Russian with the French accent which he
used when he spoke with contempt. The moment he noticed Boris he stopped
listening to the general who trotted imploringly after him and begged to be
heard, while Prince Andrey turned to Boris with a cheerful smile and a nod of
the head. Boris now clearly understood—what he had already guessed—that side
by side with the system of discipline and subordination which were laid down
in the Army Regulations, there existed a different and more real system—the
system which compelled a tightly laced general with a purple face to wait
respectfully for his turn while a mere captain like Prince Andrey chatted with
a mere second lieutenant like Boris. Boris decided at once that he would be
guided not by the official system but by this other unwritten system."

~~~
amirmc
I haven't read War and Peace, so I don't know the context of this excerpt.
Despite that, I'd like to suggest that if you _have_ a formal structure in an
organisation, then you're still able to use it to do something about the
informal structures that you don't like (assuming you can recognise them). If
you've explicitly eschewed any kind of formal structure, then changing it
becomes very difficult [1].

In this example, Boris could have decided that he would try and support the
_formal_ structures and wrest control (over time) from the _informal_ leaders
(perhaps by playing both sides for a while).

[1] Edit: The reverse is also true. You can adapt a formal structure by the
use of informal power. This is more often talked about (c.f. every 'influence'
book ever written), so I didn't think to mention it.

~~~
jacques_chester
I think the thing is that the formal and informal structures need to be
somewhat in alignment. A lot of countries have the form of institutions, but
not the deep-rooted culture.

In theory the British Parliament could collectively lose its marbles and
transform the UK into a totalitarian state in the space of a few weeks. In
practice it's very unlikely to happen. The informal and formal are closely
aligned in the political culture.

In theory Russia has the separation of powers and independent media. In
practice, it doesn't. The informal and formal are misaligned, which in some
ways is worse than never having the formal stuff in the first place.

~~~
arethuza
Actually, during the Cold War there were fairly detailed plans the, if
executed, _would_ have turned the UK into a totalitarian state pretty quickly
- Duncan Campbell exposed these in his excellent series "Secret Society" \-
and particularly the episode "In Time Of Crisis: Government Emergency Powers"

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_Campbell_%28journalist%2...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_Campbell_%28journalist%29)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XBdCwWeYzo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XBdCwWeYzo)

The fact that these plans existed during the Cold War is not really a surprise
(although the severity of the planned measures is quite alarming - no wonder
they tried to keep them secret).

What I do wonder about is what state these plans are in now and under what
circumstances they could be used.

------
jacques_chester
It's important to be mindful that the successful examples of flat / bossless
organisations often discussed on HN are _massively profitable_.

What's missing from this picture? Statistics and case studies of flat/bossless
organisations where money is very tight.

There is severe survivor bias at play. Massive profitability allows you to get
away with just about anything.

People think that the market rewards virtue or merit; that profit is the
reward for this or that method, strategy or culture. Not really. Market
systems are agnostic to how a company is run. If you stumble on a gold mine,
the market doesn't reward you because you flog your miners. It likewise
doesn't reward you because you pamper your miners. _It rewards you for having
gold_.

For every Valve and Github, there is a Microsoft or an Oracle.

~~~
Edmond
>There is severe survivor bias at play. Massive profitability allows you to
get away with just about anything.

I think you could extend this observation even further. Technology start-up
culture has a habit of sh*ting on well established knowledge as being useless
because founders of start-ups often lack these knowledge yet still manage to
succeed. An example of this is the general disdain for business know-how in
the form of say an MBA.

They fail to realize that the reason they're succeeding is not because
traditional business know-how is useless but rather because innovation grants
you advantages that often allows you to succeed without business know-how.
However this advantage disappears once everyone catches up to the innovation
then business acumen reasserts itself. We are currently in a golden age of
innovation, but that won't last forever.

The metaphor I like to use is: It is like someone using a machine-gun and
hitting every target then concludes that marksman skills are useless while
ignoring the fact that they are only hitting their target because they are
using a machine-gun.

~~~
nahname
I think you could extend this observation even further. Business culture has a
habit of sh*ting on new knowledge as being useless because businessmen often
lack these knowledge yet still manage to succeed. An example of this is the
general disdain for innovative approaches.

They fail to realize that the reason they're succeeding is not because
traditional business know-how is useful but rather because crony capitalism
allows you to succeed without innovation. However this advantage disappears
once a market disrupter appears. We are currently in a golden age of
innovation, but that won't last forever.

