3 ms·

The conversation here goes pretty well, no real names required. I actually think it's the opposite, real names bring in our real world problems and identities.

The conversation here goes pretty well, no real names required. I actually think it's the opposite, real names bring in our real world problems and identities. A fresh name is a fresh start and maybe you take the chance to do better this time. It seems like people feel free to post the most atrocious nonsense on Facebook under their real name or maybe using one of the apparently billions of fake accounts that look just like real people. I don't think trust really works in internet conversations with strangers, you can't ever know their motives even if you know their names.

loceng 7y ago
When it's civil conversation, then yes. Also my idea for a solution allows for pseudonyms - so then "a fresh name is a fresh start" is possible, or if something you've done is so unacceptable by the community then you should be witnessed and deal with the consequences that a reasonable and uncorrupted court deems appropriate. Part of atrocious nonsense, as you put you, is lack of accountability and peer pressure with enough mass to influence one's behaviour and thinking. Bubbles of algorithms amplify this problem, and what ends up happening is like with Gab - where what most consider atrocious behaviour simply finds its own platform which creates a bubble of its own without algorithms. Fake accounts as you mention, is one reason associating with an identity - at least confirmation it is associated with an identity, needs a solution. This becomes a problem when there isn't a chain of command and clear rules for accessing this information, when government is corrupt by bad actors. I'm not saying this identity should be forced on people, they should realize it is beneficial to join a network they trust until they don't - if that happens. With Facebook as an example, they've violated trust of people countless times and yet many still have FB accounts. If data and people were more mobile, more able to move their data around, then people could easily change networks - and let's say their alliances based on the leadership. Is the person in charge, leading a platform/network, someone who in the past called their users "dumb fucks" for trusting them with their data more favourable/trustworthy or someone who addresses issues with authenticity, fully, and while perhaps acknowledging their own mistakes vs. trying to write their bad past behaviour out of the story by not acknowledging it as pivotal moments of growth? Who they'd want at lead is of course for each person to decide based on what resonates with them as trustworthy, what behaviour they align with. Trust does work on internet conversations, assuming you've developed that skill - or could call it developing your intuition - assuming that your trust systems aren't locked up (ego mind coping mechanism) from trauma - which I'd say in this day is very common. Trust isn't binary - like with our conversation here, I'm sure you trust what I'm saying more than not - whether by the structure of my words and my trying to be careful and clear with my words and meaning, my responses. I'd trust my mother to pick me up somewhere if she says she will, however not with certain other things. And it's true, there will be a percentage of people who are really good at deceiving, being pathological liars, sociopaths, however that's certainly not the majority or where they're purposefully trying to sway someone for their own selfish gain.

loceng 7y ago

When it's civil conversation, then yes. Also my idea for a solution allows for pseudonyms - so then "a fresh name is a fresh start" is possible, or if something you've done is so unacceptable by the community then you should be witnessed and deal with the consequences that a reasonable and uncorrupted court deems appropriate. Part of atrocious nonsense, as you put you, is lack of accountability and peer pressure with enough mass to influence one's behaviour and thinking. Bubbles of algorithms amplify this problem, and what ends up happening is like with Gab - where what most consider atrocious behaviour simply finds its own platform which creates a bubble of its own without algorithms. Fake accounts as you mention, is one reason associating with an identity - at least confirmation it is associated with an identity, needs a solution. This becomes a problem when there isn't a chain of command and clear rules for accessing this information, when government is corrupt by bad actors. I'm not saying this identity should be forced on people, they should realize it is beneficial to join a network they trust until they don't - if that happens. With Facebook as an example, they've violated trust of people countless times and yet many still have FB accounts. If data and people were more mobile, more able to move their data around, then people could easily change networks - and let's say their alliances based on the leadership. Is the person in charge, leading a platform/network, someone who in the past called their users "dumb fucks" for trusting them with their data more favourable/trustworthy or someone who addresses issues with authenticity, fully, and while perhaps acknowledging their own mistakes vs. trying to write their bad past behaviour out of the story by not acknowledging it as pivotal moments of growth? Who they'd want at lead is of course for each person to decide based on what resonates with them as trustworthy, what behaviour they align with. Trust does work on internet conversations, assuming you've developed that skill - or could call it developing your intuition - assuming that your trust systems aren't locked up (ego mind coping mechanism) from trauma - which I'd say in this day is very common. Trust isn't binary - like with our conversation here, I'm sure you trust what I'm saying more than not - whether by the structure of my words and my trying to be careful and clear with my words and meaning, my responses. I'd trust my mother to pick me up somewhere if she says she will, however not with certain other things. And it's true, there will be a percentage of people who are really good at deceiving, being pathological liars, sociopaths, however that's certainly not the majority or where they're purposefully trying to sway someone for their own selfish gain.