5 ms·

What do you suggest for people who need to post stories where the lack of anonymity could have serious ramifications for their lives? This is a serious question

What do you suggest for people who need to post stories where the lack of anonymity could have serious ramifications for their lives? This is a serious question. Are those people (or those contributions) simply not intended to be a part of this community?

gkop 10y ago
I didn't get from dang that HN is going to require Facebook auth or anything else to make it more difficult to create pseudonymous accounts. Dang simply discourages creating unnecessary new pseudonyms because the community benefits with consistent pseudonyms. If you need a new pseudonym to protect your identity, that's a necessary pseudonym: have at it.
- krapp 10y ago
  Some people create pseudonyms as a platform for trolling or propagandizing without risking their main account, other people simply morally object to having a consistent online identity on principle, or want to say something controversial or confidential to protect their main account or identity. In every case, the pseudonym is an attempt to protect one's identity, and the person making it considers it necessary.
  - gkop 10y ago
    The first two cases are at odds with the interests of the community and ought to be discouraged.
    - krapp 10y ago
      They are usually discouraged, downvoted and flagged as they should be. But that happens with established accounts as well, so the anonymity itself doesn't seem to be the problem in those cases. Unless your account links to your real world identity in some way, there isn't much value in having an established account at all.
      - ams6110 10y ago
        The corpus of postings by any consistenly used pseudonymous account can probably be fingerprinted and linked to a real-world identity if someone cared enough. E.e. google probably could do it as they have every comment on this site and also have all of your email.
nitrogen 10y ago
Maybe they (HN) could allow one BugMeNot-style account that is known not to belong to anyone, has aggressive anti-spam filtering, maybe requires a captcha to post, and only posts dead comments? Then when people who really don't want to join the community have something useful to contribute we can vouch for the individual comments. I guess this would be a tiny bit like the old sites with the Anonymous Coward "username".
dang 10y ago
That's no problem. Sometimes people have legit reasons for making a throwaway account. For example, they might want to post about experiences that could get them in trouble if they used their real name or even their main pseudonym. All that is fine, and long established on HN. But it's an abuse to make a new account for every few comments, and it's an abuse to rack up a stockpile of burner accounts.
- karmajunkie 10y ago
  Thanks for the clarification!

gkop 10y ago

I didn't get from dang that HN is going to require Facebook auth or anything else to make it more difficult to create pseudonymous accounts. Dang simply discourages creating unnecessary new pseudonyms because the community benefits with consistent pseudonyms. If you need a new pseudonym to protect your identity, that's a necessary pseudonym: have at it.

krapp 10y ago
Some people create pseudonyms as a platform for trolling or propagandizing without risking their main account, other people simply morally object to having a consistent online identity on principle, or want to say something controversial or confidential to protect their main account or identity. In every case, the pseudonym is an attempt to protect one's identity, and the person making it considers it necessary.
- gkop 10y ago
  The first two cases are at odds with the interests of the community and ought to be discouraged.
  - krapp 10y ago
    They are usually discouraged, downvoted and flagged as they should be. But that happens with established accounts as well, so the anonymity itself doesn't seem to be the problem in those cases. Unless your account links to your real world identity in some way, there isn't much value in having an established account at all.
    - ams6110 10y ago
      The corpus of postings by any consistenly used pseudonymous account can probably be fingerprinted and linked to a real-world identity if someone cared enough. E.e. google probably could do it as they have every comment on this site and also have all of your email.

nitrogen 10y ago

Maybe they (HN) could allow one BugMeNot-style account that is known not to belong to anyone, has aggressive anti-spam filtering, maybe requires a captcha to post, and only posts dead comments? Then when people who really don't want to join the community have something useful to contribute we can vouch for the individual comments. I guess this would be a tiny bit like the old sites with the Anonymous Coward "username".

dang 10y ago

That's no problem. Sometimes people have legit reasons for making a throwaway account. For example, they might want to post about experiences that could get them in trouble if they used their real name or even their main pseudonym. All that is fine, and long established on HN. But it's an abuse to make a new account for every few comments, and it's an abuse to rack up a stockpile of burner accounts.

karmajunkie 10y ago
Thanks for the clarification!