6 ms·

"Maybe that will eventually mean sincere advocates will end up having to blog more with their real name and photo to be taken seriously." Isn't this exactly wh

by kgtm 16y ago

"Maybe that will eventually mean sincere advocates will end up having to blog more with their real name and photo to be taken seriously." Isn't this exactly what "they" are after? Once that happens, there won't be any need for such armies. The end of anonymity means the end of free speech.

steauengeglase 16y ago
We should probably ask Jeff Gannon how that turned out.
ugh 16y ago
I don’t think that’s true at all. Anonymity has something to do with free speech but far from everything. If you live in a nation with rule of law and wide ranging protections of freedom of speech like the US there is no need to be anonymous in the vast majority of cases. Anonymity should obviously still be possible but the decreased trustworthiness of anonymous statements is just something that inevitably comes with anonymity. (Who are “they”?)
- kgtm 16y ago
  "If you live in a nation with rule of law and wide ranging protections of freedom of speech like the US there is no need to be anonymous in the vast majority of cases." Sorry, but my irony detector is broken apparently. Do you truly believe this? Care to expand? Not trolling FYI. As for "they", well, no one really knows who they are. But "they" are the pillars of every good conspiracy. (Slightly tongue-in-cheek).
  - ugh 16y ago
    You can’t be thrown into prison or fined for saying the wrong thing in the US. That’s what I mean. You might argue that this is not true for some things but it is true for the vast majority of things you could say. Being anonymous matters a great deal more when freedom of speech is not protected.
    - giberson 16y ago
      The problem with freedom of speech is that it just guarantees a legal right to say something. It doesn't free you from the consequences of saying it. When you want to speak out against an majority belief, without anonymity you risk repercussions that aren't necessarily related to legal implications. Anonymity protects free speech participants from the opposing majority mob.
      - ugh 16y ago
        What it is not, though, is the beginning and end of free speech. That is my only objection to the comment.
    - kgtm 16y ago
      Constitutional protection of the freedom of speech is all fine and dandy in theory. You might not end up in jail, but you can find yourself in court, which, for most, is an excellent deterrent of voicing their opinion. Aside that, once people, real people, know who you are, your controversial opinions might very well give rise to real threats. Remember the whole Jyllands-Posten fiasco? I agree with your last sentence 100%, but, at least for me, complete anonymity is a necessity. You can relate (f.i.) to my online persona, which is consistent and available for discussion. There is no need to know my real name.
      - ugh 16y ago
        Hey, I’m commenting anonymous on HN, too. I have obviously nothing against anonymity. All I’m saying is that to imply that free speech is somehow meaningless without anonymity sounds very wrong to me.
        Vivtek 16y ago
        It's not meaningless - just a lot more fragile. Clearly anonymous speech isn't as trusted as non-anonymous speech, but there is a tradeoff that leaves anonymity very valuable in many situations.
      - deleted 16y ago
- kijinbear 16y ago
  > If you live in a nation with rule of law and wide ranging protections of freedom of speech like the US there is no need to be anonymous in the vast majority of cases. I think you overestimate the practical value of these constitutional protections. Yes, US law allows US citizens to criticize their government in a way that would be unimaginable in China. But not everyone who prefers anonymity is trying to hide from an oppressive government. Most people are understandably reluctant to offend their employer, neighbors, friends and family, etc. even if they have a legitimate concern. These personal concerns are much more pressing for the majority of citizens than the possibility of FBI agents knocking on your door. If you work for BP, You don't want to be caught arguing that offshore drilling should be heavily regulated, especially if you work in a state with at-will employment. Similarly, you don't want that city official to take revenge on you for blogging about his unprofessional treatment of you. You don't want your mom to find out that you run a blog about your life as a lesbian. You don't want your neighbor to find out that you complained on Reddit about his annoying behavior. Little things like these add up and serve to discourage free speech even in mostly-free societies. Constitutional protections are not enough. Custom can be just as oppressing as evil communist regimes. You need to turn the goddamn society upside down before you can expect most people to blog with their real names, and that's not likely to happen anytime soon.
