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.
I've been told that Slashdot trolls are nicer than Reddit trolls.
Goodbye, Slashdot!
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.
You are a cow. Cows say moo. MOOOOOOO! MOOOOOOO! Moo cows MOOOOOO! Moo say the cows. YOU PSEUDONYMOUS COW!!
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 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.
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.
"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.
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.
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 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.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
With usernames people will still go through your comment history and judge you on previous unrelated comments.
I've done that, Mr. "Coward", and it's clear that you are by far the worst user on this site.
You always post dozens of off-topic comments and trolls on every single story, going back decades. How do you manage to do that? Do you even get any sleep at all?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
And we all know how that ends.
SHITCOCK!
#DeleteFacebook
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.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
The problem is that the courts are always biased to some degree. Look at the American Supreme Court and the importance put on the political affiliations of the Judges. This reflected in simple things like rights. Which is more important, the right to swing your fist or the right not to get hit by a swinging fist? While this one seems obvious, lots of questions are more subtle and some types will rule one way and others will rule the opposite.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Here's what you tell Reddit:
- E-mail address (unless you're one of the low-single-digit percentages which don't use their main e-mail address to register)
- Username (people tend to use the same username everywhere)
- IP address (linked to the username, allows the website to build a nice list of IP addresses you post from, together with at least approximate geolocation)
- Online times (often overlooked, but important to build a profile)
- Browser type.
- Any other info derived from your posts.
Those just off the top of my head.
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
yet it's part of your attorney's job to find the things said in your favor and argue for you.
No. This is wrong. Anything you say to the police is inadmissible by the defense, because it is hearsay evidence. It CAN NOT be used by your attorney to help or exonerate you.
You really REALLY need to watch This Video before you talk or write about this further. In fact, the video should be mandatory for any resident of the United States.
If you are over 18 years old, you should always say exactly 4 words to the police:
1. I
2. want
3. a
4. lawyer.
If you are under 18 years old, you should always say exactly 4 words to the police, but the last word is "parents". If you have kids, you need to teach them this, and you need to make sure they watch the video. The police are NOT THEIR FRIENDS and are NOT there to help them.
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.
On Reddit you can't post as an AC, so there is no automatic -1/hidden. If the comment gets downvoted on Reddit it will get hidden, just like on Slashdot. The difference might be in how the default Reddit settings are as far as when something crosses this threshold and gets hidden. If I or you posted the anti-Semitic comment (as logged in users) it would be scored as 1 and visible depending on how many comments the story has.
“Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.”
Oscar Wilde
Anything you say to the police is inadmissible by the defense, because it is hearsay evidence. It CAN NOT be used by your attorney to help or exonerate you.
That's not entirely true. Exculpatory statements to the police cannot be admitted on their own, but once admitted for any reason they can be used and referred to by the defense. The reason they aren't generally admissible is because you can testify yourself, under oath, and present the same statements. From the perspective of justice, the only reason that would be problematic is if you had lied in the initial statement.
More to the point, it is an exemption to the hearsay exclusion rule to use statements to establish character or history. For example, postings in a psychology forum about something that could impact the safety of someones' children - regardless of being positive or negative - could be argued to show a character trait, and thus would be admissible. Once in the court, the sides would argue about whether the trait is a good or bad thing.
If you have kids, you need to teach them this, and you need to make sure they watch the video. The police are NOT THEIR FRIENDS and are NOT there to help them.
...and with that bias right from the start, you've condemned them to always have that fate. Personally, I'd rather teach them that the law matters, and it is my kids' responsibility to learn those laws before they find themselves in a situation where those laws could affect them.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
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!
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.
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.
That's not what you were saying on that other thread.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u