3 ms·
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, ano
by 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 agoI 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.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]