4 ms·

I think it's somewhat of a subjective question. I'm curious to who you think are the primary bad actors on the internet. I can imagine, if someone is primarily

I think it's somewhat of a subjective question. I'm curious to who you think are the primary bad actors on the internet. I can imagine, if someone is primarily concerned with the free expression of ideas, then individuals exploiting anonymity to harass people are actually pretty bad. There are huge swaths of public opinion that simply don't show up on the internet because they're the kinds of opinions internet bullies tend not to like. That's a big loss to free speech.

TangoTrotFox 9y ago
I look at things the other way. Imagine we were living in times when we were still legally segregating people by race. Speaking against this was like to raise the ire of many individuals and groups. People could, and did, lose their livelihoods and even their lives as a result of these interactions. I don't really think the civil rights movement changed things as much as it worked as a protective anonymizing mechanism by aggregating people. For those that remained with the message more directly connected to themselves, such as Martin Luther King, their fates were still what we see in times when you state unpopular things without the protection of anonymity. As a thought experiment, imagine the internet and complete anonymization of speech was available from 1776 onward. It certainly would have a massive effect on things like slavery, and segregation. Would positive change have come about sooner, or later? Anonymity enables people to speak without fear of repercussion. Possibly having an anonymous account being called some names by other anonymous individuals does not really compare to the possible consequences of making unpopular statements when your traceable identity is connected to what is said. So on the same note if somebody is concerned enough to decide to not speak, even anonymously, for fear of anonymous messages from others - would they really be confident enough to then state such things with their name and identity attached to them? Ultimately I think the positive value gained by people being able express themselves positively and anonymously far outweighs the negative cost of people stating intentionally malicious things under the same guise of anonymity.
syshum 9y ago
It always amazes me how people can look at the same set of data and come away with completely opposite views.. You see anonymous speech as a hindrance to the free exchange of idea's, where from my view of the world where you have people in many nations persecuted for their speech, where you have outrage mobs that use their collective outrage to get people fired or removed from organizations, employment, events over their "controversial" speech, where you have protests over "wrong think" speakers... in this world I see anonymous speech is required for the free exchange of idea's I wonder how the founding of the United States would have changed if the Authors of some of the most important papers and commentaries where disallowed from using pseudonyms when their letters where published in the popular press. Would they have self censored or been less than forthcoming with their thoughts...
- Pokepokalypse 9y ago
  I only see it this way since the advent of bad-faith actors who exploit anonymity to take an opposing viewpoint as a provocateur, in order to stir up shit and discredit a valid movement. This tactic is not new. But in the context of media, it has really taken root, and it's become so incredibly destructive that I am not certain that there is a workaround for this problem; and I feel as if the very foundations of our modern civilization are under existential threat, as a result. And from my point of view, I'm honestly not pushing hyperbole. The Socratic method has been rendered almost completely useless. I've got a soft-spot in my heart for our Founding Fathers and how they accomplished their goals of Liberation from the British Monarchy. I'm virulently opposed to the methods of the Mercers, the Kochs, Brietbart, their various operatives, LLC's, think-tanks, and affiliated networks of organizations who seem to be driving towards destroying our country and turning it into a feudal thugocracy. And TBH: I would never post something like this using my real name, because it sounds like crazy tin-foil hattery, and I value my professional reputation.
Bartweiss 9y ago
I can certainly understand the argument that anonymity restricts free exchange of ideas, but I hope its proponents can understand the reverse case. That is, anonymity creates the ability to express an idea without fearing consequences that reach beyond a pseudonym or single post, and so lets us explore ideas too risky to express in other contexts. This doesn't require some edgy 'right to be bigoted' claim here, either. I'm thinking about people in Turkey (or Germany!) mocking Erdogan safely. Or doctors who advocate for legal euthanasia, and worry they'd lose their jobs doing it under their real name. Or cult escapees fearing harassment - internet anonymity has done more to combat Scientology than a dozen governments combined. I believe anonymity has both effects, which leaves me frustrated by watching people toss out single examples of good and bad consequences as though they settle the argument. I'm not sure how you could possibly gather enough data to assess the net effect of anonymity; my general instinct is that we benefit most from having a mixed-rules system with anonymous, pseudonymous, and named spaces. (The most troublesome spaces appear to be mixed spaces like Twitter where speakers are often named and harassers are anonymous. The asymmetry creates a problem worse than either norm on its own.)
