8 ms·

Yes. People using real names on Usenet did not usually face a serious risk of being harassed and endangered in real life by an army of trolls: E.g. having thei

Yes. People using real names on Usenet did not usually face a serious risk of being harassed and endangered in real life by an army of trolls: E.g. having their address, phone number and other private details stolen and publicly disseminated. Having armed police raid their house because someone has made a bogus 911 call. Having their utilities and back accounts cancelled because someone rang up using their details. Having the same harassment happen to their friends, relatives and colleagues. Etc. And this is without considering people living in countries with oppressive governments, where using their real name could see them arrested, beaten and imprisoned. Basically, the stakes are a lot higher for a lot of people. For many, preserving anonymity isn't a matter of "politeness" — it's a matter of personal security. It can literally be a matter of life and death.

vog 10y ago
> Yes. I see the issues you are stating, but not so much a qualitative change. > serious risk of being harassed and endangered in real life by an army of trolls This type of trolls (aka "stalkers") have already existed decades ago. Back then I had no trouble finding such cases documented in the Usenet archives. Of course, these happened to fewer people, but then, the net was a lot smaller, too. > For many, preserving anonymity isn't a matter of "politeness" — it's a matter of personal security How does this differ from what I wrote? "... is considered impolite, if not aggressive ..." > And this is without considering people living in countries with oppressive governments, where using their real name could see them arrested, beaten and imprisoned. This may really have changed, considering that those countries joined the internet relatively lately. Yet, it still seems that this is covered by point 3) "... is considered impolite, if not aggressive ..."
- stupidcar 10y ago
  You asked whether something had substantially changed, not qualitatively. A change in degree can still be a substantial change. It's the difference between living in a city with one murder a year, and one hundred murders a day. To the individual killed, the distinction is irrelevant, but in terms of the effect on others, and on the measures taken by the society as a whole, it's everything. But I would also argue there has been a qualitative change, from harassment conducted by isolated individuals, to large scale, organised harassment, as well as an escalation in the tactics used. A malicious Usenet user could not call on an army of globally distributed 4chan trolls to endlessly pursue a particular vendetta. And the much greater integration of technology into institutions means the available methods to harass someone and remotely disrupt their life is far greater.
  - pc86 10y ago
    If the second city has ~36500 times the population, then it's not a change in degree at all. City A is no more or less safe than City B, nor is the police force any more or less effective, etc. There are billions of people on the internet now. How many were using it in the days of Usenet?
    - anigbrowl 10y ago
      By a frequentist analysis, which omits complicating factors and may lead to inaccurate conclusions. One obvious thing that a frequentist analysis misses is that the larger the population, the bigger the size of the gang you can summon to harass someone. Getting trolled by 3 or 4 people on Usenet was annoying, but today someone can find their Twitter feed flooded by hundreds of people. The frequency of the harassing activity in the population as a whole may be the same, but the potential impact on a single individual is very different (and don't go trying to tell me it's better because the number of trolls is rising slower than the general population in this made-up example).
      - pessimizer 10y ago
        What you're saying is right (in general, but not in reference to the specific analogy), but I'm not sure what it has to do with a frequentist analysis. Rather, it's a simplistic linear analysis of a higher-order system. Instead of multiplying the number of murders (which is an output, not an input), just multiply the number of potential murderers, with some percentage chance of being triggered to desire to murder a particular individual if encountered. If that chance averages 1%, in a town of 101 people you would have a 50% chance of having at least one person who would want to murder you. In a town of 10,001, you would have a 99.5% chance of having at least one person who would want to murder you. [edit: and in a town of 101, there would be no chance of having more than 100 people who wanted to murder you. In a town of 10,001, you'd be as likely as not to have 100 people would would murder you.] If everyone is exposed to everyone at all times, then everyone is endangered in large groups (seems obvious) even if no one is consistently looking for trouble more than anyone else. If that the qualities that inspire that 1% reaction have a clumpy distribution (either in perpetrator or victim), the experiences that individuals have will be vastly different in an average forum, and when holding the tolerance for danger constant, the least targeted will feel comfortable in far larger towns than the most targeted. Of course, in real life, the larger the town, the higher the level of anonymity. In the case of internet forums, however, 1) smaller groups are being eliminated in favor of larger groups due to finance and economies of scale and 2) there is a profit motive in de-anonymizing users. There's absolutely no degree of moderation that can make it work. Anonymity simply makes the problem disappear. What you said can be targeted, you yourself cannot be.
