This page is a translation of Tōru Takeda's interview with Amezou, founder of Amezou, which was held at the Haneda Airport on March 21, 1999, and later used for an article in Nikkei Trendy.

Amezou Interview
Location: Haneda / New Tokyo International Airport
Date and Time: March 21st, 1999 at 4:40–6:10pm
Participants: ●Amezou, ○Tōru Takeda △Amano (Nikkei Trendy Editorial Department)

○ First, I'd like to confirm that the web address in Kawakami's book¹⁾ is no longer active.
● Too many people were visiting and that caused excess server load, so the ISP shut it down for violating the agreement. Bulletin boards run on CGI programs, so there's always high server load.
The last time I used a free bulletin board, it got raided and shut down, but that wasn't the case this time, the ISP shut it down due to a quantitative issue.
Right now, I've been reviewing the CGI program to reduce the server load as much as I can, but it seems like it will slowly become a problem again.

○ Some of the files for Amezou World were also missing.
● It was? I see. Well, I'll put it back up then. I was asked to create a successor to Ayashii World, but I haven't been maintaining it much.

○ It seems that you started by making a link collection to various bulletin boards?
● That's right, but for now, I'm trying to create my own bulletin board. Relying on other people's creations feels wasteful, but I can take responsibility if I own it. External links may be reduced in the future.

○ Some of those links might already be dead too.
● At first, I ambitiously linked and categorized things but, for instance, even the entertainment section of my own bulletin board was getting 20,000 visits.
Whenever the populace congregates in one place, the information does as well, so the writers get more views and the viewers can see it all at once, creating a self-sufficient framework.

○ Do you ever ask for permission before putting up these links?
● When I put a link up, I just put it up. If the owner has an issue, I have “please send an email” in the page.
There's a debate on whether you need permission to link things or not. For example, web crawler do the same thing for search engines.
In the end, the internet is all about how useful it can be, yet despite that, its users tend to gravitate to places that they're already familiar with, so we just link it.
At first, many people would go “how dare you link without permission”, but they gradually stopped saying that.

○ You started in August 1997, right?
● To be honest, it was originally just Warez-related links.

○ So, you're a bad guy, huh? (Laugh)
● But around April of last year, I stopped focusing on underground stuff. They get deleted quickly, after all.
Whenever you put up a link, it disappears immediately, so the maintenance alone was a pain.
I also started wondering if Warez was actually all that interesting, then I realized that what I really want to hear is someone else's words, so I looked for bulletin boards where many people gathered.
If it only had 3–4 posts a day, that was good enough, but dangerous worlds and underground-style boards were lively. As for everybody else, their last post was made a year ago.
Bulletin boards that had at least 5 posts a day, with an enthusiastic administrator involved, were showcased as the 'best bulletin board' near the top.

○ When did you start realizing that text, or rather, written information was interesting?
● So, somebody at work wanted to use the internet and I overheard my co-worker giving them advice.
My co-worker then called it a kamishibai, that people get bored of pretty quickly, then called everyone who gets addicted and spends a long time on it a fucking moron.
I was seated next to them when I overheard that and I felt indignant that they thought what I did was stupid, so I put up a silent resistance and tried to show that there's a lot of surprising information on the internet.
For example, when Tomomi Kahara attempted suicide, there was a post predicting it about 4 hours before that happened. I don't know how that got out, but I suppose it was probable.

○ Wouldn't it be possible to write about it after the fact, fake the timestamp, then frame it as a prediction?
● I don't think so. Many saw it and were surprised once it happened, so it was definitely written before.
Even at the time of Juzo Itami's suicide, information quickly disseminated. A photograph of his corpse was uploaded too, causing a fuss. He had a plaid shirt and his brain was exposed, it was gruesome.
But until it was reported on television, I wasn't sure if that stuff was even real until then. However, once it was reported on television, I thought “so that's what happened.”
Knowing things like that doesn't get us any business or anything, but personally, it felt like I gained something.

○ Do you pay attention to mass media?
● Tokyo Sports called us a 'fake news' website once. Just slandering us without a single interview.
At that moment, I realized how one-sided the media could be. I contemplated and thought, if that's the case, then there might actually be some meaning to what we're doing as well.
Weekly ASCII also featured Amezou, famous for our 'search page', except we don't have search.
That's the problem with one-sided writing, where mistakes are never corrected.
When somebody claims that Kizoku Ikeda passed away,²⁾ somebody could reply “I saw him yesterday.”
If you create a section for law, then experts will come to respond to your posts.
Having experts respond within a day of your post, I don't think there's anything else like that.
Apparently, there was a case where 'two-week contact lenses' and 'one-year contact lenses' were the same, causing people in the United States to file a lawsuit and the manufacturer had to refund them.³⁾
The media can't report on things like that since they would have to worry about corporate sponsors, right?
Even things like a company's working conditions would draw an immediate response.

