5 ms·

"Results show that in the context of online firestorms, non-anonymous individuals are more aggressive compared to anonymous individuals" https://journals.plos.

by jeena 8y ago

"Results show that in the context of online firestorms, non-anonymous individuals are more aggressive compared to anonymous individuals" https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0155923 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...

kantos2 8y ago
So what?
wallace_f 8y ago
Maybe I am wrong. I've observed usually the most aggressive to be kind of "knight of the status quo." They are opportunists seeking status and notoriety, whether consciously or not. They do this by being opportunists and attacking those who offered controversial opinions which garnered feelings of negativity. The knights latch onto that negativity as their opportunity for an assault. And you'll find they have put little genuine interest into the actual issue at hand, they're more interested in being a sort of "knight of the groupthink." So I think it is not really surprising to find users with their real names associated with conformity and status-seeking.
- macintux 8y ago
  Typically trolls don’t have to sound aggressive. They can wander in, throw a grenade into a discussion, and then act innocent of the carnage.
  - xupybd 8y ago
    That behaviour is not desirable in any space online. That’s what makes it so good here the moderation is pretty good. But is this a problem to be solved at the state level?
    - raxxorrax 8y ago
      It is not a problem. I do like moderation if I want to stay on topic. I also like the bad stuff. As long as there is room for both, I am happy. Enforcing identification isn't a realistic option.
lazyjones 8y ago
This legislation is not about "aggressive behaviour", it's about criminal conduct. While I can't comment professionally on the validity / reproducibility of this research (looks bogus to me, they only examined comments on an online petition platform, not FB and news sites where all the crazy people are[1]), anyone who'd claim that criminals don't prefer to be anonymous or that perceived anonymity has a negative effect on criminal behaviour, would surely be laughed out of academia. Besides, the anonymity vs. other users will not be changed, we're not talking about a "visible real names" policy here. You can still use nicknames, just the forum operator has to store your real name. [1] The final dataset includes 532,197 comments on 1,612 online petitions. There were a total of 3,858,131 signatures over the 1,612 petitions between 2010 and 2013, with detailed information about the wording of the comment, the commenters, the signers and the petition.
- mjparrott 8y ago
  Putting 2 innocent people through systems designed to assume they are guilty is worse than 1 guilty person being able to be anonymous. Look at what the TSA has done. They’ve wasted so much time and created a massive invasion of physical privacy (i.e. someone touching your private parts in public) and not only did they never catch anything, they fail 90% of penetration tests. There is some positive intent here but in the real world this is obvious to cause more harm than good. I don’t know if it is hubris or ignorance to not see how easily this will be manipulated and have negative externalities. You don’t jail your whole population because of 1 bad apple.
  - Faark 8y ago
    I see two options going forward: - Filters, Article 13 style. Youtube, Facebook and Co have to ensure you can only post legal content - Accountability. A justice system is able to drag you into a court when you've done something illegal. We tried safe harbor and it was a nice compromise, but youtube added ContentId for a reason and it also certainly doesn't seem to help against hate speech. I prefer we keep judges assessing what is allowed and what isn't, instead of shifting this burden onto companies. If that requires Know Your Customer laws, then this seems like an acceptable trade off to me.

by jeena 8y ago

kantos2 8y ago

So what?

wallace_f 8y ago

Maybe I am wrong. I've observed usually the most aggressive to be kind of "knight of the status quo." They are opportunists seeking status and notoriety, whether consciously or not. They do this by being opportunists and attacking those who offered controversial opinions which garnered feelings of negativity. The knights latch onto that negativity as their opportunity for an assault. And you'll find they have put little genuine interest into the actual issue at hand, they're more interested in being a sort of "knight of the groupthink." So I think it is not really surprising to find users with their real names associated with conformity and status-seeking.

macintux 8y ago
Typically trolls don’t have to sound aggressive. They can wander in, throw a grenade into a discussion, and then act innocent of the carnage.
- xupybd 8y ago
  That behaviour is not desirable in any space online. That’s what makes it so good here the moderation is pretty good. But is this a problem to be solved at the state level?
  - raxxorrax 8y ago
    It is not a problem. I do like moderation if I want to stay on topic. I also like the bad stuff. As long as there is room for both, I am happy. Enforcing identification isn't a realistic option.

lazyjones 8y ago

This legislation is not about "aggressive behaviour", it's about criminal conduct. While I can't comment professionally on the validity / reproducibility of this research (looks bogus to me, they only examined comments on an online petition platform, not FB and news sites where all the crazy people are[1]), anyone who'd claim that criminals don't prefer to be anonymous or that perceived anonymity has a negative effect on criminal behaviour, would surely be laughed out of academia. Besides, the anonymity vs. other users will not be changed, we're not talking about a "visible real names" policy here. You can still use nicknames, just the forum operator has to store your real name. [1] The final dataset includes 532,197 comments on 1,612 online petitions. There were a total of 3,858,131 signatures over the 1,612 petitions between 2010 and 2013, with detailed information about the wording of the comment, the commenters, the signers and the petition.

mjparrott 8y ago
Putting 2 innocent people through systems designed to assume they are guilty is worse than 1 guilty person being able to be anonymous. Look at what the TSA has done. They’ve wasted so much time and created a massive invasion of physical privacy (i.e. someone touching your private parts in public) and not only did they never catch anything, they fail 90% of penetration tests. There is some positive intent here but in the real world this is obvious to cause more harm than good. I don’t know if it is hubris or ignorance to not see how easily this will be manipulated and have negative externalities. You don’t jail your whole population because of 1 bad apple.
- Faark 8y ago
  I see two options going forward: - Filters, Article 13 style. Youtube, Facebook and Co have to ensure you can only post legal content - Accountability. A justice system is able to drag you into a court when you've done something illegal. We tried safe harbor and it was a nice compromise, but youtube added ContentId for a reason and it also certainly doesn't seem to help against hate speech. I prefer we keep judges assessing what is allowed and what isn't, instead of shifting this burden onto companies. If that requires Know Your Customer laws, then this seems like an acceptable trade off to me.