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.

Comments

Simple argument...

[Kenja]

I have a fairly unique name, and I purchased a house, putting my name and address on the public record. Frankly, I don't want you crazy people to know where I live.

I like real names

[Bruce Perens]

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.

Re:I like real names

[Calydor]

You are also considered important enough that DDOS mitigation services go way above and beyond when you get slammed. They're not gonna do that for any random Joe.

It's a matter of celebrity status, if you will. You have a background, a name, a history that all add up to making you Someone. That is not the case for the vast majority of people on the internet - for them the best defense is not in having everyone know their name, but in making sure no one knows that name.

Re:I like real names

[lkcl]

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.

that's down to creating a "brand" - a trademark in which people can "trust". it's a very reasonable, rational argument that assumes that there is a central "higher" authority to which one may appeal in the instance(s) where attackers make attempts to "phish" that name "bruce perens". for example by attackers registering bruceperens.info, or bruceperens.io, or bruceperens.name and so on. all of these you can go to a court of law for trademark infringement - the "higher authority" - or present a copyright registration certificate to nominet - the "higher authority" - and so on.

now let's roll back about 15+ years, to before these insane and extremely dangerous real-name policies existed. you're on the internet, it's lawless, you have *no* idea who you are talking to. you have no idea if they're a real person. you have no idea if they're who they say they are... and ABSOLUTELY EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT.

consequently, because everyone KNOWS that you absolutely do not, under ANY circumstances, EVER trust someone by their ***NAME AND NAME ALONE***, everything's fine. even people who use GPG *know* that the digital signature does not authenticate the *person*, it authenticates the *key* that the person is *responsible* for. or, if they don't, they're damn fools, but that's another story.

now let's move forward to the incredibly dangerous and extremely insidious but "perfectly justified" real-name policies. google. facebook. establishing themselves as "god". the "higher authority" to which we must appeal. the "higher authority" that we must place our absolute absolute faith and trust in, or be told "go fuck yourself and oh incidentally we're terminating access to 10 years worth of business email (and we don't give a fuck) because you REFUSED to accept our google+ real-name policy".

what effect do these "real name" policies have? where previously EVERYONE KNEW that you NEVER trusted an online identity... suddenly we can?? oink?

and what happens when that system fails? what happens when someone claims via one of these "real name" policies to be the President of the United States and sends out a "fake message" that there's a nuclear strike been ordered? what happens when someone claims to be their doctor, and orders them to send pictures of themselves naked for quotes medical review quotes? what happens when the "real named" account is COMPROMISED?

it's *unbelievably* dangerous to blindly place our trust and faith in these criminally-pathological companies that are so deluded by their belief that they can take away our right to be responsible for our own lives and decisions that we LET them, en-masse, sleep-walking into incredibly dangerous scenarios.

PLEASE WAKE UP, people. take responsibility for checking if people are who they say they are NOT by their "real name" but by heuristics on their *behaviour*.

i got phished on facebook by someone pretending to be my deputy head-master from 30 years ago. it took me almost 10 minutes to work out that they weren't that person. facebook had allowed the phisher to use the EXACT same name - and their photograph. if instead facebook had gone by "handles", like people used to 15+ years ago, (and like yahoo still does) the extra numbers on the end of the name would have given the game away almost immediately.

Re:Pseudonymity

[ShanghaiBill]

With usernames people will still go through your comment history and judge you on previous unrelated comments.

That is ok. I just don't want my online comments to affect my real life. I don't want conflict with my boss or coworkers or family because of political comments I made in a forum.

I had a co-worker who posted online in a psychology forum using his real name. Some of those posts were used against him in family court, and he was denied custody of his children.

Only true anonymity, not pseudonymity, can lead to discussions completely detached from identity.

I am fine with identities, I just want more than one.

Re:Pseudonymity

[Oswald McWeany]

I am fine with identities, I just want more than one.

A long time ago I used to use the same user name on every forum and site I signed in for. It was my childhood nickname, which whilst not my real name, was fairly unique.

I was stalked by an individual who searched for my username and tracked me back to every forum I had ever used at that point (even ones I hadn't been active on in over a year). They then tried to use my comments and information against me; and, generally tried trolling me all across the internet. I now use a completely different user id on every forum I go to. I have a half dozen e-mail address and pick one at random to sign up to things so not all on the same account.

It makes life slightly more complicated but it is worth it to not be trackable across the internet. I really don't understand people that link things to their facebook or google accounts and use facebook to log into somewhere. They're making it easier for some future harasser to harass them.

Re:Pseudonymity

[Kjella]

That's the problem, though. Using only the information you've given here (so not relating to your co-worker himself), let's consider the scenario objectively. If he's saying something that is concerning enough to take children away, why would it be better if he could say those things anonymously or pseudonymously? Having an attached real identity doesn't change the factual basis of what he said, or the fact that he said it, or that whatever he said is concerning enough to make the court question the well-being of children in his custody.

"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." -- Cardinal Richelieu

"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws." -- Ayn Rand

"Don't talk to the police" -- James Duane & many others

Basically, anything you say can and will be used against you but not for you. The more you say, the more ammunition you give someone to play devil's advocate and take things out of context or discussing hypothetical possibilities and so on.

It also doesn't mean that what you're doing is wrong and the reaction you get is fair or whether you're with the majority or minority. Take for example James Reeb, he was a white man that got beaten to death for supporting MLK. I'm not saying he'd want to be pseudonymous or anonymous, but he'd sure run a lot less risk that way. You never know what kind of fanatic/lunatic will latch on to you and decide to make your life miserable.