6 ms·
The world is a terrible place right now
- corv 8y agoI don’t want to argue for or against the “my free-speech is your hate-speech” conundrum. The question I’m posing is, why are we so attached to our identities online? If an angry mob follows us around online then why not use a pseudonym and let our posts be judged on their own merits, instead of our reputation?
- torgian 8y agoaccountability. Using your real name on social media makes you much more accountable than using a pseudonym. Some people really believe in that (I do too, just not on most social media platforms)
- corv 8y agoThere’s no reasonable way of verifying a real name for an open source platform like Mastodon
- newscracker 8y agoI’m not sure I understood what you mean by “accountability”. Platforms that have tried to enforce real world identities, like Facebook, have clearly shown that putting one’s name to a piece of content has very little to do with how nasty people will be. We also know at least a few (if not several) prominent people on Twitter who say and do nasty things while posting with their real names and identities. What people put online and how they convey things are more about what people are innately than about putting real names and photos around. Putting real names and identities also exposes people (those vulnerable due to circumstances or those who’re against commonly held notions in their social setting). Also see: http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2011/08/04/real-names.html http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2011/08/04/real-na...
- eesmith 8y agoWait, what? You have gone on a very different path than I. It seems that you accept an angry mob as a given, and are looking for technical solutions to avoid it. Why is there an angry mob in the first place? Why aren't people doing what they can to stop the angry mob? Why does Wheaton need to use pseudonym in order to discuss things in public? Nor do I understand how you infer that he want to use his own name because he wants his reputation affect the judgement of others. In his blog postings, he often makes references to his history, including on ST:TNG. He'll need more than a pseudonym to avoid the angry mob - he'll also need to exclude any personally identifiable information. That is hard, and very different than his normal style. In other words, a pseudonym doesn't really obscure one's identity for people who want to express their identity online, because identify is far more than just a name. For that matter, is it really that bad to have reputation? After time, even a pseudonym will gain reputation - are we supposed to reset our pseudonyms time and time again to shed any reputation gain?
- corv 8y agoI have not given a technical solution, but a practical solution that has been known for centuries. The current result is that Wil Wheaton has chosen to abstain from a certain social network and an alternative which he had hoped would alleviate the problem. Suggesting that companies need to deal with the problem leads to an attempt at a technical solution.
- eesmith 8y agoI do not see how what you propose is practical. Please describe how using an alternative name - that's the technical solution you propose - would sufficiently obscure his identity that he could continue to make posts in the style that he wishes. Posts which, among other things, refer to his acting experience. Another "practical solution that has been known for centuries" is to describe the problem, as a way to push for a cultural change. I disagree with your statement that the current result is simply that Wheaton has chosen to abstain from two social networks. Wheaton writes that he is "done with social media" and that "What we used to call microblogging isn’t worth the headache for me. I’m gonna focus my time and my energy on the things that I love, that make me happy, that support my family." Nor do I see where Wheaton suggests that companies need to deal with the problem. I see "[Twitter's] never going to change, by the way." and "I respect and support [the Mastadon admin's] decision".
- wlkr 8y ago> I thought that if I left Twitter, I could find a new social network that would give it some competition I mean, the self-hosted website - where this blog is posted - is exactly that. I don't quite follow his desire to find a third party community. He seems to want a service that meets his standards of what a social network should be without realising that he has complete control of his own content and how people interact with him on his own website. Interestingly, where he disabled comments.
- eesmith 8y agoHe would like a place with "Cat pictures! Jokes! Links to interesting things that we found in the backwaters of the internet! Interaction with friends we just haven’t met, yet!" A blog, even with comments enabled, is less effective at that than Twitter was. (Certainly not ineffective, but as Wheaton has had long experience on both Twitter and maintaining a blog, I think we can conclude he wants something he doesn't get from blogging.)
- ap3 8y agoI don’t follow Alex Jones on Twitter and I don’t watch his show. How are those two things different?
- Hnrobert42 8y agoIf you are on twitter, his fans come talk to you. If you are on your couch watching television, they don’t. You know this.
- jstewartmobile 8y agoExecutive Summary: One day that cool sewer--the one I used to hang out at--had too many turds floating in it. So I tried out another one... Even worse! That's it. No more sewers for me. Nosiree Bob!
- eesmith 8y agoIt used to be the river was a fun place to hang out. Then more people started dumping their sewage into the river. At first it wasn't so bad, but over time it got worse. Finally, one turd became the last straw, so I looked for another river. Even worse! That's it. No more rivers for me. Nosiree Bob!
- jstewartmobile 8y ago140 characters or less was never a river.
- eesmith 8y agoYou broke your own analogy - 140 characters isn't a sewer, either.
- jstewartmobile 8y ago140 chars is ideal MTU for shitposting. OC was also an example. Getting that kind of payload from pt A to pt B sure sounds like a sewer to me.
- eesmith 8y agoA river is an ideal way to get rid of shit, yes. The river volume doesn't really matter - humans produce a lot of shit. Some rivers have been turned into sewer lines, like the River Fleet (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Fleet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Fleet ). Even huge rivers can have problems, like the Yellow River (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_River#Pollution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_River#Pollution ). Twitter after the 2007 SXSWi was not considered a sewer, even with 140 characters. The River Fleet, in Roman times, was not a sewer. Most assuredly Twitter did not build their system as a sewer. Twitter doubled its limit, so by your definition is no longer 'ideal'. The shitposting doesn't seem to be affected. Even if 140 is ideal, why should I think that unlimited length would somehow prevent problems? I prefer to think you didn't think through the metaphor of your 'Executive Summary' well enough.
- christefano 8y agoI wonder how this would have played out differently if Wil Wheaton had chosen a different Mastodon instance like https://tenforward.social/about https://tenforward.social/about
- benmmurphy 8y agoHe wanted Jones to be banned from twitter then he ends up getting banned from a Mastodon instance. I guess what goes around comes around. EDIT: For more context: https://medium.com/@AmberEnderton/wil-wheaton-has-a-listening-problem-accdf6277b88 https://medium.com/@AmberEnderton/wil-wheaton-has-a-listenin...
- RickJWagner 8y agoI worry a bit about Wheaton. I'd like for him to have a happy existence, he seems a bit off-center sometimes. I wish him good luck.
- mgiannopoulos 8y agoWhy not run his own Mastodon instance? It might be a better response to the attacks he has received.