○ Your slogan is 'Not the Daihonei Happyou'?
● There are certain things that the media avoid saying. Even with international treaties, they'll only give a brief mention of its disadvantages to Japan. When I see things like that, I always expect a 'spin' somewhere.
For example, the media tends to attract a lot of highly educated people. As a result, you rarely see news that mention the drawbacks of a society that favors the highly educated. It's the same reason why most government officials have an academic background, they don't want to dismantle the academic meritocracy.
On that note, the internet is interactive and brings all sorts of people together, so I hope it'll become a place to share news that the media deliberately ignores.

○ It's true that you can get a lot of news that's ignored by the media, given the amount of two-way dialogue that happens, but there will be cases where biases still form, right?
● The replies will flood in and, if it's one-sided, then there will be counterarguments in the opposite direction.

○ If you leave it up to the marketplace of ideas, that's what will happen, but isn't there a limit to that?
● If you make discriminatory posts, you may get replies encouraging you to make more.
Sometimes, people make posts designed to pick a fight. That can't be helped. For every serious person, there is an unserious person. When you put it like that, I do feel the limitations.
However, the idea that you can't believe anything unless you see it on television is like how people treat drunk ramblings, but little by little, we'll be able to judge if something is true or not without the media's help.

○ How?
● Replies asking for a source come right away. You can quickly gauge credibility that way.
Furthermore, if an insider writes about a situation that they're close to, then you would hear reports verifying it.
I look forward to such developments.

○ However, there's no way to definitively confirm that they were an insider.
● That's correct, but for example, if there was a post made by Kizoku Ikeda on his homepage, wouldn't we assume that it came from the person themselves? We can't rule out the possibility that somebody proficient in Unix could imitate the person in question.

○ The media tends to consist of large companies with well-known names, so people generally assume that they won't do anything malicious because of that, right?
While 'trusting them too much' can sometimes be a problem, I do think that reporters are pressured to be reliable because if they act out of line, then all the blame falls on them. Whether they can actually be honest is a different matter, but on the internet? They can say these things without said pressure.
● In the end, it's the same as the relationship between individuals.
If the sender can't be identified for sure, then trust ultimately cannot be established. However, if you create a membership-based bulletin board that only verifies high-standing individuals, it would ruin the fun.
To be honest, I have written under names other than my usual handle, but only when I'm not certain. If we had to omit information that we're not sure on, then it becomes boring.

○ It would be nice to enjoy dubious information, while knowing that it is dubious.
● After 4–5 replies, you get a general idea of how trustworthy it is. However, a decision still can't be made, since you can never be certain without asking the people involved directly. Even if you aren't able to confirm it, the information still has value as a reference point in your decision-making.
When the Murder of Amuro's Mother happened,⁴⁾ there were 400 replies by the time I got home.
I read through and found it fascinating, despite 350 of the 400 replies being worthless, such as the kanji being incorrect. That's how it usually goes, but the rest of them were interesting, since people who actually witnessed the event were there, and it gave off a sense of realism.
In addition, there are people who've had corrective surgery for nearsightedness, and everyone wants to know how that turns out, right?
Advertisements are one-way, but bulletin boards differ as you can get opinions from all sorts of directions.
As a result, I think we can get more balanced information this way. The more people come, the more impartial the information gets.

○ For instance, even in the world of mass media, there was an egregious misleading report about the Matsumoto sarin attack.⁵⁾ Would things be any different if the internet existed back then?
● If someone in the pharmaceutical industry posted, then there could've been a different perspective.

○ However, at that time, almost everyone in Japan mistook Kōno as the culprit.
You can argue that this was just the media stirring things up, but at the very least, you can't deny the fact that mass society is capable of making mistakes in their judgement.
All things considered, even if we had mass internet participation, wouldn't it still be possible for discussions to completely spiral out of control in a biased direction?
● There's a non-zero chance.

○ The same applies to news written about Kizoku Ikeda's death, who has cancer, so I'd imagine that it must have been very unpleasant for him. Furthermore, there were problems when people were reporting on the real names in the Kobe child murders. What do you think about that?
● We have blacklisted words used in discriminatory posts, yet people will still write them using a fuseji.
We can try to follow how other places regulate said posts, but the reality is that it's difficult to erase what was written if people have already seen it. That's not something that a program can do.
If that becomes a requirement, then you'd have to erase the entire internet. After all, the internet, from its very inception, is a place where people can upload content and access it from anywhere.