- bearcobra 10y ago
  With the qualifier that I am someone who never participated in Usenet, I'd imagine the scale of the problem is a substantial change. As you point out, certain types of trolls almost always existed, but now instead of a single person performing the harassment it can often be thousands. The larger userbase also seems to have created a more diverse set of believes, which in turn creates more opportunities for conflicts, and more likely that someone will escalate these conflicts into harassment.
- eternalban 10y ago
  > Back then I had no trouble finding such cases documented in the Usenet archives. Curious to see a specimen or two if you can dig it up. Not challenging the statement, just mostly interested in which specific era of usenet you are referencing. I couldn't dig up anything earlier than 1999 for "usenet stalking".
  - kps 10y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valery_Fabrikant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valery_Fabrikant
- Girlang 10y ago
  Yes yes yes. Read about rec.pets.cats, alt.syntax.tactical, and Karen Kolling.
TeMPOraL 10y ago
Besides the point about oppressive governments, everything else seems to be old news - it's not that this generation invented stalking and swatting along with bloated JS frameworks. Nor is it new that anonymity on-line can be a matter of "personal security" for someone; this is pretty much as old as public Internet, with obvious parallels to any older medium of communication. It's not that pseudonyms are a new thing either.
pc86 10y ago
If you could die using your real name on an internet service, you are much better off not using that service at all, especially if they require that you use your real name. Use of a particular service or website is not a human right. If your particular situation is such that it's unsafe or you need to violate TOS/regulations/laws by using a service... don't.
- dhimes 10y ago
  Sure, that's one answer. But it may not be the best. Another possibility is to not allow TOS terms that require real names be used. It's our government. We should write the best rules. If the company doesn't like it they can go to a different country.
  - ci5er 10y ago
    > Another possibility is to not allow TOS terms that require real names be used. The problem with rules is that they are "one-size fits all". Very binary. Instead of telling people what they can and can not do, why don't we simply require full disclosure? > We should write the best rules. If the company doesn't like it they can go to a different country. That's easier for companies than citizens. But the determination of "best rules" in a (representative) democracy depends on which mob is in charge this week...
- TorKlingberg 10y ago
  Today, not using the Internet at all is not really an option. Not using a particular service may not help, harassers on one service/site/social network often organize to attack someone outside.
- virgil_disgr4ce 10y ago
  > If you could die using your real name on an internet service, you are much better off not using that service at all Classic. "I'm not at risk, so we need not change anything. Your behavior is therefore at fault." > Use of a particular service or website is not a human right. Of course not. Would you say that being able to freely live your life without threat of death (as you most likely already do) should be? Allow me to extend your conclusion: - People harass me at the laundromat because of my appearance, to the point where I fear for my life. "Don't go to that laundromat ever again." OK, I'll now have to go 30 minutes out of my way every time I need to do laundry. And suppose that this other laundromat is no different? - People shout threats at me at the grocery store. "Don't go to that grocery store." Or, better yet, maybe I should just perfectly change the color of my skin and facial features to match theirs, so that the problem is solved! I know you guys are going to hate this, but this attitude is precisely what is meant by "white privilege." Please let me know if I am misunderstanding your attitude, or what you think about this.
macintux 10y ago
I can attest that there was a disturbed individual who lived not nearly far enough away for my comfort who came to the conclusion that I was evil and should die based on online interactions (MUDs) in ~1991. As concerning as that was, it in no way compares to what women in particular face today online.
- strictnein 10y ago
  > "that I was evil and should die based on online interactions (MUDs) in ~1991" Trade Wars players can be aggressive at times.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
the8472 10y ago
> Having armed police raid their house because someone has made a bogus 911 call. This seems to be mostly an american problem, not an online problem. Which means maybe it's not something that should be fixed by online communities but by the nation.
dreamfactory2 10y ago
+ with child safety and whatnot, maybe it should be illegal to use your real id publicly online?

