Slashdot Mirror
Are 'Real Names' Policies an Abuse of Power?
telekon writes "Microsoft researcher Danah Boyd argues in this article that 'The people who most heavily rely on pseudonyms in online spaces are those who are most marginalized by systems of power.' This comes in the wake of criticism aimed at Facebook and Google for their stance on anonymity and pseudonymity. A related article from the Atlantic discusses how revolutionary the real name requirement really is."
Dont use Facebook or Google+.
Plenty of other methods of communication.
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
Google is not obligated to join you on whatever your crusade is, no matter how worthy. There are real plusses and minuses to anonymity, and it is reasonable for a social network operator to either allow or disallow pseudonymity.
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
Trolls, frauds, spammers, etc. hate having to identify themselves. Most people are proud of who they are and have no need to hide.
No one said social media sites had to be safe for activists under repressive regimes. In fact, were I in that situation, Facebook and Google+ would be the last place I'd want to be posting.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Pseudonymity is such a core part of Internet culture. "Real names" are a very recent artifact of companies trying to monetize the web. It offers no value to users.
i am not putting my real name & address or photo on any social networking website, because i know there are some people out there that would milk it for all its worth as far as identity theft or blackmail or just plain meanness to make me look bad,
(besides i do a good enough job of making myself look bad and i dont want any help from anyone else)
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
So was Publius a troll, fraud, or a spammer? What about George Orwell? What about Mark Twain?
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you
Then you don't go posting about it online...
Free speech is the ability for you state your beliefs without having to worry about the government jailing you for saying it. Nothing about doing it anonymously. Free Speech is something to be valued and not used anonymously. If you are going to stand out and say something important then you should do it so people know who you are, and realize that even in a place of Free Speech there is risks.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Widespread requirements by social media to give one's "real name" are, on the surface, only harmful to those who would prefer to remain anonymous but would rather give up anonymity than the utility of these sites.
One may simply say "if you want to remain anonymous don't give up your information. There's no one forcing you to use these sites" But there's a side-effect of this requirement.
Like it or not "what a lot of people do" always defines what is okay and good and normal. to most people. It makes it much easier to pass laws that forbid anonymity in many areas offline and on. So even though I don't use facebook, google plus, or other such services specifically because I prefer to remain anonymous, this "real name" crap is indirectly harming me.
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
The author got a lot right in this article. The thing about using real identities is the effects are asymmetrical, it's not some egalitarian system that always improves discourse. The people in positions of power, authority, privilege, etc. are the ones who determine what is and isn't acceptable to begin with, so obviously they have nothing to lose by being identified. When we say "civility" we mean don't really mean "civility" according to everyone, just according to whoever defines the status quo. There's a reason Facebook is now mostly parents posting baby pictures and employers doing corporate promotions, that's all its useful for when everyone can see it and everyone can identify everyone else who uses it.
Most of you are too young to remember, but once upon a time there were no pseudonyms on the Internet. All schools, companies, and organizations on the Internet voluntarily adhered to a policy where each user's online identity was easily linked to their real world identity. It was staunchly enforced by admins who believed the net would fall apart into a morass of misbehavior if people were allowed to post anonymously.
There were a few people running their own servers who bucked the trend, but it wasn't until AOL joined USENET that pseudonyms became a fact of life. AOL allowed each account to have up to 5 usernames, to facilitate families sharing a single AOL account. Obviously these extra usernames were quickly taken up by people wishing to post things anonymously online, which was good for free speech. But not surprisingly, spam was invented shortly thereafter.
So it's actually anonymity which is the "recent artifact". All that's happening now is that the pendulum is starting to swing the other way as netizens struggle to figure out the best balance between real names and pseudonyms.
I call BS.
"Anonymity" is a nonsense commodity generated by the information age, and which has had much emo-currency invested in it by those with vested interests, but which is a complete sham.
Until the age of the telephone, anonymity was a rare and unusual thing.
You were known by what you said, and your words carried meaning. Because of the general immobility of the population, these words hung around you like a cloud, which then made up (along with deeds) your 'reputation'. This could last GENERATIONS.
Like playing with a loaded gun, people generally realized that they needed to be cautious with their words, lest it boomerang unexpectedly on them or their descendants.
Are we better off today?
-Styopa
First of all, ket's kill this nonsense idea about businesses and their private property rights. Inside your own private home, you can implement whatever racist, sexist, discriminatory policies you like.
Once you form a corporation and open to the public for business, you agree to play by different rules. When you file a corporate charter, you make the explicit black-letter deal that in exchange for limited liability and tax considerations, you are going to serve the public good. Just as it's time we put an end to cops claiming "privacy" rights in the course of performing their duties, and it's time we put an end to business's claiming they have "private property" rights in the course of their business. You've already agreed you're not a "private person" when you made the deal for a corpoate charter.
You can absolutely say "I don't want any minorities in my home." You absolutely can NOT say "I don't want any minorities in my business."
Now, my country, the USA, has certain values that stem from our history. We don't like kings, we don't like searches except under extreme circumstances, we believe you should be free to speak your mind or pray to any god you choose.
Yeah, it was hard to type that with a straight face.
Any way, just in case you were educated in Texas, here's something you should know. The American Revolution was kickstarted by men working under psuedonyms. Our most beloved author, Samuel Clemens, worked under a psuedonym. (You Texas kids, go ahead and google it. I'll wait.) Our most beloved badass actor, Marion Morrison, worked under a psuedonym (Everyone under 40, go ahead and google it.).
We like psuedonyms in this country, because as the Supreme Court has repeatedly held, speech isn't free if expressing an unpopular opinion costs you your livelihood -- Google "Red Scare Fifties" for more on that.
Google may not be obligated to join any crusades, by they are obliged to respect the basic mores that make modern democracies possible.
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."