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.
With usernames people will still go through your comment history and judge you on previous unrelated comments. Only true anonymity, not pseudonymity, can lead to discussions completely detached from identity.
first posts are not allowed
The site will never catch on
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.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Huffman argued that anonymity on Reddit actually makes using the site "more like a conversation one has in real life"
Reddit is more like being told there are cool kids hanging out, chilling, and having a good time, but finding out that it's just a couple of retards mumbling to each other.
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.
I wouldn't say no ethics. The guy that lied and claimed the shooter was a Trump supporter was fired. If they had no ethics, he wouldn't have been fired, much less so quickly.
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. Maybe knowing that on Reddit any ol' bot can easily post something means people are far more critical with post/comments on Reddit then on Facebook.
I'm sure we can all agree that more people need to think more critically when reading things they read online; like that fact that this comment is based on one person's experience and therefore cannot be trusted as a true representation of the crap posts online.
Good moderators, plus the up/down voting system, make this work pretty well for the handfull of subreddits that I frequent.
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.
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.
Bruce Perens.
I created an account and started posting stuff (not spam). After recieving zero views/clicks/comments for a long time, I contacted the support, and it eventually turned out that they had silently put me inside a "bubble", not because of anything I posted, but immediately after creating the account because I was using a VPN. Same thing happened on Hacker News.
Forget anonymity -- they require you to use your uniquely identifying home IP address to post anything that will be seen by anyone other than yourself. They do not believe in anonymity and I don't blame them, because it has countless problems associated with it, but the point here is that they are not being honest, and I can't stand that.
Any service that employs these underhanded, disgusting tactics such as "putting you in a bubble", showing fake error messages, etc., are absolutely vile and I want nothing to do with them.
Then tell me they don't want your data and don't sell it. https://www.redditinc.com/poli...
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams
"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.
They can be less authentic, more false to themselves. It's a matter of personalities, non persons.
Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
BTW: thanks, Slashdot, for enabling posting as AC.
That's one of the reasons I stick with you.
(I'd register if you figured out how to enable that without cookies & without Javascript, but hey, I make do as AC).
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.
Trolling is overrated. The amount of time a troll causes issues and isn't easy to ignore are pretty minimal. Meanwhile the problems caused by measures to deal with trolling tend to far outweigh the problem it causes in the first case, e.g. no anonymity, heavy handed moderation, shadow banning, censorship or just outright getting rid of comment sections altogether.
Penny-arcade had a similar analogy... https://www.penny-arcade.com/c...
Trolling is partially intent in my opinion. You can state pure facts, but if the reason (and manner) in which you're delivering them is designed to stir up shit, it's trolling. Any idiot can get involved in a flame war argument on the internet, but a troll (or at least a good one) is where you can get everyone else to have the flame war for you while you watch from the sidelines. It's not even necessary to state a point of view. Even asking a question that you know is going to provoke some strong responses (e.g., "Has anyone had good experiences with System D?") and derail the thread can be construed as trolling.
If you call Elon Musk a scam artist and spend several paragraphs defending that point with examples and further explanation of your reasoning (whether any of it is good or not is immaterial) it's probably not a troll. If you're calling Musk a scam artist because you're just shit talking on the internet, it's much more likely to be a troll. As you point out, you could just be an idiot who doesn't know better, but that's much more difficult to know on the internet.
No. You don't need to provide an explanation. You can call my opinion an unsubstantiated one, because I didn't provide any evidence, but that doesn't mean it is a troll. That is my point: the word "troll" has become useless.
No, that isn't trolling either. You just proved my point. Being disparaging IS NOT TROLLING. It may be bad behavior, but it isn't trolling. The word "troll" has become meaningless, just like the word "hack".
I left reddit since it did not allow me to browse anonymously anymore, had to register to just lookig to it.
And now they say that they value being anonymous ? Lie, a plain lie.
A verified Email is all it takes to track a user , build a profile and tag it back to a real person.
Then, the next step will come in: disappearing articles from your view, your posts will not get upvoted.
Nothing new, history is bound to repeat itself, worse.
Most sites are like Reddit, in this regard. Pretty sure /. is another. Indeed, exceptions are relatively rare, though one of those exceptions does happen to currently be pretty popular (Facebook).
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
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.
Of course not. Trolling is posting with the intention of generate responses. If someone have an unpopular opinion it doesn't necessarily mean he/she/it* intend to create an argument with many participants.
(* _this_ is an example of trolling)
Trolling used to be a subtle art. You had to post something just outrageous enough to cause a stir. Then people weren't sure if you were serious or not. That was trolling.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
The art of trolling is lost.
I went trolling this weekend about immigrants stealing our jobs coming from famine and war. All of the responses, on both sides were yelling and only one person pointed out that I pointed to their native tongues, Irish and German.
Encouraging discussion is trolling?
No, trolling is posting something you yourself don't believe with the intention of generating responses. If you aren't misrepresenting yourself, then you can't possibly be a troll.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
Never attribute to malice that which is explained by stupidity.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
http://www.newser.com/story/261299/tweet-about-maga-hat-costs-reporter-his-job.html https://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2018/06/30/reporter-resigns-over-false-tweet-that-annapolis-shooter-had-on-maga-hat/ The reporter made a false claim. It was widely reported that this was fake news.
The funny part is APK isn't anonymous at all. People have posted his real name.
And we all know how that ends.
SHITCOCK!
#DeleteFacebook
Actually the tricky part about trolling is it all has to do with intent, which is unknowable except by the Troll and God. However, making ad hominem arguments is still a horrible way to win any argument.
How would you distinguish between trolling and devil's advocacy? Does devil's advocacy require explaining that you're being the devil's advocate?
