Slashdot Mirror
Reddit's Case for Anonymity on the Internet (theatlantic.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report: All that's required to create an account and post on any of Reddit's 1.2 million forums is an email address, a username, and a password. You don't need to tell the company your birthday, your gender, or even your real name. As Huffman put it on Thursday at the Aspen Ideas Festival, which is co-hosted by the Aspen Institute and The Atlantic, "Reddit doesn't want the burden of personal information ... and is not selling personal information."
Huffman argued that anonymity on Reddit actually makes using the site "more like a conversation one has in real life" than other exchanges on the internet. "When people detach from their real-world identities, they can be more authentic, more true to themselves," he claimed.
Huffman argued that anonymity on Reddit actually makes using the site "more like a conversation one has in real life" than other exchanges on the internet. "When people detach from their real-world identities, they can be more authentic, more true to themselves," he claimed.
The word "Troll" is meaningless today. Many people use the word "troll" to mean "a person who says something I don't agree with". For example, I call Elon Musk a scam artist and some people reply screaming that I am a "troll". No, that is not a troll. I might be wrong, or I might be stupid, or I might be right and you don't want to hear it, but it isn't trolling.
So many times this. My real name together with the country I live in will yield exactly one match. Now consider shit like SWATting and there is no way in f'ing Hell I'm letting anyone but close friends come CLOSE to finding out what my real name is.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Can Sacrificing Privacy Stomp Out Disinformation Online?
According to Dipayan Piku Ghosh, a digital-privacy expert at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government,“the commercial interests of internet platforms like Facebook and those of disinformation operators are at some points aligned.”
Ghosh specified that keeping users engaged for as long as possible is a core goal for both internet companies and entities spreading false information. “For the internet platform, it allows them to create more ad space and collect more data,” he said on Thursday at the Aspen Ideas Festival, which is co-hosted by the Aspen Institute and The Atlantic. “For disinformation operators, it allows them to try to persuade the individual. And that alignment is what we need to really try to solve.”
Renée DiResta, who works as Data for Democracy’s head of policy, offered one possible solution—but it’s a bitter remedy for those who would wish to hold their data close: “Really, the solution ... is better information sharing,” she said on Thursday.
DiResta’s vision of online truth enforcement consists of a “triangle” of independent and academic researchers, researchers at big tech companies, and the government, all exchanging what they know and working in concert to stomp out disinformation. For some, that’s a chilling proposition—after all, it was data sharing between academics and Facebook that allowed Cambridge Analytica to create 30 million psychographic voter profiles without users’ consent. But without data and analysis flowing between each point of the triangle, DiResta argued, there’s no hope of triumphing over nefarious actors in a disinformation arms race.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
The reason i do not use my real name is bevause of "Why should I have an excuse?" There is no reason that I should reason or defend why I do it.
Do the sites have a legal AND moral reaaon to do so, i might do it (e.g if I open a bank account). Ifyou make it "legal" by putting itin your policy (like Facebook) than fuck off and there is no reason I should explain myself.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
"When people detach from their real-world identities, they can be more authentic, more true to themselves," he claimed. And in many cases, that means more trollish, uncivilized and downright nasty. They write and post things they'd never do if their identities were known; that's why many media sites require an authentic (or at least an attempt at it) Facebook or Twitter account. Zero accountability isn't always (and typically isn't) a good thing.
Some of you may not know the glory of anonymity in the BBS (Bulletin Board System) days. But it really was glorious. Everyone had a "handle" or "alias". It was generally encouraged to be anonymous online back then, or at least be something that contrasts who you were IRL. It was part of the fun. It was part of the drive of going online in the first place, it was like role playing.
Many people I knew had complete online alter-egos based around characters they'd play in door games (hence my alias TheDarkener, a character I created when playing L.O.R.D.). I was a young teenager then and it was absolutely liberating to be able to converse with people of all ages and, for the most part, know they only knew of my intellect, my character and not my IRL age (for obviously bias may come into play).
Sure, there were boards that demanded you put in your real name, had a callback verification system so they'd know your real phone number..and those boards were hardly as popular as those who didn't do that.
