6 ms·

If anything, now that the internet has effectively become mankind's long-term memory, anonymity feels more important than ever. If you got into a regrettable fl

If anything, now that the internet has effectively become mankind's long-term memory, anonymity feels more important than ever. If you got into a regrettable flame war on some mailing list back in 2001, it's still out there, waiting to be used against you, out of context and in a different era. People need to be able to make mistakes - or voice uncomfortable truths, blow whistles etc - without having to worry about repurcussions in some unknown future.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
munin 8y ago
It's hard to blow the whistle anonymously, people seem to react poorly to anonymous accusations. There is even an amendment in the US constitution that mentions this. And even today on the Internet, if there is reporting of anonymous accusations against someone or a company for wrongdoing, people will ask (on this very message board) "oh if it was real, why won't the accusers come forward and be named?"
- nobrains 8y ago
  Because then there is no way to verify if the accusation is true?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- sparkie 8y ago
  Uh, that's completely the opposite scenario that I've seen over the past several years, where any accusation made against a white male are met by hoards of keyboard warriors quickly pointing the finger on social media, handing out a metaphorical death sentence before any trial has occurred. The need to ask for somebody to go public before investigating their claims is so that you can attempt to discredit their claim by discrediting their person.
  - pjc50 8y ago
    >you can attempt to discredit their claim by discrediting their person. Yes, that's the traditional way for the powerful to hide their misdemeanors. It absolutely does not help in getting any kind of truth.
    - sparkie 8y ago
      The larger problem is that there is information asymmetry between the weak and the powerful. The powerful know almost everything about the weak, and it becomes trivial to discredit any of them based on some past evidence they can dig up. The weak know nothing about the powerful because everything is top secret and they use the former tactic to deal with anyone who speaks out. The goal isn't necessarily to collect everything. It is just to convince the population that they're being constantly monitored. The fear that they'll be "silenced" for speaking in public about the wrongdoings of the powerful is enough for most people to submit to their demands. Anyone who claims they "have nothing to hide," is delusional. Once enough people are in that state of fear, the state can make up something you done wrong and nobody is going to risk their neck to try and defend you.
    - SamReidHughes 8y ago
      Sure it does. For example, with both Kavanaugh and Arrington, information about the accusers made the accusations infinitely less credible.
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago
  > And even today on the Internet, if there is reporting of anonymous accusations against someone or a company for wrongdoing, people will ask (on this very message board) "oh if it was real, why won't the accusers come forward and be named?" An anonymous accusation has no weight. But that's not what they're for. They're a suggestion to investigate something. Because if it's real then there should be other evidence -- third party witnesses, documents, phone records, surveillance footage, a pattern of behavior where a more recent incident can actually be proven, etc. No one should take them seriously as evidence but journalists should take them seriously as tips. And if the journalists following the lead actually find something that can stand on its own, it's only then (and not before) that you have a real story instead of an unsubstantiated anonymous accusation. Anonymous tips are not worthless -- they're actually really important -- they're just not evidence.
