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.

21 of 361 comments (clear)

  1. Simple argument... by Kenja · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?"
    1. Re:Simple argument... by Calydor · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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=-
    2. Re: Simple argument... by houghi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.
  2. Re:Trolls? by 110010001000 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  3. More from the Aspen Ideas Festival by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  4. I like real names by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:I like real names by Calydor · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    2. Re:I like real names by lkcl · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

  5. Anonymity is a double-edged sword by Lucas123 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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.

  6. Re:Pseudonymity by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  7. The good ole BBS days by TheDarkener · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  8. Control, not credibility by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  9. Re:Pseudonymity by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
  10. Re:Pseudonymity by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 5, Funny

    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?

  11. That works for you by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  12. I want to say Unpopular Opinions Anonymously by DatbeDank · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:I want to say Unpopular Opinions Anonymously by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 3, Funny

      I agree with most of your examples. However, saying that Windows PC are the best computers is clearly hate speech and should be illegal.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  13. Re:Pseudonymity by Riceballsan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  14. Re:Pseudonymity by Jason+Levine · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  15. Re:Pseudonymity by Kjella · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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
  16. Re:Pseudonymity by nospam007 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    “Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.”

    Oscar Wilde