4 ms·

What about gays, atheists and others who could possibly damage far more than their own reputation? I live in a country where I have absolutely no problem admit

by Sapient 16y ago

What about gays, atheists and others who could possibly damage far more than their own reputation? I live in a country where I have absolutely no problem admitting to anyone that I don't believe in any gods, but it seems that in America this can and often has ripped families apart. Should those people be excluded from any public discourse regarding their beliefs? The price which has to be paid in this dystopian future of yours is far too high, especially when the "trolls" you are trying to vanquish could just as easily be moderated out of existence wherever they became a problem. How many other parts of our lives should we be forced to expose in order to take part in a community? HIV status? Voting history? Race? Whatever you feel the limit should be, I feel that peoples real names, races and locations is far more than anyone should ever have to share. On a more mundane note, what about losing a job at Apple e because a search for your name brought up a few very negative, but non-trollish, comments you made about the iPhone, or perhaps Apple as a company. These examples are generalised and unlikely... But not outside the realm of possibility.

bmelton 16y ago
I suspect that you read too much into my wish. I wasn't actually sayingn that we get rid of anonymous free speech -- honestly, because I know that isn't the answer, and there are times (admittely, that I cannot relate to) where people may have fear of persecution for their beliefs. Also, I'm not looking to eliminate the trolls in the world -- forced anonymity wouldn't CURE it, but would almost certainly lessen its presence considerably. However, having seen first hand how entirely unnecessarily negative attacks can destroy a community. You bring up an interesting point though, in that speech can be 'moderated into existence' -- which in my opinion, is even more oppressive than public identifiability. You would institute censorship to restore anonymity? I consider that the worst of the two ideas.
- Sapient 16y ago
  I think the best solution is to allow everyone to keep their anonymity if they want, and just repeat the mantra: "Don't Feed The Trolls!" Where necessary, implement some form of community moderation, much like here, unpopular comments are greyed out, on other sites, like Reddit, they are hidden until requested. Forced anonymity will forever be a pipe-dream anyway I think.
  - bmelton 16y ago
    Well, as I alluded to, I'm not sanctioning forced identity disclosure everywhere, but I do believe that if a site owner wants to keep their site from being a cesspool without resorting to censorship, it's a better compromise to me than moderation. It's a tricky subject, I agree, and it's clear we lie on different sides of what we consider to be acceptable, but ultimately, it's quite hard to have a community drive site the doesn't devolve -- HN, Reddit, Digg, and every other online community is a testament to that. The fact that it's technically non-trivial to identify a person absolutely makes it harder to keep trolls away, as they're always free to get a new IP address and re-register as another username, which makes it harder to enforce standards in the community.

by Sapient 16y ago

bmelton 16y ago

I suspect that you read too much into my wish. I wasn't actually sayingn that we get rid of anonymous free speech -- honestly, because I know that isn't the answer, and there are times (admittely, that I cannot relate to) where people may have fear of persecution for their beliefs. Also, I'm not looking to eliminate the trolls in the world -- forced anonymity wouldn't CURE it, but would almost certainly lessen its presence considerably. However, having seen first hand how entirely unnecessarily negative attacks can destroy a community. You bring up an interesting point though, in that speech can be 'moderated into existence' -- which in my opinion, is even more oppressive than public identifiability. You would institute censorship to restore anonymity? I consider that the worst of the two ideas.

Sapient 16y ago
I think the best solution is to allow everyone to keep their anonymity if they want, and just repeat the mantra: "Don't Feed The Trolls!" Where necessary, implement some form of community moderation, much like here, unpopular comments are greyed out, on other sites, like Reddit, they are hidden until requested. Forced anonymity will forever be a pipe-dream anyway I think.
- bmelton 16y ago
  Well, as I alluded to, I'm not sanctioning forced identity disclosure everywhere, but I do believe that if a site owner wants to keep their site from being a cesspool without resorting to censorship, it's a better compromise to me than moderation. It's a tricky subject, I agree, and it's clear we lie on different sides of what we consider to be acceptable, but ultimately, it's quite hard to have a community drive site the doesn't devolve -- HN, Reddit, Digg, and every other online community is a testament to that. The fact that it's technically non-trivial to identify a person absolutely makes it harder to keep trolls away, as they're always free to get a new IP address and re-register as another username, which makes it harder to enforce standards in the community.