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    Makes me wonder, why don't companies and government agencies spam journalists with false anonymous tips already, preventing any possible signal to get through the noise?
    - endominus 8y ago
      Probably because that would send a very strong signal that there is something going on in their organization that they don't want leaked. If their objective is "Do not get investigated by journalists," then drowning those journalists in noise is probably a net negative. They could instead start blasting out rumors about everyone else in their industry, but then their competitors have incentive and cause to sue them for defamation.
      - closeparen 8y ago
        On the other hand the Soviets, who could be safely assumed to have all sorts of conspiracies to hide, deployed this tactic successfully. The culture was supposedly so drowned in conspiracy theories that no one could be bothered to figure out which ones were true or worth caring about.
- smsm42 8y ago
  People react badly to anonymous accusation that rely solely on the word of the accuser. Because, indeed, it's impossible to evaluate this situation without knowing how trustworthy the accuser is. However, if the accusation is backed by the documents, nobody cares that the accuser is anonymous. Deep Throat has been anonymous for 31 years, and still his information has immense value. If you say "I heard X say Y" then maybe you're lying, maybe not - we shall see who you are and whether we could trust you. If you say "I've got a recording of X saying Y, made in a way that makes it extremely hard to fake" - nobody cares much who you are anymore, everybody cares about the recording now.
Benjamin_Dobell 8y ago
In the circumstances you've described, I feel as though anonymity is just a work-around for a larger flaw of mankind. The underlying issue is that humans tend to lack empathy, are too judgemental and just generally overly critical of others. It's 2018, but we're still quick to grab the pitchforks and torch the place - metaphorically speaking.
- whatshisface 8y ago
  Changing the environment is a whole lot easier than changing human nature. "Hanging them by a word," goes back as far as recorded political history. If a plan for a better society involves replacing the people that live in it with better people, it probably won't work.
- smudgymcscmudge 8y ago
  “Humans lack empathy”. Compared to what?
  - ivm 8y ago
    Compared to a perfect society where we always try to understand others before acting towards them.
  - drewmol 8y ago
    Other humans I suppose. If most humans espoused more empathy it would be a global benifit.
    - everdrive 8y ago
      I don't think that's quite so self-evident. People who are high in empathy have their own blind spots. It can be difficult to understand what the best government policy might be when your head is stuck full of other people's feelings. Being able to separate yourself from the personal and emotional world of high-empathy can often allow for something closer than would be possible otherwise. The high-fidelity emotions one with an abundance of empathy is burdened with can prevent them from moving past ad-hoc cases, or shut their mind to arguments that don't support an aggrieved group's emotions. On a personal level, it's not even the case necessarily that people with greater empathy are kinder people. It's sometimes the case that they are simply better armed to harm you than someone who can't tell from your body language if their attack wounded you -- if it made you upset.
api 8y ago
The problem is that anonymous information is worthless unless it can somehow be verified. There is already so much fake propaganda that I'm starting to disregard anything without verifiable provenance.
- simongr3dal 8y ago
  The same can be said about information that is not anonymous, it is also worthless unless it can somehow be verified.
joewee 8y ago
Luckily search engines don’t seem to value the content of mailing list. Or Usenet postings. I’m guessing certain types of content will become less prominent in the future if it’s not easily structured to whatever the current advertising medium.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