~~~
Edmond
There is definitely a case to be made about old stodgy incumbents getting in
the way of innovation. But my point isn't really about innovation disrupting
the old but rather people throwing out the baby with the bath water when it
comes to the relevance of business know-how.

------
awongh
This was an excellent read. I feel like it's coming from the trenches from
someone who's had much experience creating structureless groups....

tldr: the conclusion/action points are:

Principles of Democratic Structuring

1) Delegation of specific authority to specific individuals for specific tasks
by democratic procedures.

2) Requiring all those to whom authority has been delegated to be responsible
to those who selected them.

3) Distribution of authority among as many people as is reasonably possible.

4) Rotation of tasks among individuals.

5) Allocation of tasks along rational criteria.

6) Diffusion of information to everyone as frequently as possible.

7) Equal access to resources needed by the group.

~~~
jrochkind1
Thanks for this comment. I think too often this essay is interpreted as an
argument for hierarchical control, when that is not what it seems to me to be
arguing for, or how it would have been interpreted in the context it was
written -- where a commitment to egalitarian and democratic organization was a
baseline assumption.

The thing is, egalitarian organization is hard, and the contribution of this
valuable essay is to point put that simply abolishing structure does't get you
there -- and to specifically point out how it can still lead to hierarchy and
authoritarianism.

But that hierarchy and authoritarianism are still identified as the _problem_
\--requiring solutions other than structurelessness-- not the solution to some
other problem!

which leaves me curious what is being suggested as the applicability to
github. I wonder if those at github actually see it as an org committed to
democracy or egalitarianism. to me, despite an unusually flat org chart, its
still a company with certain people in charge and certain equity owners,
dedicated to efficiency and profit for it's owners.

~~~
pron
The problem isn't hierarchy or authoritarianism (though the latter is a
symptom of it), but the distribution of power in any organization (or
society), regardless of its goals. The point is simple: shying away from a
clear power structure results only in an unfair and unmanageable distribution
of power. Companies like GitHub, that believe in "self-organizations" would
often fall into this trap once they grow large enough. Julie Ann Horvath's
story at GitHub demonstrates how events unfold when the power structure isn't
explicit.

~~~
mjn
I agree that's true, but I think that's more or less the problem this essay is
tackling also (which I guess is why it ended up here). There is a pretty long
history of anti-authoritarian political movements running into the problem
that the _first_ step of abolishing formal titles and declaring that your
group has a flat hierarchy with collective leadership is... not enough to
remove the actual existence of authority. If anything it can sometimes be
worse because now there is a boss but it's not explicit, and you have to be
"in the know" to even know who calls the shots. While at least with a
President or CEO or Supreme Leader the actual boss is labeled, and everyone
has fair notice of who he/she is. So the problem is what to do about that:
abandon the flat-hierarchy idea, or try to push it further into a really-flat-
in-practice organization?

~~~
mpyne
> So the problem is what to do about that: abandon the flat-hierarchy idea, or
> try to push it further into a really-flat-in-practice organization?

Given that "really flat in practice" only works for societies like ants, I
would tend to argue in most cases for the former, if only because it's more in
keeping with what's actually going to happen anyways.

Even at places like Valve, the whole idea isn't to be flat, as much as it's to
allow for the "best" sub-teams to arise naturally instead of management
forming broken org. structures. But when you use annealing to form your teams
you don't just form teams, you form all sorts of other unintended (and
possibly harmful) cliques as well. And once you get above Dunbar's Number or
thereabouts it becomes impossible to keep pointed in the right direction.

~~~
jrochkind1
That's definitely not the argument Freeman was making in the OP though, right?

She ends with some suggestions for how to structure an organization to be
_actually_ non-hiearchical and with equal sharing of power, instead of
assuming structureless will get you there.

What have we learned from trying these things and similar in the 30 years
since she wrote the essay? On what basis, what sort of research or experience,
do you conclude with certainty that 'really flat' (do you mean egalitarian,
democratic, non-hieararchical, non-authoritarian in general?) organizations
are only possible for 'societies' (do you mean 'species'?) 'like ants'?

Of course, she wasn't talking about _businesses_ at all. "Even at places like
Valve" have no real interest in an egalitarian sharing of power, they have an
interest in _efficiency_ and _profit_ , and whatever organizational structure
can give them that best. An entirely different context than Freeman was
interested in, Freeman was interested in building a radical social movement,
and was concerned about an equal democratic sharing of power and privilege --
and what sorts of devices or structures can give them that the best. Which may
or may not be accomplished via 'really flat' organization, that's part of the
discussion.

