<p>Time named moot, the young creator of the internet message board 4chan, as one of their 100 most influential people this year.</p>
<p>This is interesting for a number of reasons. First off, it’s a bold move on Time’s part-- most of Time’s readers don’t know about 4chan, don’t care about 4chan, and are probably better off never ever going to 4chan for any reason whatsoever.</p>
<p>Furthermore, it’s a sort of validation of the power that 4chan has as an originator of Internet culture. Lolcats? 4chan. Rickrolling? 4chan. Lulz? 4chan.</p>
<p>^
You clearly haven’t been paying attention. Moot’s ‘group’ used the first 21 spots to spell out a message. Don’t you get it? They manipulated every single position in the top 21, without the approval of TIME (like it would have made a difference…). The fact that Lil Wayne is 12th has more to do with the fact that the first letter of his name is “L” than anything else. If 4chan felt like it, they could have given the 12th spot to Lance Armstrong instead. 4chan just owned this ‘list’ or ‘ranking’… whatever it’s called.</p>
<p>Regardless, the fact that Time went ahead and stuck with moot as being influential IS interesting.</p>
<p>Forget for a second the dubious methodology (which has always been dubious.) There is no doubt that much of internet culture is spawned out of the depths of “anonymous.” The strange power that moot’s creation has over what the Internet calls “culture” is really quite interesting. 4chan demonstrates that people, when given the shade of anonymity can be both disturbing and remarkably creative. The attack on the Church of Scientology is, in my mind, a demonstration of social networking on the internet and its ability to create a common cause.</p>
<p>Of course most of the time it’s just about “lulz,” which is fine also.</p>
<p>Wow. I’ve probably only heard of…2 people in the top 10. You’d think Obama would be a lot higher on the list, but he’s only 37. How accurate can this list really be</p>