  - ugh 16y ago
    Well, all I’m pointing out is the basic truism that non-anonymous speech can and will in general be more trusted and that in many cases anonymity is not necessary for free speech. Anonymity is sometimes necessary or desired but what it is definitely not is the beginning and end of free speech as was implied in the comment I was responding to.
    - kijinbear 16y ago
      Your first point is fair enough. As for "anonymity is not the beginning and end of free speech", I don't think the comment you were responding to said anything to that effect. It only said that taking away anonymity would also take away free speech. By admitting that "anonymity is sometimes necessary", you're basically agreeing with that comment. Anonymity surely isn't all there is to free speech, but without it, free speech would be severely hampered.
- redrobot5050 16y ago
  >If you live in a nation with rule of law and wide ranging protections of freedom of speech like the US there is no need to be anonymous in the vast majority of cases. Tell that To Glen Greenwald, a journalist, who is finding that Bank of American is actively "scheming" to discredit her because of her support of WikiLeaks. Tell that to Helen Thomas, a former White House correspondent, who criticized America's Pro-Israel stance and how it impacts on peace in the middle east. The larger point that I'm trying to make is there are certain debates in this country that are one-sided. By that, I mean one-side controls the debate. It is not interested in honest discourse and the free exchange of ideas. It is interested in the status quo. It has found out that it is easier to discredit its critics (AIPAC has labeled most of its critics as 'anti-semetic', even if they are of Jewish Heritage.) than engage them. In these instances, it might be easier to lay out the facts in sourced, cited, verifiable articles while remaining anonymous.
  - ugh 16y ago
    I’m not arguing against anonymity.
  - pessimizer 16y ago
    Glenn Greenwald is a "him":)
bugsy 16y ago
Yeah it's kind of a different topic, I probably shouldn't have been extemporanializing (sp?) at the end of my comment and kept it more focused. I agree with that about anonymity. People will be more tempered in what they say. Only today there is a story that a blog (http://natalieshandbasket.blogspot.com/ http://natalieshandbasket.blogspot.com/) I had been following by a teacher was "outted". The teacher was suspended and is going to be fired because she told the truth about her students, who she didn't name. (http://www.phillyburbs.com/news/news_details/article/28/2011/february/10/blog-puts-teacher-in-hot-water.html http://www.phillyburbs.com/news/news_details/article/28/2011...) The students have since commented that although everything she said was true, she shouldn't have been allowed to say it and they want her to be fired as punishment, and that looks like it will happen. The blog was extremely useful because it showed what is really going on in schools. She had thought only her friends knew about it though and that obviously wasn't true since I had no idea who she really was until today, but I knew about her secret blog since it had been linked to from some site previously, and then I bookmarked and followed it. No doubt a lot of other people did this as well. Her mistake was to even let her friends know who she was because one of them outted her. Also she had a small thumbnail of herself sitting in the distance, which may have confirmed to someone who she was. Without this anonymity, there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that she would not have been able to say the things she did. We can see exactly what happened as soon as her identity was known. A persona such as an anonymous blog can have as much credibility as someone whose birth certificate you have seen and held. The key is that it's an established and consistent persona with a personality. So some are sincere and promote free speech and honesty, others are manipulative lies paid for by governments and corporations. Which is which you can tell (I sure hope) by looking at their history of posting. One may post unpopular ideas and be worth listening to and you know they are real because there is a human je ne sais quois (sp?) that identifies them as real, something that is not present in 50 cent army posts.
- jhancock 16y ago
  There has never been a guarantee of no repercussions from utilizing free speech, anon or not. Many pay a high price for speaking their mind. And not just from government. The first front that keeps people in line is their peers, community, and jobs. Its sad, but that's how things have always been, China and U.S.