- Pokepokalypse 9y ago
  I agree with your assessment, and this is, indeed a very difficult and nuanced problem; And I guess, we have a system that allows for "unmasking" in situations with appropriate oversight: ie. serious criminal wrongdoing, leading to law enforcement intervention, leading to a warrant under judicial oversight: ASS/U/ME-ing that this "system" itself is not corrupted, which in the case of Turkey. . . yikes, or in the case of the USA, given some of the recent Judicial appointments, and law enforcement and congressional oversight (I'm talking Nunes' memo, or even Sessions interference in the Prevezon lawsuit, and Trump having Preet Bharara fired) failures, fucking yikes. . . Twitter is indeed, an example of the WORST of both worlds - and holy shit man it's bad. I've seen some of the bad actors stage doxxing and outing and extortion events; and catfishing. It's a fucking sewer, that Twitter could fix; but instead of fixing, they post a bunch of fake PR campaigns, and tweak policies that do nothing. It wouldn't be a problem if Twitter weren't actually SO influential to events in the real world. Honestly, it is basically just a game, masquerading as a messaging system, calling itself a social network. (you level-up your character by impressions and likes and retweets). You can script your characters and cheat just like kids used to do with WoW back in the 2000's.
Pokepokalypse 9y ago
the vast majority of people I see online, arguing for "free speech" - when you cut right down to it, will eventually reveal that their agenda will lead to abridging others' speech. The one argument (that I think dates back to WWII, but is probably far older) that seems to be ignored in all these debates is that it's a logical fallacy to tolerate intolerance. And to that end, it's incumbent on everyone to either argue from an honest position, or to work very hard to root out when someone is arguing from a dishonest position, and if that dishonesty conceals intolerance, you have to stop giving them the benefit of the doubt. In the case of fascism - (capital-F and lower-case-f), it's already been demonstrated repeatedly (with great loss of life and material progress), that this kind of intolerance must be stopped early and often. These are not "new ideas which must be explored". Nor are they "consciences yearning to be free to think what others dare not". They want to kill you. And often for some invented reason like: your skin contains too much melanin. Often the invented reason is only to justify: because you're living on land I want to steal; but as long as I can con people into believing they're part of some "master race" or "god's chosen" - that excuse will do. If shutting down fascism makes me an "internet bully" then, give me your lunch money, wimp.
- syshum 9y ago
  >>In the case of fascism - (capital-F and lower-case-f), it's already been demonstrated repeatedly (with great loss of life and material progress), that this kind of intolerance must be stopped early and often. This is your political bias coming through I think. I assume you self identify as "left" as such you easily see the extreme harm that comes from fascism, but I bet you do not view communism and socialism as being equally dangerous. They are. The danger to society however is not Fascism, but is Authoritarianism / Totalitarianism. That is what needs to be combated with arguments, and education. Fascism is a type of Totalitarianism, but lets identify the root cause of the problem and fight it. Lets oppose all forms of Authoritarian control over people, not just the economic "Right". Education is really the key, an educated society generally, and naturally wants to have more liberty, they trend more libertarian. This is why one of the first things a Authoritarian society does is limit education to only those groups that the people in power believe will be loyal to their Authoritarian power structure. My biggest issue with your comment is you have not defined what "shutting down fascism" looks like. You can only defeat (truly defeat) an oppressive dogmatic ideology like fascism with logic, reason, and education. You might be able to temporarily suppress it with guns, violence and "internet bulling" but all you are doing is covering up a festering wound. Change your tacit, Oppose Authoritarianism, Support education (not schooling), support teaching people how to think critically, support rigorous debate. DO NOT support censorship, curbing of freedom, violence (i.e Punch a Nazi), or even bullying, that will never defeat ideologies like Fascism, and in some ways to strengthen them