~~~
mpyne
> On what basis, what sort of research or experience, do you conclude with
> certainty that 'really flat' (do you mean egalitarian, democratic, non-
> hieararchical, non-authoritarian in general?) organizations are only
> possible for 'societies' (do you mean 'species'?) 'like ants'?

I mean "societies", as if you look into how their colonies work it is very
much a collective society.

But the thing that underpins its operation is the fact that it _is_ structured
on flat classes. Workers do work. Soldiers defend the colony. Queens lay eggs,
and it is understood that in the normal scheme of business that workers will
never be queens and queens will not be on the front lines fighting the nearby
Nation of Termitistan. But except for the queen the soldiers and workers are
all almost completely interchangeable within their class.

Humans, needless to say, are _not_ completely interchangeable. Maximizing the
overall contribution from each individual for a collective goal requires
different org. structures, especially given the high need for communications
and information exchange.

Many groups try to solve this by designing the org. structure first and then
finding the "right people" to fill the right positions in that org. structure.
That style has seen successes and failures.

Others try to start with the "right people" and then evolve the right org.
structure. But this reacts more to the needs of the group than to the
abilities of the people, and doesn't scale to boot.

Then you have groups like Valve that try to enforce a flat org. structure and
you end up instead evolving informal org. structures as before (since being
flat implies being interchangeable). Is that really better? Is it more equal
when you end up being in the wrong clique at the Valve cafeteria?

------
MaxGabriel
The blue background and lack of Safari Reader option made this difficult for
me to read. The version on the author's own site is much better designed:
[http://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm](http://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm)

~~~
vanderZwan
I use this bookmarklet for websites like this (if there is no other version
available):

[http://readable.tastefulwords.com/](http://readable.tastefulwords.com/)

Also great for preparing websites for printing too, when that is required.

------
pron
In case some context is necessary, this excellent article was pointed out to
me by scott_s as part of the discussion of the stuff going on at GitHub.

~~~
SideburnsOfDoom
Thanks for posting this article. I've seen it linked several times in recent
years; probably even here on HN. However, it's still relevant. Again.

~~~
amirmc
It's been posted as an item before but I don't think it hung around long. It's
definitely been referred to (and linked) in many threads where the idea of
'no-management' or flat structures crops up. e.g threads on Valve.

The irony is that it puts into words what many people have already experienced
(in some sense) via high-school. Although it's long, I tend to point people at
this story if they're having an anti-management rant with me during a
discussion.

------
stcredzero
_Contrary to what we would like to believe, there is no such thing as a
“structureless” group._

Even anonymous developed small groups within vying for power as inner cabals.
Also structureless groups are still subject to evaporative cooling, if not
more so.

This has profound implications for things like open source projects, language
communities, and startup communities.