○ Would it be possible to dodge responsibility by claiming that you only manage the bulletin board, but aren't responsible for the contents of its posts?
● I tend to be involved in the contents of the bulletin board. After all, I think I have a responsibility to manage my own bulletin board. If there is a deletion request, I will try my best. I believe ignoring that is problematic, but do you really have any other responsibilities, aside from trying your best?
There's also this idea that you shouldn't link to illicit content, but if that were the case, the internet would hardly function at all.

○ You mention deletion request, but that's a difficult issue. For example, if a whistleblower leaks information, then the company would probably request its deletion, coming up with reasons like defamation or libel.
However, it is possible for the company to be involved with an economic crime and the whistleblower's claims would be correct, but it would difficult for the management to make that determination.
A conclusion can't be reached unless it's brought to court.
● That's right. A while ago, some teacher got into trouble for taking upskirt photos of high school girls with a hidden camera. That was written on our main bulletin board first. Somebody saw that, sent all sorts of emails, and it became breaking news. After seeing that, I realized we had some social influence.
At the time, I thought it would be meaningful if we could call out bad behavior, whether it be whistleblowing or addressing a social issues.

○ Personally, I do worry if it's really okay for the media to punish people. Criticisms and punishments are completely different things, after all. I have written in the hopes that a final judgment could be dealt, but I have to wonder if that objective is acceptable, especially since it would no longer be a battle of words.
● That's right. Once it becomes a criminal case, then it's out of the question.

○ Even at lower levels, people discriminate against neighbors based on something that was said about them. Such problems exist and, of course, it applies to the internet.
● That's true, and it does worry me when people say “I'm like this because of you.”
For now, I think the media can handle facts more objectively than other media. Getting a lot of responses is not something that usually happens with other media.
One company might get 100 responses on, for example, the Sagawa Express' working conditions. When that happens, even if they aren't completely true, they gain quite a bit of credibility. Students have written to us, saying that they found the information useful while job hunting.

○ It becomes a problem on the recieving end too, the problem of believing everything.
● That's right, there can be blatantly malicious posts as well.

○ It seems that you have high expectations for replies, but why do people write them?
● You'll understand once you see for yourself, but people get really happy when their posts get replies.
Ahh, it really satisfies a desire to be seen, knowing other people are aware you exist.

○ That would mean that our feelings are becoming fairly digitized, the joy of being seen.
● For writers, it normally takes time to get written responses to your article.
On the internet, you get an instant response. It's very timely.
The president of a certain bank spends a lot of time on the 'breaking shareholder news' section, and he's written quite a lot. The other day, I got an email from him, it was interesting. Over the course of our debates, I had the benefit of becoming acquainted with people in Kabutochō.
Responding to each other is a form of communication, after all. Besides, once you get the hang of it, you may find yourself continuing to make posts on the board.

○ If I had to raise a concern, actively seeking responses is like actively seeking viewership. Wouldn't it repeat the same mistakes as television, being obsessed with the stimuli of supremacy through viewership?
● I don't know if this will answer the question, but for example, take people who write discriminatory posts.
Nowadays, these posts are met with insults, calling them middle school students, and they're told to go elsewhere. The responses are negative, saying “I don't want to see posts like that” or “the internet is hopeless because of posts like that.” I'm happy with that, because that's not how things were a year ago.

○ The mindset of wanting to do better had emerged.
● I think that's right. Of course, it doesn't have to do with self-purification.

○ Do you read any paper newspapers?
● I haven't been able to read them, as the internet keeps me busy. A part of it is because I'm busy, but when it comes to gathering topics, I can already get that from the internet.
I think there used to be a time when people read weekly magazines to find something to talk about, but that need has vanished, and you can find all sorts of information outside of magazines and newspapers.
The government made kisha clubs to streamline the flow of information, and the private sector has sponsors to guide them in a certain direction.
I think the government and sponsors is why information from the media tends to be one-sided, but the internet has neither government, nor sponsors. Even in our case, we don't have really have any regulations, aside from the rules forbidding discriminatory language.

○ Do you ever think it would be good if the media ceased to exist?
● Not at all. Tokyo Sports might've been harsh, but I do think what they write tends to be well researched.
Unlike reading 100 words off a bulletin board, I think that you get access to much higher quality information by reading 20 words from journalists in the media.
That being said, you usually can find one excellent post, out of 100 posts in an online bulletin board.

△ How would one find what's beyond excellent? How does one get reliable information from a bulletin board?
● It would require manually sifting through posts and determining which ones stand out.

△ How would one go about mastering that skill?
● You just have to get used to it. Once you start speaking up, you begin to understand the emotion that other people's words have. That sort of thing might be useful when reading what others say.

○ How does it feel to say that your bulletin board has social influence?
● Mentally, it's great. It's fun.

○ How long do you sit in front of your computer?
● About three hours a day. I go to bed at 8pm, wake up around 3–4am, then I work on it until classes begin. I really enjoy it.