vog 10y ago

> Yes. I see the issues you are stating, but not so much a qualitative change. > serious risk of being harassed and endangered in real life by an army of trolls This type of trolls (aka "stalkers") have already existed decades ago. Back then I had no trouble finding such cases documented in the Usenet archives. Of course, these happened to fewer people, but then, the net was a lot smaller, too. > For many, preserving anonymity isn't a matter of "politeness" — it's a matter of personal security How does this differ from what I wrote? "... is considered impolite, if not aggressive ..." > And this is without considering people living in countries with oppressive governments, where using their real name could see them arrested, beaten and imprisoned. This may really have changed, considering that those countries joined the internet relatively lately. Yet, it still seems that this is covered by point 3) "... is considered impolite, if not aggressive ..."

stupidcar 10y ago
You asked whether something had substantially changed, not qualitatively. A change in degree can still be a substantial change. It's the difference between living in a city with one murder a year, and one hundred murders a day. To the individual killed, the distinction is irrelevant, but in terms of the effect on others, and on the measures taken by the society as a whole, it's everything. But I would also argue there has been a qualitative change, from harassment conducted by isolated individuals, to large scale, organised harassment, as well as an escalation in the tactics used. A malicious Usenet user could not call on an army of globally distributed 4chan trolls to endlessly pursue a particular vendetta. And the much greater integration of technology into institutions means the available methods to harass someone and remotely disrupt their life is far greater.
- pc86 10y ago
  If the second city has ~36500 times the population, then it's not a change in degree at all. City A is no more or less safe than City B, nor is the police force any more or less effective, etc. There are billions of people on the internet now. How many were using it in the days of Usenet?
  - anigbrowl 10y ago
    By a frequentist analysis, which omits complicating factors and may lead to inaccurate conclusions. One obvious thing that a frequentist analysis misses is that the larger the population, the bigger the size of the gang you can summon to harass someone. Getting trolled by 3 or 4 people on Usenet was annoying, but today someone can find their Twitter feed flooded by hundreds of people. The frequency of the harassing activity in the population as a whole may be the same, but the potential impact on a single individual is very different (and don't go trying to tell me it's better because the number of trolls is rising slower than the general population in this made-up example).
    - pessimizer 10y ago
      What you're saying is right (in general, but not in reference to the specific analogy), but I'm not sure what it has to do with a frequentist analysis. Rather, it's a simplistic linear analysis of a higher-order system. Instead of multiplying the number of murders (which is an output, not an input), just multiply the number of potential murderers, with some percentage chance of being triggered to desire to murder a particular individual if encountered. If that chance averages 1%, in a town of 101 people you would have a 50% chance of having at least one person who would want to murder you. In a town of 10,001, you would have a 99.5% chance of having at least one person who would want to murder you. [edit: and in a town of 101, there would be no chance of having more than 100 people who wanted to murder you. In a town of 10,001, you'd be as likely as not to have 100 people would would murder you.] If everyone is exposed to everyone at all times, then everyone is endangered in large groups (seems obvious) even if no one is consistently looking for trouble more than anyone else. If that the qualities that inspire that 1% reaction have a clumpy distribution (either in perpetrator or victim), the experiences that individuals have will be vastly different in an average forum, and when holding the tolerance for danger constant, the least targeted will feel comfortable in far larger towns than the most targeted. Of course, in real life, the larger the town, the higher the level of anonymity. In the case of internet forums, however, 1) smaller groups are being eliminated in favor of larger groups due to finance and economies of scale and 2) there is a profit motive in de-anonymizing users. There's absolutely no degree of moderation that can make it work. Anonymity simply makes the problem disappear. What you said can be targeted, you yourself cannot be.
bearcobra 10y ago
With the qualifier that I am someone who never participated in Usenet, I'd imagine the scale of the problem is a substantial change. As you point out, certain types of trolls almost always existed, but now instead of a single person performing the harassment it can often be thousands. The larger userbase also seems to have created a more diverse set of believes, which in turn creates more opportunities for conflicts, and more likely that someone will escalate these conflicts into harassment.
eternalban 10y ago
> Back then I had no trouble finding such cases documented in the Usenet archives. Curious to see a specimen or two if you can dig it up. Not challenging the statement, just mostly interested in which specific era of usenet you are referencing. I couldn't dig up anything earlier than 1999 for "usenet stalking".
- kps 10y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valery_Fabrikant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valery_Fabrikant
Girlang 10y ago
Yes yes yes. Read about rec.pets.cats, alt.syntax.tactical, and Karen Kolling.