~~~
jes5199
what do you mean by "evaporative cooling"?

~~~
jfarmer
The most high-value people in a group are the first to leave as the group
grows and the average value of the group decreases, accelerating the decline
of the average value of the group. To prevent this you need structures in
place to retain value for the highest-value people, e.g., strict policing on
who gets to join the group or the ability to form groups-within-groups.

------
7402
Original source (on the author's web site) is here:
[http://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm](http://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm)

------
nnq
Isn't it incredibly obvious that hierarchical structures, even when they start
o get a hint of tyranny, offer _more freedom to the individual_ than
"structureless" ones?! (my definition of "freedom" here is "freedom to do my
thing however I want to do it, whether the majority agree or nor, whether I'm
right or not").

In a "structureless"/"not explicitly structured" social system you have to
always keep your senses sharp and always be observant about the hidden power
structure that always changes. This takes a _huuuge_ amount of mental energy,
at least for me, and I can put this energy to _waaaay_ better uses. In a
functional "structured system", even if for short periods of time the wrong
people get in charge, you can at least not spend _50% of your energy_ in tasks
related to the perpetual reorganization of the power structure and the silent
but continuous fights for power, and actually have time and energy for
_solving the problems_ (and no, the problem is never "who's in charge?",
nobody gives a fuck "who's in charge"!) Yeah, you may have to do the problem
solving while lying "yes sir, I'll do it like this" to the bosses, and then go
on and do things "your way" in reality, but it's waaaaay less stressful then
either:

\- being in/around a perpetual silent power-fight

\- not knowing who _really_ is in charge (this is what I find the most
stressful, because if you know who _really_ is in charge you can solve any
serious problem by jumping over your superiors and talking to someone more
enlightened higher up the food chain)

"Non-micromanaging 'cold' hierarchies" (by 'cold' I mean both "relatively
rigid", like not in a continuous reorganization and power fight, and non-
empathic to even semi-autistical, like being relatively unperturbed by
temporary emotions) and "benevolent tyrants" are to me the best models for
helping the "makers" function at 100%. And "the makers" are the ones actually
solving the problems and keeping the profit flow.

------
kabdib
The moment you have two primates and a banana, you're going to get politics.

~~~
stcredzero
If the two primates are bonobos, the usual result is sex.

~~~
Pxtl
Which is still politics.

~~~
stcredzero
Indeed. Didn't one noble in the 30 years war switch sides at what amounts to
the prompting of his girlfriend?

------
Eliezer
Am I over-inferring from one piece of info, or does this writing represent an
entire branch of early feminism which lost the struggle for the heart of the
movement and was driven out by worse ideas?

~~~
ngpio
I suspect you're over-inferring, and it's hard to tell what you mean by
"heart" and "worse".

Reading the oft-cited anarchist response might provide some context (though it
was written in 2005): [http://libcom.org/library/tyranny-of-tyranny-cathy-
levine](http://libcom.org/library/tyranny-of-tyranny-cathy-levine)

Nearly every time the Tyranny of Structurelessness is posted to some
activist's facebook wall these days, a link to the Tyranny of Tyranny is in
the first few comments. Then the discussion devolves into rehashed bickering,
though never about the actual content of the pieces.

~~~
igravious
This (Tyranny of Structurelessness) pamphlet was one of many diverse pamphlets
on a board in an anarcho-communist activist/literature space where I used to
volunteer. I'm more than surprised to see it posted here and it pleases me to
see that there is a critique (Tyranny of tyranny).

Has there ever been a pole about the political leanings of HN or would it be
impossible to enumerate the categories?

    
    
       [] anarchist
       [] socialist
       [] republican
       [] monarchist
       [] libertarian
       [] free market capitalist taxes are theft ayn rand is my god
       [] conservative
       [] democrat
       [] i really couldn't tell you old boy

~~~
pron
Such a poll would go against the site rules, and for good reason, but I
sometimes conduct hidden polls by posting "libertarian" and "socialist" (I'm
putting those in quotes because these terms have different meanings in the US
than elsewhere) comments (using different accounts) on political threads and
counting the upvotes. It might be surprising (but only for a split second)
that the vast majority of HN users are progressive (in America:
socialist/democrat), while free market believers/libertarians are a minority.
It is by no means scientific, and possibly quite anecdotal, but also not
surprising, that the free-market libertarians are among the younger members of
this site (usually early twenties, judging by the information posted on user
pages of "libertarian posters").

This is not surprising because HN is a community of mostly well educated
people, which here, like elsewhere, is composed of left-leaning individuals.
However, it is also true that the number of libertarians here, while still a
relatively small minority, is larger than found in other communities of well
educated people.

~~~
bowlofpetunias
Have you also taken into account that most Americans that consider themselves
democrat/liberal/progressive would be considered well to the right in most
other countries represented on HN?

The American contingent really skews the numbers if you let people identify
themselves.

