5 ms·

I 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 o

by corv 8y ago

I 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 ago
accountability. 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 ago
  There’s no reasonable way of verifying a real name for an open source platform like Mastodon
- newscracker 8y ago
  I’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 ago
Wait, 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 ago
  I 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 ago
    I 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".

by corv 8y ago

torgian 8y ago

accountability. 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 ago
There’s no reasonable way of verifying a real name for an open source platform like Mastodon
newscracker 8y ago
I’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 ago

Wait, 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 ago
I 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 ago
  I 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".