5 ms·

To play devil's advocate here for a moment. You state a lot of things that people shouldn't do. Isn't it kinda sad that the one thing we shouldn't be doing, b

To play devil's advocate here for a moment. You state a lot of things that people shouldn't do. Isn't it kinda sad that the one thing we shouldn't be doing, being ourselves, isn't on that list? That's what this discussion is essentially about. Freedom to think what we want, be who we are? Maybe the goal shouldn't be to hide from everyone, but to expose everyone for who we all really are? Maybe if everyone realizes how messed up everyone really is, we'll stop being so judgemental? So maybe the best way to do that is have a single identity, a single being. Sure, how you act might be different between different social groups, but that doesn't change who you are. Maybe this is an idealist outlook, but isn't it an ideal we should be working for, not hiding from?

narag 16y ago
Often people are discouraged to talk their mind until they feel that enough people thinks the same way. Anonimity allows that. You first see that there's a lot of people of your same opinion, then you "come out": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abilene_paradox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abilene_paradox
- jasonlotito 16y ago
  Still playing the devils advocate here... > Often people are discouraged to talk their mind until they feel that enough people thinks the same way. This is the case because people are so judgemental. As I posted in my original comment, eliminating the judgemental attitude of the majority of people would help with this.
  - narag 16y ago
    Why do you call it "devil's advocate"? I agree! I agreed to your previous comment too. "Coming out" seems to has been very useful for gays' rights. Maybe the question is in which point a controversy is. Is the controversial option legal? Or even are there laws that protect it? Current revolutions or cannabis are counter-examples. I'd also suggest to think about the asymmetry of responses. You might express your opinions in public, but someone could choose to anonymously not to hire you because of them.
statictype 16y ago
Would you want every conversation you have with your spouse/child/parent to be available to every single other person you know? Regardless of how sincere and honest those conversations may be? If not, then this idea that "the days of you having a different image for your work friends or co-workers and for the other people you know" is very much not over. The fact is, people have private interactions with other people all the time and they expect it to be private and society accepts that it's perfectly alright and natural for this to happen. When I'm with someone else and they get a call from someone close to them, I excuse myself from the conversation in some way. That's just the polite thing to do. This idea that all this is coming to an end is just wishful fantasy on the part of the owner of a site who's existence and popularity probably depends on this being true.
- jasonlotito 16y ago
  Again, playing devil's advocate... The argument is valid, but doesn't apply in this case. > Would you want every conversation you have with your spouse/child/parent to be available to every single other person you know? No, of course not. However, this is forcing private stuff public. Nothing is being forced here. Certain sites will require you to log in with your Facebook identity. You choose to interact with them in this manner, or you choose not to. If you comment in Facebook comments, you are doing so in a public forum. > The fact is, people have private interactions with other people all the time and they expect it to be private and society accepts that it's perfectly alright and natural for this to happen. This doesn't change anything. The proposal isn't to share your private life. Simply to make public comments just that, public. If you want things to remain private, keep them private. Basically, you're arguing for something that isn't a problem.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
camdykeman 16y ago
Statictype, to be fair this isnt intended to post every conversation with your spouse/family/whatever online for every one to see...unless you happen to do those things on forums and product-review sections of online retailers. This incorporation by Facebook, to my understanding, is just a way of legitimizing these mediums of communication. It will help keep spammers at bay and maybe discourage people from reviewing a product as "a stupid piece of shit" and instead contribute something of value. I agree that the vision of Facebook becoming a worldwide identity database is unsettling, but this particular development makes some sense. Remember that not ALL conversations need to occur online and we can still use the phone or even gasp speak face to face. On what grounds should a person posting to a public space not be held accountable for what they are saying? Besides, in this case the only comments your boss would gain access to are ones like "The Toast-Matic is a fantastic toaster, and I like it for the following reasons: blah blah...". If my boss really wants to waste time sorting through that crap, party on.
- statictype 16y ago
  I understand what you're saying. My point was that the comment made by Mark Zuckerberg are clearly false (unless they were lifted out of context). There clearly are many situations where you do want to maintain different identities. On the other hand, I agree with the sentiment that comments should have a public identifiable handle attached to it for the reasons you've said.

narag 16y ago

Often people are discouraged to talk their mind until they feel that enough people thinks the same way. Anonimity allows that. You first see that there's a lot of people of your same opinion, then you "come out": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abilene_paradox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abilene_paradox

jasonlotito 16y ago
Still playing the devils advocate here... > Often people are discouraged to talk their mind until they feel that enough people thinks the same way. This is the case because people are so judgemental. As I posted in my original comment, eliminating the judgemental attitude of the majority of people would help with this.
- narag 16y ago
  Why do you call it "devil's advocate"? I agree! I agreed to your previous comment too. "Coming out" seems to has been very useful for gays' rights. Maybe the question is in which point a controversy is. Is the controversial option legal? Or even are there laws that protect it? Current revolutions or cannabis are counter-examples. I'd also suggest to think about the asymmetry of responses. You might express your opinions in public, but someone could choose to anonymously not to hire you because of them.

statictype 16y ago

Would you want every conversation you have with your spouse/child/parent to be available to every single other person you know? Regardless of how sincere and honest those conversations may be? If not, then this idea that "the days of you having a different image for your work friends or co-workers and for the other people you know" is very much not over. The fact is, people have private interactions with other people all the time and they expect it to be private and society accepts that it's perfectly alright and natural for this to happen. When I'm with someone else and they get a call from someone close to them, I excuse myself from the conversation in some way. That's just the polite thing to do. This idea that all this is coming to an end is just wishful fantasy on the part of the owner of a site who's existence and popularity probably depends on this being true.

jasonlotito 16y ago
Again, playing devil's advocate... The argument is valid, but doesn't apply in this case. > Would you want every conversation you have with your spouse/child/parent to be available to every single other person you know? No, of course not. However, this is forcing private stuff public. Nothing is being forced here. Certain sites will require you to log in with your Facebook identity. You choose to interact with them in this manner, or you choose not to. If you comment in Facebook comments, you are doing so in a public forum. > The fact is, people have private interactions with other people all the time and they expect it to be private and society accepts that it's perfectly alright and natural for this to happen. This doesn't change anything. The proposal isn't to share your private life. Simply to make public comments just that, public. If you want things to remain private, keep them private. Basically, you're arguing for something that isn't a problem.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

camdykeman 16y ago

Statictype, to be fair this isnt intended to post every conversation with your spouse/family/whatever online for every one to see...unless you happen to do those things on forums and product-review sections of online retailers. This incorporation by Facebook, to my understanding, is just a way of legitimizing these mediums of communication. It will help keep spammers at bay and maybe discourage people from reviewing a product as "a stupid piece of shit" and instead contribute something of value. I agree that the vision of Facebook becoming a worldwide identity database is unsettling, but this particular development makes some sense. Remember that not ALL conversations need to occur online and we can still use the phone or even gasp speak face to face. On what grounds should a person posting to a public space not be held accountable for what they are saying? Besides, in this case the only comments your boss would gain access to are ones like "The Toast-Matic is a fantastic toaster, and I like it for the following reasons: blah blah...". If my boss really wants to waste time sorting through that crap, party on.

statictype 16y ago
I understand what you're saying. My point was that the comment made by Mark Zuckerberg are clearly false (unless they were lifted out of context). There clearly are many situations where you do want to maintain different identities. On the other hand, I agree with the sentiment that comments should have a public identifiable handle attached to it for the reasons you've said.