You get a much clearer picture if you look at discussions around concrete
issues, like government and regulation.

~~~
jiggy2011
I'm not sure about that, I'm from the UK and most of my exposure to US culture
comes from the internet or the media but I get the impression that there are
simply more extremes of opinion in the US than there are here.

Your liberals are more progressive and your conservatives are more
conservative, at least towards the fringes.

I think it would be much easier to find a consensus of opinion in the UK on
most topics than it would be in the US.

It might be true that the political status quo (on many issues) in the US is
further to the right than it is here, but that might be because progressives
feel that they have to vote for the party that most closely represents their
views and has a chance of being elected (presumably democrat) rather than a
party that they necessarily agree with.

~~~
Sharlin
I think the UK is somewhat a special case among the Western European nations
in this context as well. From a Finnish/Nordic perspective it seems that the
US Democrats, on average, seem only a bit to the left of what would here be
regarded as "center"; in some cases even to the right.

------
azernik
Wow. The section "Political Impotence" describes the experience of working in
a well-functioning "structureless organization", and it sounds a lot like the
descriptions of early-stage startups. (Chunks omitted with ellipses for
brevity; go check out the whole thing!)

"While working in this kind of group is a very heady experience, it is also
rare and very hard to replicate. There are almost inevitably four conditions
found in such a group:

1\. It is task oriented. Its function is very narrow and very specific, like
putting on a conference or putting out a newspaper. It is the task that
basically structures the group...

2\. It is relatively small and homogeneous. Homogeneity is necessary to ensure
that participants have a “common language” or interaction. ...too great a
diversity among members of a task-oriented group means only that they
continually misunderstand each other... If everyone knows everyone else well
enough to understand the nuances, these can be accommodated. Usually, they
only lead to confusion and endless hours spent straightening out conflicts no
one ever thought would arise.

3\. There is a high degree of communication... This is only possible if the
group is small and people practically live together for the most crucial
phases of the task....Successful groups can be as large as 10 or 15, but only
when they are in fact composed of several smaller subgroups which perform
specific parts of the task, and whose members overlap with each other so that
knowledge of what the different subgroups are doing can be passed around
easily.

4\. There is a low degree of skill specialization. Not everyone has to be able
to do everything, but everything must be able to be done by more than one
person..."

------
anachrokate
This was written by a state communist, so you can imagine what "structure" she
advocated, and the anarchists immediately replied with The Tyranny of Tyranny

[http://www.libcom.org/library/tyranny-of-tyranny-cathy-
levin...](http://www.libcom.org/library/tyranny-of-tyranny-cathy-levine)

~~~
pron
Except history, in Silicon Valley ([http://blogs.hbr.org/2014/01/how-silicon-
valley-became-the-m...](http://blogs.hbr.org/2014/01/how-silicon-valley-
became-the-man/)) as elsewhere, is unequivocally on Jo Freeman's side. No
actual revolution (as opposed to imagined ones) ever managed to remain
structureless, and those that aspired to be the most structureless quickly
became as oppressive as the most tyrannical ones.

~~~
jahaja
For additional context; what/which revolution(s) are you thinking about that
aspired to be the most structureless but became as oppressive as the most
tyrannical ones?

~~~
pron
Pretty much all the communist ones; the French; counterculture (see the linked
article as well as Adam Curtis's documentaries)

~~~
watwut
Communists never aspired to be structureless, definitely not in the short
term. Even utopia they promised in long term had element of forced conformity
with system aka oppression. Path towards that utopia was supposed to go
through strong party discipline and obeisance. That is how communist party
survived oppression in Russia.

It was not supposed to be "free" or "structureless" in any current meaning of
the word.

I now much less about French revolution, but what I know suggests it was very
complicated event. Describing it as simple attempt to move towards
structureless society is simplifying it too much.

------
dpweb
Flat/no-bosses, untrue. Clash between the founder and employee, who's out the
door?

