Serious question.
Most people carry things they never tell anyone.
Not illegal things. Just thoughts that would damage relationships or reputations if they were said out loud.
Regret about past decisions. Things people hide from partners. Thoughts about friends or family they would never admit publicly.
Therapists exist for a reason, but most people never go to one.
So I was wondering something.
Would it actually be healthier if people had a place to post these thoughts completely anonymously?
No identity. No profile. Just the confession.
I’m building a small experiment called Backroom around this idea where people can post one-line anonymous secrets.
But I’m honestly curious if people would actually use something like that or if most secrets are better left unsaid.
What would stop it from becoming 4chan?
Fair concern.
4chan is anonymous but completely unstructured.
Backroom is built around hosts running rooms with their own rules. If a room becomes toxic, people simply stop entering it.
So moderation happens at the room level, not through identity.
How would this have stopped 4chan? People still go to those toxic message boards.
True. Some people will always seek those spaces.
The idea isn’t to eliminate that behavior.
It’s more about creating rooms where the default incentive is sharing something personal rather than provoking reactions.
There are so many ways for this to become incredibly toxic and unhelpful, my first thought is it could become a support group for all types criminals/abusers to share tips and tricks anonymously.
At least the Catholics and therapists have someone there trying to steer things in a helpful direction. Like maybe you could tweak this idea to anonymous therapy rather than anonymous confession, and then people could view people going through therapy online and maybe find helpful tips for their own lives.
That’s a fair concern.
The intention isn’t to create a space for advice or coordination. Posts are limited to very short one-line confessions and rooms can set strict rules about what’s allowed.
More like people admitting something they’ve never said out loud than discussing how to do things.
There is a conflict still. First, you want unfiltered confession meaning no moderation. But then you don’t want it to become a safe space for criminals, which would require moderating. If you don’t moderate the content, it’ll quickly take on a life of its own and that won’t be the helpful thing you’re imagining.
That’s true to some extent.
The idea isn’t zero moderation, it’s shifting it away from identity. Rooms can set rules and remove posts, but the system itself doesn’t track who people are.
So the control happens at the room level rather than through accounts or personal identity.
I kind of foresee this ending with rooms getting spammed with posts that break the rules since the people doing it don’t have any sort of barrier of reentry.
I understand the intention but it’s important to be realistic about what the actual outcomes are. Is there anything stopping extremists from basically just flooding all rooms with hate?
Moderation kinda depends on identity, as the trolls who want every room to be toxic will enter every room and make sure it’s toxic if there’s no rudimentary identification.
That’s a fair point.
The idea isn’t that anonymity magically solves trolling. It’s more that rooms create friction. If a host bans someone or locks access, that person doesn’t automatically get the same reach everywhere else.
In big anonymous feeds the trolls and normal users share the exact same space. Rooms try to break that dynamic a bit.
It probably won’t eliminate toxicity, but the hope is it localizes it.
If it’s using an expiring session-based anonymous “account” for interactions, how would you ban someone? Or allow rooms to be restricted, for that matter?
Like I like the idea, I just don’t understand how both things can be true.
Good question.
The sessions are temporary but not instantly disposable. A host can still block a session from a room, and rooms can require approval to enter.
So the anonymity is mostly between users. Hosts still have basic control over who can participate in their space.
Sure, but if nobody knows who anyone is, how do you know who to let in?
Hosts usually don’t decide based on identity.
Most rooms are just open and moderated through behavior. If someone posts things that break the rules the host can block that session from the room.
Restricted rooms are more like small spaces where the host simply decides who gets the link or approval to enter. The idea is control over the room not control over who someone is.