TangoTrotFox 9y ago

I look at things the other way. Imagine we were living in times when we were still legally segregating people by race. Speaking against this was like to raise the ire of many individuals and groups. People could, and did, lose their livelihoods and even their lives as a result of these interactions. I don't really think the civil rights movement changed things as much as it worked as a protective anonymizing mechanism by aggregating people. For those that remained with the message more directly connected to themselves, such as Martin Luther King, their fates were still what we see in times when you state unpopular things without the protection of anonymity. As a thought experiment, imagine the internet and complete anonymization of speech was available from 1776 onward. It certainly would have a massive effect on things like slavery, and segregation. Would positive change have come about sooner, or later? Anonymity enables people to speak without fear of repercussion. Possibly having an anonymous account being called some names by other anonymous individuals does not really compare to the possible consequences of making unpopular statements when your traceable identity is connected to what is said. So on the same note if somebody is concerned enough to decide to not speak, even anonymously, for fear of anonymous messages from others - would they really be confident enough to then state such things with their name and identity attached to them? Ultimately I think the positive value gained by people being able express themselves positively and anonymously far outweighs the negative cost of people stating intentionally malicious things under the same guise of anonymity.

syshum 9y ago

It always amazes me how people can look at the same set of data and come away with completely opposite views.. You see anonymous speech as a hindrance to the free exchange of idea's, where from my view of the world where you have people in many nations persecuted for their speech, where you have outrage mobs that use their collective outrage to get people fired or removed from organizations, employment, events over their "controversial" speech, where you have protests over "wrong think" speakers... in this world I see anonymous speech is required for the free exchange of idea's I wonder how the founding of the United States would have changed if the Authors of some of the most important papers and commentaries where disallowed from using pseudonyms when their letters where published in the popular press. Would they have self censored or been less than forthcoming with their thoughts...

Pokepokalypse 9y ago
I only see it this way since the advent of bad-faith actors who exploit anonymity to take an opposing viewpoint as a provocateur, in order to stir up shit and discredit a valid movement. This tactic is not new. But in the context of media, it has really taken root, and it's become so incredibly destructive that I am not certain that there is a workaround for this problem; and I feel as if the very foundations of our modern civilization are under existential threat, as a result. And from my point of view, I'm honestly not pushing hyperbole. The Socratic method has been rendered almost completely useless. I've got a soft-spot in my heart for our Founding Fathers and how they accomplished their goals of Liberation from the British Monarchy. I'm virulently opposed to the methods of the Mercers, the Kochs, Brietbart, their various operatives, LLC's, think-tanks, and affiliated networks of organizations who seem to be driving towards destroying our country and turning it into a feudal thugocracy. And TBH: I would never post something like this using my real name, because it sounds like crazy tin-foil hattery, and I value my professional reputation.

Bartweiss 9y ago

I can certainly understand the argument that anonymity restricts free exchange of ideas, but I hope its proponents can understand the reverse case. That is, anonymity creates the ability to express an idea without fearing consequences that reach beyond a pseudonym or single post, and so lets us explore ideas too risky to express in other contexts. This doesn't require some edgy 'right to be bigoted' claim here, either. I'm thinking about people in Turkey (or Germany!) mocking Erdogan safely. Or doctors who advocate for legal euthanasia, and worry they'd lose their jobs doing it under their real name. Or cult escapees fearing harassment - internet anonymity has done more to combat Scientology than a dozen governments combined. I believe anonymity has both effects, which leaves me frustrated by watching people toss out single examples of good and bad consequences as though they settle the argument. I'm not sure how you could possibly gather enough data to assess the net effect of anonymity; my general instinct is that we benefit most from having a mixed-rules system with anonymous, pseudonymous, and named spaces. (The most troublesome spaces appear to be mixed spaces like Twitter where speakers are often named and harassers are anonymous. The asymmetry creates a problem worse than either norm on its own.)