------
patmcguire
If anyone's having trouble reading...
[https://www.readability.com/articles/vot5qmk3](https://www.readability.com/articles/vot5qmk3)

~~~
jamesbritt
That just redirects me to the original site.

The "zap colors" bookmarklet is helpful here:
[https://www.squarefree.com/bookmarklets/zap.html](https://www.squarefree.com/bookmarklets/zap.html)

------
hosh
"Contrary to what we would like to believe, there is no such thing as a
“structureless” group. Any group of people of whatever nature that comes
together for any length of time for any purpose will inevitably structure
itself in some fashion. "

This assertion is not quite true.

When I think of "structure", I am thinking of deliberate, conscious, and
rational attempts to create a sort of rigid ... structure. What he is
describing is better termed as "dynamic".

I make this distinction because I've typically found (as a man), men tends to
think and work with structures more often than with the dynamics... the
natural ebb and flow of a group without a "structure".

When you start thinking about accomplishing a goal (whether a man or a woman)
as a group, you start talking about structure, or "process" or any number of
those words. That's when you use a particular part of the consciousness to
_drive_ and coordinate efforts. So when you start trying to look at what the
group can _do_ , accomplish, or its utility, you naturally start looking at
structure, and perhaps even imposing structure.

Dynamics, or flow will happen regardless of whether we consciously attempt to
structure the group or not. When you're not aiming for a particular goal, you
can simply just _be_ with the group, to feel and experience the way the group
comes together and disperses. There is great wisdom in this, something that
has been obscured because it doesn't produce anything that can be easily
quantified.

I know programmers have talked about "flow" or "zone", about teams that have
"gelled". These are all related to the wisdom of being, rather than that of
doing. "Flow state", or "zone" is that sweet spot where your effort becomes
effortless because you've relaxed into the flow while ... flowing to the goal.
Flow states are one of the experiences we can have with consciousness, and you
get there by first relaxing and getting more in touch with being ... and
dropping some of your fixation on structure.

In truth, you see this play between structure and dynamic, between effort and
flow. It's just that, most of us are so fixated on the doing and the
structure, we are no longer aware of the natural dynamic. This is something
I've noticed many (not all) women naturally understand this, and generally,
men are pretty clueless about. When men typically encounter this, men will
argue about it until we are blue in the face; usually, the women will agree,
thus reinforcing this fixation. Women's liberation, in my opinion, is less
about liberating women, and more about whacking men with a clue-by-four.

~~~
amirmc
The author's premise is that when people interact, 'structures' always form
(it's in the same section you quoted from). It's same way that one could argue
that 'politics' is always present, when two or more people must work together.

You can't really claim her assertion isn't true simply by using your own
definition of the term.

------
yarrel
It's so much easier to capture an organization when you can simply buy it.

------
pradocchia
Right, so if the women's liberation movement hadn't made flat orgs so
fashionable, then maybe Github would still be a nice place for all kinds to
work, and we wouldn't have this whole class of pseudo-sexist problems.

Am I reading this right?

------
anon4
And this is why I prefer 4chan to reddit. By eliminating individual identities
(except on a few niche boards, almost nobody posts in any identifiable way)
from a group, you are left with no way to form personal cliques.

You can identify people by their actions, sure. Like "that person who draws
those video-games comics" or "that person who knows a lot about kernel
development and posts help in the programming threads" (this is a hypothetical
person, I haven't met one like that on 4chan yet) &c. But you don't have a
name on those usually and even if they do use one, those people only use it to
post that content, rather than in general. You don't know if the person is
male, female, or a raptor butterfly from Venus.

The threads are also flat and you cannot upvote posts. This prevents the
upvote-echo-chamber effect you can see on reddit. If you wish to drown out
another opinion, you have to actually post more than the other anon, you can't
just call your friends on IRC and have them upvote via puppet accounts or
whatnot. And there is an enforced minimum time between posts, which is greatly
increased if you attempt to post the same thing twice in a row. Every
dissenting opinion is given equal opportunity for being heard (as long as it's
not about posting gore pics out of sheer asshattery - that shit gets you
banned).

This does sound very unstructured and some kinds of groups do arise, but
they're centered around shared interests and not identities. It's kind of
strange putting it like that, but 4chan is probably one of the sites on the
internet where it's hardest to hurt a specific person. You can post hurtful
remarks about some other person's post or opinions, but without an identity to
attach to that person, you can't go on to hurt them in other threads. Or even
in the same thread in many cases. Now, there are people on certain boards that
voice general opinions that will hurt you and make you angry. I suggest
posting right back at them.

