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.
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.
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.
Wrong, free speech has to have it inherently built in to allow for anonymous free speech. To go elsewhere is just as the article states (And I am NO fan of Micro$oft propaganda articles or studies) but in this case I think she is correct in that it is an authoritarian assertion of power over vulnerable people
Two quick examples of U.S. law the link anonymous speech directly to the Constitution Right to Free Speech that I found are "Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60 (1960), the Court struck down a Los Angeles city ordinance that made it a crime to distribute anonymous pamphlets. In McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334 (1995), the Court struck down an Ohio statute that made it a crime to distribute anonymous campaign literature."
If you half an open mind, you might also want to check out the EFF site and try to look at it from another point of view. https://www.eff.org/issues/anonymity
Anonymity/pseudonimity is not purely for Trolls and F**wads.
Wherever you go... There you are. B.B.