munin 8y ago

It's hard to blow the whistle anonymously, people seem to react poorly to anonymous accusations. There is even an amendment in the US constitution that mentions this. And even today on the Internet, if there is reporting of anonymous accusations against someone or a company for wrongdoing, people will ask (on this very message board) "oh if it was real, why won't the accusers come forward and be named?"

nobrains 8y ago
Because then there is no way to verify if the accusation is true?
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
sparkie 8y ago
Uh, that's completely the opposite scenario that I've seen over the past several years, where any accusation made against a white male are met by hoards of keyboard warriors quickly pointing the finger on social media, handing out a metaphorical death sentence before any trial has occurred. The need to ask for somebody to go public before investigating their claims is so that you can attempt to discredit their claim by discrediting their person.
- pjc50 8y ago
  >you can attempt to discredit their claim by discrediting their person. Yes, that's the traditional way for the powerful to hide their misdemeanors. It absolutely does not help in getting any kind of truth.
  - sparkie 8y ago
    The larger problem is that there is information asymmetry between the weak and the powerful. The powerful know almost everything about the weak, and it becomes trivial to discredit any of them based on some past evidence they can dig up. The weak know nothing about the powerful because everything is top secret and they use the former tactic to deal with anyone who speaks out. The goal isn't necessarily to collect everything. It is just to convince the population that they're being constantly monitored. The fear that they'll be "silenced" for speaking in public about the wrongdoings of the powerful is enough for most people to submit to their demands. Anyone who claims they "have nothing to hide," is delusional. Once enough people are in that state of fear, the state can make up something you done wrong and nobody is going to risk their neck to try and defend you.
  - SamReidHughes 8y ago
    Sure it does. For example, with both Kavanaugh and Arrington, information about the accusers made the accusations infinitely less credible.
AnthonyMouse 8y ago
> And even today on the Internet, if there is reporting of anonymous accusations against someone or a company for wrongdoing, people will ask (on this very message board) "oh if it was real, why won't the accusers come forward and be named?" An anonymous accusation has no weight. But that's not what they're for. They're a suggestion to investigate something. Because if it's real then there should be other evidence -- third party witnesses, documents, phone records, surveillance footage, a pattern of behavior where a more recent incident can actually be proven, etc. No one should take them seriously as evidence but journalists should take them seriously as tips. And if the journalists following the lead actually find something that can stand on its own, it's only then (and not before) that you have a real story instead of an unsubstantiated anonymous accusation. Anonymous tips are not worthless -- they're actually really important -- they're just not evidence.
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  Makes me wonder, why don't companies and government agencies spam journalists with false anonymous tips already, preventing any possible signal to get through the noise?
  - endominus 8y ago
    Probably because that would send a very strong signal that there is something going on in their organization that they don't want leaked. If their objective is "Do not get investigated by journalists," then drowning those journalists in noise is probably a net negative. They could instead start blasting out rumors about everyone else in their industry, but then their competitors have incentive and cause to sue them for defamation.
    - closeparen 8y ago
      On the other hand the Soviets, who could be safely assumed to have all sorts of conspiracies to hide, deployed this tactic successfully. The culture was supposedly so drowned in conspiracy theories that no one could be bothered to figure out which ones were true or worth caring about.
smsm42 8y ago
People react badly to anonymous accusation that rely solely on the word of the accuser. Because, indeed, it's impossible to evaluate this situation without knowing how trustworthy the accuser is. However, if the accusation is backed by the documents, nobody cares that the accuser is anonymous. Deep Throat has been anonymous for 31 years, and still his information has immense value. If you say "I heard X say Y" then maybe you're lying, maybe not - we shall see who you are and whether we could trust you. If you say "I've got a recording of X saying Y, made in a way that makes it extremely hard to fake" - nobody cares much who you are anymore, everybody cares about the recording now.

Benjamin_Dobell 8y ago

In the circumstances you've described, I feel as though anonymity is just a work-around for a larger flaw of mankind. The underlying issue is that humans tend to lack empathy, are too judgemental and just generally overly critical of others. It's 2018, but we're still quick to grab the pitchforks and torch the place - metaphorically speaking.

whatshisface 8y ago
Changing the environment is a whole lot easier than changing human nature. "Hanging them by a word," goes back as far as recorded political history. If a plan for a better society involves replacing the people that live in it with better people, it probably won't work.
smudgymcscmudge 8y ago
“Humans lack empathy”. Compared to what?
- ivm 8y ago
  Compared to a perfect society where we always try to understand others before acting towards them.
- drewmol 8y ago
  Other humans I suppose. If most humans espoused more empathy it would be a global benifit.
  - everdrive 8y ago
    I don't think that's quite so self-evident. People who are high in empathy have their own blind spots. It can be difficult to understand what the best government policy might be when your head is stuck full of other people's feelings. Being able to separate yourself from the personal and emotional world of high-empathy can often allow for something closer than would be possible otherwise. The high-fidelity emotions one with an abundance of empathy is burdened with can prevent them from moving past ad-hoc cases, or shut their mind to arguments that don't support an aggrieved group's emotions. On a personal level, it's not even the case necessarily that people with greater empathy are kinder people. It's sometimes the case that they are simply better armed to harm you than someone who can't tell from your body language if their attack wounded you -- if it made you upset.

api 8y ago

The problem is that anonymous information is worthless unless it can somehow be verified. There is already so much fake propaganda that I'm starting to disregard anything without verifiable provenance.

simongr3dal 8y ago
The same can be said about information that is not anonymous, it is also worthless unless it can somehow be verified.

joewee 8y ago

Luckily search engines don’t seem to value the content of mailing list. Or Usenet postings. I’m guessing certain types of content will become less prominent in the future if it’s not easily structured to whatever the current advertising medium.