TeMPOraL 10y ago

Besides the point about oppressive governments, everything else seems to be old news - it's not that this generation invented stalking and swatting along with bloated JS frameworks. Nor is it new that anonymity on-line can be a matter of "personal security" for someone; this is pretty much as old as public Internet, with obvious parallels to any older medium of communication. It's not that pseudonyms are a new thing either.

pc86 10y ago

If you could die using your real name on an internet service, you are much better off not using that service at all, especially if they require that you use your real name. Use of a particular service or website is not a human right. If your particular situation is such that it's unsafe or you need to violate TOS/regulations/laws by using a service... don't.

dhimes 10y ago
Sure, that's one answer. But it may not be the best. Another possibility is to not allow TOS terms that require real names be used. It's our government. We should write the best rules. If the company doesn't like it they can go to a different country.
- ci5er 10y ago
  > Another possibility is to not allow TOS terms that require real names be used. The problem with rules is that they are "one-size fits all". Very binary. Instead of telling people what they can and can not do, why don't we simply require full disclosure? > We should write the best rules. If the company doesn't like it they can go to a different country. That's easier for companies than citizens. But the determination of "best rules" in a (representative) democracy depends on which mob is in charge this week...
TorKlingberg 10y ago
Today, not using the Internet at all is not really an option. Not using a particular service may not help, harassers on one service/site/social network often organize to attack someone outside.
virgil_disgr4ce 10y ago
> If you could die using your real name on an internet service, you are much better off not using that service at all Classic. "I'm not at risk, so we need not change anything. Your behavior is therefore at fault." > Use of a particular service or website is not a human right. Of course not. Would you say that being able to freely live your life without threat of death (as you most likely already do) should be? Allow me to extend your conclusion: - People harass me at the laundromat because of my appearance, to the point where I fear for my life. "Don't go to that laundromat ever again." OK, I'll now have to go 30 minutes out of my way every time I need to do laundry. And suppose that this other laundromat is no different? - People shout threats at me at the grocery store. "Don't go to that grocery store." Or, better yet, maybe I should just perfectly change the color of my skin and facial features to match theirs, so that the problem is solved! I know you guys are going to hate this, but this attitude is precisely what is meant by "white privilege." Please let me know if I am misunderstanding your attitude, or what you think about this.

macintux 10y ago

I can attest that there was a disturbed individual who lived not nearly far enough away for my comfort who came to the conclusion that I was evil and should die based on online interactions (MUDs) in ~1991. As concerning as that was, it in no way compares to what women in particular face today online.

strictnein 10y ago
> "that I was evil and should die based on online interactions (MUDs) in ~1991" Trade Wars players can be aggressive at times.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

the8472 10y ago

> Having armed police raid their house because someone has made a bogus 911 call. This seems to be mostly an american problem, not an online problem. Which means maybe it's not something that should be fixed by online communities but by the nation.

dreamfactory2 10y ago

+ with child safety and whatnot, maybe it should be illegal to use your real id publicly online?