Remember the movie "Hackers"? When Joey said, "I need a handle, man. I don't have an identity 'till I have a handle!" Man, I miss that. Now there's pressure for online platforms to ensure people are putting in their real names, real birthdays, upload photo IDs for verification, all this crap..what happened to the innocence of imagination? Oh yeah, it got crushed by the Internet becoming a global economic machine, and the money people got their grubby mitts into how it should work.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
I can tell you from my experience on Facebook that having your account tied to your personal identity doesn't mean shit for how credible your posts are.
You're missing the point.
It isn't for credibility, it's for control. If you say something that Facebook doesn't like, it can ban you, and if you're *required* to prove your identity Facebook can keep you banned. (Gun enthusiast sites, for instance.)
There's also the issue of consequences. If you say something that the community doesn't like (but is otherwise legal), the community can pound you into the ground for it. For example, harass your employer until you get fired (this actually happens).
While there is certainly a lot of trolls and general assinine behaviour on the net, forcing people to use their real identity has more important consequences. It's throwing the baby out with the bath water.
It's about control, not credibility.
I use my real name here, and on Reddit. It's a credibility thing. I did get sued for $3 Million for something I wrote on my personal blog. That person ended up swearing a $300,000 bond for my defense, which should be a warning to others.
I use my real name here, and on Reddit. It's a credibility thing. I did get sued for $3 Million for something I wrote on my personal blog. That person ended up swearing a $300,000 bond for my defense, which should be a warning to others.
Suppose you say something that the community doesn't like. Suppose it's OK to say that today, but tomorrow the community standards change. (Such as the thing with Apu in "The Simpsons". Poking fun at Indian convenience store owners was OK up until recently.)
(Or gun enthusiasts.)
The community could ostracize you, they could call up your employer and complain about you. Your business could be downrated to 1 star on Yelp (or GlassDoor or whatever). You could be doxxed, you could be swatted. If you were a Facebook user, Facebook could ban you, and the community could talk about you all day and you wouldn't be able to respond. Your voice of protest wouldn't be heard.
And as to your court case, how much did you have to pay up front to fund that? And it was a gamble up front, meaning that you might not have gotten that investment back. Additionally, how much of your time and energy went into proving yourself in a court of law?
You're honestly saying that regular people - people full-time of families and jobs, who don't have ten grand to wager on a court case - should shoulder that sort of burden?
Using your real name works for you, but don't expect it to be the right solution for everyone.
I live in a place where it's unfashionable to say certain things. The only reason it's unfashionable is because a vocal minority have deemed my speech "hateful" even though it's free.
The fact that my free speech can now get me barred from establishments is on par with the ideologies we conquered in the 20th century.
I should be able to say:
1.that abortion should/should not be abolished
2.gays can/can not marry
3. women are/are not fundamentally different than men
4. Illegal immigrants should/should not be able to stay in my country
5. Islam is/ is not a violent, hateful, and supremacist organization.
6. Apple and Macs are / are not the best computers around.
7. PCs are / are not the best computers around.
Without fear of reprisal or imprisonment. The fact that statements like this are being punished in western democracies is frightening and a sign we are in critical decline.
I'd have to disagree, psudonymity gives you a consistant personality. You still can be yourself, Assuming the service doesn't betrey you, and you don't poorly link or leave some kind of connection to your real world identity you can have a personality that is judged purely on what you've posted (yes past posts included), and have some kind of dialogue. Total anonymity I haven't really seen any serious discussions occur with, to me that always degrades into just trolling etc... with a good chance that many involved are arguing both sides for drama rather than anyone actually speaking their mind on the topics. Which can be good for humor, not so good for real discussion.
Slashdot trolls can be hidden at -1. Reddit trolls will often be right there in the middle of the comments. For example, I was reading a Reddit thread where someone began saying that (paraphrasing) "Jews aren't people because only those who believe in Jesus Christ are people." I've seen anti-Semitic comments like this on Slashdot before but I need to go to -1 to spot them usually. On Reddit, the comment is right there.
Now, this could be a good thing in some instances, sparking conversation and bringing unpopular ideas up for debate instead of moderating them to oblivion. In other instances, though, the commenter isn't looking for an exchange of ideas. They just want to say "Jews aren't people" (or something else) to spark outrage and then laugh as people get upset.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
“Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.”
Oscar Wilde