4chan's design won't work in all cases, though. For instance, StackOverflow
and friends work perfectly with the reddit model. But the point of SO is to
get the best possible answer to a question. The point of 4chan is to enable
fair discussion (also pictures of cats and porn, as long as it's not porn with
cats).

It's a shame 4chan is the only well-known site on the internet using that
model. I'd love to see different platforms experiment with fully anonymous
posting and no upvote system.

P.S. I'm not moot

~~~
Houshalter
>And this is why I prefer 4chan to reddit. By eliminating individual
identities (except on a few niche boards, almost nobody posts in any
identifiable way) from a group, you are left with no way to form personal
cliques.

I've never experienced this on reddit. Yes usernames are attached to every
post, but it's functionally anonymous. No one knows or cares who anyone else
is. With rare exceptions.

>The threads are also flat and you cannot upvote posts. This prevents the
upvote-echo-chamber effect you can see on reddit.

You can sort reddit by "new" and it's _awful_. Likewise HN uses basically the
same system and manages a much higher quality of discussion.

~~~
anon4
That's because HN is still pretty young. 4chan used to be "better" (note:
actual better may vary) 8 years ago, when it was still basically a monoculture
of like-minded individuals.

Reddit is awful when you sort by new because you can't see who people are
replying to. 4chan solves that problem nicely, I think, with its post id and
post id quoting feature. It's common to even quote a part of the post you're
replying to, if it's a longer post.

~~~
Houshalter
What do you mean you can't see who people are replying to on reddit? Replies
are organized and indented quite nicely. As far as I can tell, 4chan just uses
a cryptic number, and the replies can be anywhere in the thread.

~~~
anon4
I mean posts aren't numbered and the id of the post(s) that are being replied
to aren't visible in the post itself.

4chan's "cryptic number" system is pretty much perfect. You click on the
number and it expands inline to the comment itself. All the posts that replied
to a given post are also added to the header of that post and clicking on
those numbers inline-expands the comments. The best part is you can reply to
several comments at once with just one comment - the thread isn't a tree, it's
a directed acyclic graph. If three people give you roughly the same reply you
can reply to all three posts at once. I find this a very good feature for
discussions, where very often there are several micro-threads going on on a
single sub-topic inside a thread, it allows to keep everything neatly
organised and you can reference people to other posts easily just by number.
It used to be more cubersome before the current built-in javascript extension,
when posts didn't expand and you couldn't see replies to a post tacked as
references on the post itself, but today it's really really good.

I urge you to try a more tame board, say /g/ (technology), and see for
yourself how things work now. It's usually best around after 6-7 PM USA time
(any coast), when the people who don't live to shitpost get home from work.

Edit: to be pedantically correct (the even better kind of correct), you can
make a post that quotes a future post and with really good statistical
modelling and some luck, you can arrange to post in the same thread with that
exact number, forming a full cycle - a post that quotes a future post that
quotes the first post. This was much easier early on. I think the highest
achievement was one person who managed to pull it off across several different
boards while roleplaying a time-traveler.

~~~
Houshalter
I wasn't aware of those features, that would significantly improve what I
thought of it. However having to click to see replies seems less than ideal.
Reddit and HN just organize them properly to begin with. It also gets rid of
voting, which I believe to be the most important feature.

------
michaelochurch
Structurelessness is a bad idea. It's taking some good concepts (open
allocation, self-direction) too far. It means that management is lazy and
absent rather than aware, principled, and effective. Open allocation still
requires management to keep it open.

Closed allocation is worse and basically terrible, because there's an inherent
conflict of interest between people and project management. Advocating for 10
people, _and_ having to make those 10 people deliver on a specific executive
mandate, has a person serving two masters. It might be that the best thing for
a person is to change projects, but that conflicts with the manager's need to
manage up and won't happen.

You still need people who can protect the good (sheepdogs). Always. I don't
care how flat an organization is, there has got to be someone who, if
harassment occurs or someone is impeding others' work, says "Not fucking
acceptable". The problem is that it's really hard to give someone that power
and not have it be abused.

------
wcummings
MY EYESSSSSS

~~~
Yetanfou
View->Page Style->No Style (in Firefox) turns it into a rather readable and
certainly responsive page.

Less is more. Ain't HTML great?