I wonder if the use of the word "trolling" is just a way of dismissing someone with better reasoning skills than your own.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
Depends on whether you're hoping to troll up some responses by name calling or whether it is just your opinion.
Lots of people think troll means someone who lives under the bridge and hates goats rather then a means of fishing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
In my view it is the same to refuse service to somebody for their political affiliation, or because they are gay. That restaurant red hen refused service to Sarah Sanders is on the same level as the guy refusing to decorate a cake for gay marriage. Your religion preclude you to give anti abortion pill at a drugstore ? get another job. Your opinion is that you don't want to give cake for gay marriage ? Get another job. You don't want to serve politician in restaurant ? get another job. Etc rinse and repeat. If one is allowed by the constitution and law , then all are. Now if you ask my opinion, as soon as you are in a service industry you should not be allowed to discriminate *either way*.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Real adults like myself use their real name.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It happens all too much, people get fired for things they say online. The 'tolerant left' are doing this significantly lately. If you're not in with the gang and say something they don't agree with, bam they're trying to get you fired.
(The right likely do this too, but it's the hypocrisy of the left and the excessiveness the past few years which makes it feel cult-like and screwed up)
It's just not worth it.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Fuck that shit. No one is going to "stomp out disinformation".
I don't want the government, along with major corporations, deciding what is truth, what I am allowed to say.
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro" -- HST
I remember, back in the 90s when I first started getting online, and well into the 00s, EVERY SINGLE PUBLICATION about getting online stressed how important it was not to reveal your real identity on the Internet. This ESPECIALLY applied to anyone who was under age. It was in every single "Tips for Internet Safety" list, right next to not telling anyone you don't know and trust your name, location, and even phone number.
Then Facebook came along, and started pushing the real name thing. They started as a site for college students, so it made sense to use your real name to find other people on campus, but then it expanded into a general social media site, and they kept the mandatory real name policy going.
This shifted the culture to the point that these days, people think there's something wrong with you if you DON'T use your real name online. Luckily, several sites like Slashdot, Reddit, and Twitter are still big on letting you not use your real name, but for how long? The right to be anonymous online is something that has been around since the very early days. It should remain with us.
Back in the primitive dial up days, I'd look at my local ISP's "web pages". Now, the concept of a page was pretty leading edge, and only one place I knew of had a T1 line, so the web would actually load like we assume today-DSL was still a bit off (ok, I'm old) There was a young woman who posted everything about her life. Nursing Student...graduates...music she likes as MP3....photos of her flying lessons. I had no idea why she would do this-she seemed totally normal, kind of cute, and clearly was smart enough to do HTML before it was easy. I was fascinated as to why, on the anonymous web, she was posting all this stuff. It only stopped after her BF became her fiance....she even posted a ring photo. Again, sounds a lot like FB, but it was in the dial up days. No idea who she is/was, but she was totally ahead of the curve. I only followed it because on the random list of web pages the ISP had, A loaded first, and most web pages were primitive business pages. Today, people do real business on the web, the IRS requires you to pay "on line", and the ultimate way Corporate America tells you your transaction is basically valueless to them is "visit us on the web". I thought she was out of her mind, nuts. Turns out she was about 15 years early.
Using your real name works for you, but don't expect it to be the right solution for everyone.
And I think you just hit on one of the ideals that Americans should be striving for: The freedom of an individual to make a choice. Bruce has made the choice to become a public figure and stand up for what he believes in. Other people might make the choice you describe, and not reveal their real names because they cannot afford the time, money, or effort that it might cost them to be a public figure.
Neither choice is correct or incorrect, but what is important is that each person have that choice, and that it isn't decided by a private corporation or a government intent on spying on them for political or financial purposes.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
You example are what I would call stupid. Legality always trump everything, you cannot be required to do something illegal. And THAT is already enshrined into laws. But for the rest ? I am sorry moral quandary are not a reason. If you have moral quandary about something which your job legally entail, then that job is not for you, do get another job.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I'd argue that if someone plays devil's advocate and doesn't announce it, then they are taking advantage of one of the social niceties that help smooth communication - the trust that people are being genuine when they represent or argue an opinion. If someone is attempting to examine a position that they don't feel strongly, that should be clear from their manner, argument and response. If they present an appearance of belief that is different from what they actually hold, whether for the purpose of Socratic education or trolling, then they are exploiting that trust. To the degree that this erodes and degrades social interaction, then I'm not sure that there's much difference between a dishonest DA and troll.
Looking at the original meaning (pulling a baited hook through the water, esp. multiple lines or hooks) I'd distinguish a troll as someone who is looking for any reaction, and someone who is playing 'devil's advocate' is someone looking for a specific reaction or interaction.
This isn't perfect. Some of my favourite trolls have been very specific (the chiro posts by DrBob(?), for eg) and someone who just likes to argue and uses devil's advocate as a beard cross over, IMHO.
What they mean (if they are thinking) is that you are knowingly degrading the quality of the discussion with your comment.
If people are having a thoughtful conversation about X, and you interject to post a 4 word comment "X is a scam artist!", then your comment is noise to the discussion, which adds nothing and interferes with the serious conversation.
If you are aware that you are having this effect (which anyone over puberty should be aware of), then you are in fact a troll.
Woosh. You can definitely "win" an argument in that you win over popular opinion. Logical fallacies are actually excellent ways to win over many audiences. More informed and logical audiences will not be swayed.
Calling Elon Musk a scam artist would be a simple assertion if it occurred in a vacuum. However, context matters and if you post this in an article where Elon is saying that Tesla will do great in the future then the assertion is actually and argument used to dismiss Elon's argument. In this case, it is an ad hominem.