by kgtm 16y ago

steauengeglase 16y ago

We should probably ask Jeff Gannon how that turned out.

ugh 16y ago

I don’t think that’s true at all. Anonymity has something to do with free speech but far from everything. If you live in a nation with rule of law and wide ranging protections of freedom of speech like the US there is no need to be anonymous in the vast majority of cases. Anonymity should obviously still be possible but the decreased trustworthiness of anonymous statements is just something that inevitably comes with anonymity. (Who are “they”?)

kgtm 16y ago
"If you live in a nation with rule of law and wide ranging protections of freedom of speech like the US there is no need to be anonymous in the vast majority of cases." Sorry, but my irony detector is broken apparently. Do you truly believe this? Care to expand? Not trolling FYI. As for "they", well, no one really knows who they are. But "they" are the pillars of every good conspiracy. (Slightly tongue-in-cheek).
- ugh 16y ago
  You can’t be thrown into prison or fined for saying the wrong thing in the US. That’s what I mean. You might argue that this is not true for some things but it is true for the vast majority of things you could say. Being anonymous matters a great deal more when freedom of speech is not protected.
  - giberson 16y ago
    The problem with freedom of speech is that it just guarantees a legal right to say something. It doesn't free you from the consequences of saying it. When you want to speak out against an majority belief, without anonymity you risk repercussions that aren't necessarily related to legal implications. Anonymity protects free speech participants from the opposing majority mob.
    - ugh 16y ago
      What it is not, though, is the beginning and end of free speech. That is my only objection to the comment.
  - kgtm 16y ago
    Constitutional protection of the freedom of speech is all fine and dandy in theory. You might not end up in jail, but you can find yourself in court, which, for most, is an excellent deterrent of voicing their opinion. Aside that, once people, real people, know who you are, your controversial opinions might very well give rise to real threats. Remember the whole Jyllands-Posten fiasco? I agree with your last sentence 100%, but, at least for me, complete anonymity is a necessity. You can relate (f.i.) to my online persona, which is consistent and available for discussion. There is no need to know my real name.
    - ugh 16y ago
      Hey, I’m commenting anonymous on HN, too. I have obviously nothing against anonymity. All I’m saying is that to imply that free speech is somehow meaningless without anonymity sounds very wrong to me.
      - Vivtek 16y ago
        It's not meaningless - just a lot more fragile. Clearly anonymous speech isn't as trusted as non-anonymous speech, but there is a tradeoff that leaves anonymity very valuable in many situations.
    - deleted 16y ago
kijinbear 16y ago
> If you live in a nation with rule of law and wide ranging protections of freedom of speech like the US there is no need to be anonymous in the vast majority of cases. I think you overestimate the practical value of these constitutional protections. Yes, US law allows US citizens to criticize their government in a way that would be unimaginable in China. But not everyone who prefers anonymity is trying to hide from an oppressive government. Most people are understandably reluctant to offend their employer, neighbors, friends and family, etc. even if they have a legitimate concern. These personal concerns are much more pressing for the majority of citizens than the possibility of FBI agents knocking on your door. If you work for BP, You don't want to be caught arguing that offshore drilling should be heavily regulated, especially if you work in a state with at-will employment. Similarly, you don't want that city official to take revenge on you for blogging about his unprofessional treatment of you. You don't want your mom to find out that you run a blog about your life as a lesbian. You don't want your neighbor to find out that you complained on Reddit about his annoying behavior. Little things like these add up and serve to discourage free speech even in mostly-free societies. Constitutional protections are not enough. Custom can be just as oppressing as evil communist regimes. You need to turn the goddamn society upside down before you can expect most people to blog with their real names, and that's not likely to happen anytime soon.
- ugh 16y ago
  Well, all I’m pointing out is the basic truism that non-anonymous speech can and will in general be more trusted and that in many cases anonymity is not necessary for free speech. Anonymity is sometimes necessary or desired but what it is definitely not is the beginning and end of free speech as was implied in the comment I was responding to.
  - kijinbear 16y ago
    Your first point is fair enough. As for "anonymity is not the beginning and end of free speech", I don't think the comment you were responding to said anything to that effect. It only said that taking away anonymity would also take away free speech. By admitting that "anonymity is sometimes necessary", you're basically agreeing with that comment. Anonymity surely isn't all there is to free speech, but without it, free speech would be severely hampered.
redrobot5050 16y ago
>If you live in a nation with rule of law and wide ranging protections of freedom of speech like the US there is no need to be anonymous in the vast majority of cases. Tell that To Glen Greenwald, a journalist, who is finding that Bank of American is actively "scheming" to discredit her because of her support of WikiLeaks. Tell that to Helen Thomas, a former White House correspondent, who criticized America's Pro-Israel stance and how it impacts on peace in the middle east. The larger point that I'm trying to make is there are certain debates in this country that are one-sided. By that, I mean one-side controls the debate. It is not interested in honest discourse and the free exchange of ideas. It is interested in the status quo. It has found out that it is easier to discredit its critics (AIPAC has labeled most of its critics as 'anti-semetic', even if they are of Jewish Heritage.) than engage them. In these instances, it might be easier to lay out the facts in sourced, cited, verifiable articles while remaining anonymous.
- ugh 16y ago
  I’m not arguing against anonymity.
- pessimizer 16y ago
  Glenn Greenwald is a "him":)

bugsy 16y ago

Yeah it's kind of a different topic, I probably shouldn't have been extemporanializing (sp?) at the end of my comment and kept it more focused. I agree with that about anonymity. People will be more tempered in what they say. Only today there is a story that a blog (http://natalieshandbasket.blogspot.com/ http://natalieshandbasket.blogspot.com/) I had been following by a teacher was "outted". The teacher was suspended and is going to be fired because she told the truth about her students, who she didn't name. (http://www.phillyburbs.com/news/news_details/article/28/2011/february/10/blog-puts-teacher-in-hot-water.html http://www.phillyburbs.com/news/news_details/article/28/2011...) The students have since commented that although everything she said was true, she shouldn't have been allowed to say it and they want her to be fired as punishment, and that looks like it will happen. The blog was extremely useful because it showed what is really going on in schools. She had thought only her friends knew about it though and that obviously wasn't true since I had no idea who she really was until today, but I knew about her secret blog since it had been linked to from some site previously, and then I bookmarked and followed it. No doubt a lot of other people did this as well. Her mistake was to even let her friends know who she was because one of them outted her. Also she had a small thumbnail of herself sitting in the distance, which may have confirmed to someone who she was. Without this anonymity, there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that she would not have been able to say the things she did. We can see exactly what happened as soon as her identity was known. A persona such as an anonymous blog can have as much credibility as someone whose birth certificate you have seen and held. The key is that it's an established and consistent persona with a personality. So some are sincere and promote free speech and honesty, others are manipulative lies paid for by governments and corporations. Which is which you can tell (I sure hope) by looking at their history of posting. One may post unpopular ideas and be worth listening to and you know they are real because there is a human je ne sais quois (sp?) that identifies them as real, something that is not present in 50 cent army posts.

jhancock 16y ago
There has never been a guarantee of no repercussions from utilizing free speech, anon or not. Many pay a high price for speaking their mind. And not just from government. The first front that keeps people in line is their peers, community, and jobs. Its sad, but that's how things have always been, China and U.S.