Pokepokalypse 9y ago
I agree with your assessment, and this is, indeed a very difficult and nuanced problem; And I guess, we have a system that allows for "unmasking" in situations with appropriate oversight: ie. serious criminal wrongdoing, leading to law enforcement intervention, leading to a warrant under judicial oversight: ASS/U/ME-ing that this "system" itself is not corrupted, which in the case of Turkey. . . yikes, or in the case of the USA, given some of the recent Judicial appointments, and law enforcement and congressional oversight (I'm talking Nunes' memo, or even Sessions interference in the Prevezon lawsuit, and Trump having Preet Bharara fired) failures, fucking yikes. . . Twitter is indeed, an example of the WORST of both worlds - and holy shit man it's bad. I've seen some of the bad actors stage doxxing and outing and extortion events; and catfishing. It's a fucking sewer, that Twitter could fix; but instead of fixing, they post a bunch of fake PR campaigns, and tweak policies that do nothing. It wouldn't be a problem if Twitter weren't actually SO influential to events in the real world. Honestly, it is basically just a game, masquerading as a messaging system, calling itself a social network. (you level-up your character by impressions and likes and retweets). You can script your characters and cheat just like kids used to do with WoW back in the 2000's.

Pokepokalypse 9y ago

the vast majority of people I see online, arguing for "free speech" - when you cut right down to it, will eventually reveal that their agenda will lead to abridging others' speech. The one argument (that I think dates back to WWII, but is probably far older) that seems to be ignored in all these debates is that it's a logical fallacy to tolerate intolerance. And to that end, it's incumbent on everyone to either argue from an honest position, or to work very hard to root out when someone is arguing from a dishonest position, and if that dishonesty conceals intolerance, you have to stop giving them the benefit of the doubt. In the case of fascism - (capital-F and lower-case-f), it's already been demonstrated repeatedly (with great loss of life and material progress), that this kind of intolerance must be stopped early and often. These are not "new ideas which must be explored". Nor are they "consciences yearning to be free to think what others dare not". They want to kill you. And often for some invented reason like: your skin contains too much melanin. Often the invented reason is only to justify: because you're living on land I want to steal; but as long as I can con people into believing they're part of some "master race" or "god's chosen" - that excuse will do. If shutting down fascism makes me an "internet bully" then, give me your lunch money, wimp.

syshum 9y ago
>>In the case of fascism - (capital-F and lower-case-f), it's already been demonstrated repeatedly (with great loss of life and material progress), that this kind of intolerance must be stopped early and often. This is your political bias coming through I think. I assume you self identify as "left" as such you easily see the extreme harm that comes from fascism, but I bet you do not view communism and socialism as being equally dangerous. They are. The danger to society however is not Fascism, but is Authoritarianism / Totalitarianism. That is what needs to be combated with arguments, and education. Fascism is a type of Totalitarianism, but lets identify the root cause of the problem and fight it. Lets oppose all forms of Authoritarian control over people, not just the economic "Right". Education is really the key, an educated society generally, and naturally wants to have more liberty, they trend more libertarian. This is why one of the first things a Authoritarian society does is limit education to only those groups that the people in power believe will be loyal to their Authoritarian power structure. My biggest issue with your comment is you have not defined what "shutting down fascism" looks like. You can only defeat (truly defeat) an oppressive dogmatic ideology like fascism with logic, reason, and education. You might be able to temporarily suppress it with guns, violence and "internet bulling" but all you are doing is covering up a festering wound. Change your tacit, Oppose Authoritarianism, Support education (not schooling), support teaching people how to think critically, support rigorous debate. DO NOT support censorship, curbing of freedom, violence (i.e Punch a Nazi), or even bullying, that will never defeat ideologies like Fascism, and in some ways to strengthen them