7 ms·

There is a push against anonymity on the internet, but I'm not convinced that is the best way. Not with the growing threat of cancel culture. I'd rather go the

There is a push against anonymity on the internet, but I'm not convinced that is the best way. Not with the growing threat of cancel culture. I'd rather go the other direction and provide additional assurances of privacy.

newacct583 6y ago
> growing threat of cancel culture Really? While there are excesses everywhere in all things, this it just silly. This is a point made in sympathy to the goals of a political campaign and not out of genuine fear. People aren't going to stop using their real names for fear of being "cancelled", come on.
- josteink 6y ago
  I’ve long stopped using my real identity when voicing “deviant” political opinions. The threat of cancel culture is very, very real.
  - emerged 6y ago
    It's hard to imagine being so uncontroversial in your opinions, that you could afford not to even believe cancel culture is a real thing. Thing is, eventually everyone is targeted for one reason or another as the focus shifts, and over time the focus of the day will contradict the focus of the past.
    - newacct583 6y ago
      I don't think I claimed it didn't exist, I claimed that the paranoia about it that exists right now on the American right is a fabrication. It's the theme that the Trump campaign has decided on running against (c.f. the speech at Mt. Rushmore[1]) which is why it's en vogue to talk about and no doubt why it sprung so readily to your fingers in a discussion about internet anonymity. [1] For those old enough to remember "They hate us for our freedoms" and "Radical Islamic Terrorism", this obsession seems like pretty weak sauce, at least as existential threats go. Previous administrations could at least invoke the threat of death. The worst terrors of the modern conservative are apparently being yelled at by hippies on the internet.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
ahoy 6y ago
cancel culture, as its commonly understood ("woke" scolds running well-meaning people out of public life) largely doesn't exist. There are a few high profile cases of it happening to actual sexual predators, otherwise it's as ephemeral as Fox News hosts hyping fear over the "knockout game".
- rglullis 6y ago
  Would you tell that to JK Rowling and Martina Navratilova?
  - untog 6y ago
    Edit: can’t delete my post but realised I have no interest in being a part of this conversation so deleting the text
    - mc32 6y ago
      She has the clout and independence that affords her that. Other people don’t enjoy that possibility.
      - untog 6y ago
        So why on earth cite her as an example?
    - rglullis 6y ago
      Cancel culture is not just that. It is the 21st century version of ostracism. She was not just "criticized" for it. You have industry-related websites now claiming to mention her only with hashtag #JKR. She's literally become "the one who shall not be named". Who knows what will come of any future project that she is working on. All of that for the very controversial opinion of "There is a word for 'people who menstruate' that the newspaper could've used" Also Martina. One of the first openly gay tennis players, an actual defender of women's rights, "canceled" because she dared to say that trans-women would have an unfair advantage and should not be put to play with biologically-born women. The audacity...
uniqueid 6y ago
I don't want an internet of bullshit, but that's all we'll ever have, as long as anyone can create 50,0000 sock puppet accounts, and claim to be Pope Francis himself. The vast majority of the time, I don't need to know your name, but if you're claiming to have knowledge of something, I do need a consistent way to verify your claims via a third party (eg: does a neutral third party vouch that the speaker truly is a certified mechanic? Truly a highschool graduate? Cancer patient? Citizen of Iceland?). Unless we have some standard for notarization and identification built into the internet, it's turtles all the way down.
- cameldrv 6y ago
  I also don't care whether I know your real name, although I'll take you more seriously if you provide it. The main thing I want is the ability to block/mute someone and have it stick. Perhaps everyone should be able to have a secondary/tertiary account, but I also want to be able to easily see that it is not their main account, and perhaps mute everyone not using a primary account. Reputation is a large part of how civilization remains civilized. There are advantages to not having your reputation follow you around forever -- sometimes people make mistakes and need a fresh start, but there are also advantages in having consequences for bad behavior. For commercial social platforms though, at least in the short-medium term, allowing anonymity is good because it creates a greater incentive for outrage and conflict, which drives engagement. This is IMO at the root of many current problems in society.
gentleman11 6y ago
I wonder if you couldn’t have both: a sign in authority that verifies people are people and have not signed up for a site yet, provides tokens, and then other sites can use those tokens to let users create anonymous accounts. The sign in authority would need to have an iron clad privacy policy and some sort of no knowledge guarantee between themselves and other sites. Is this possible?
- mc32 6y ago
  That would be one solution; the one big problem is future revelation. Either someone buys them out, there is a breach, insider information/leak etc. But in principle it sounds like it may work though I’d like to see an enforceable TOS that doesn’t undermine the purpose.
- emerged 6y ago
  That's what I've been thinking of as well. Anonymous identities which are linked to your real identity in some way. It could prevent the sock puppet issues without exposing you to privacy issues.
eli 6y ago
Cancel culture is not really a thing. But I agree there’s lots of good reasons to be anonymous or use a different name. I think we’ve also clearly seen that a Real Names policy hasn’t exactly prevented bad behavior on Facebook

newacct583 6y ago

> growing threat of cancel culture Really? While there are excesses everywhere in all things, this it just silly. This is a point made in sympathy to the goals of a political campaign and not out of genuine fear. People aren't going to stop using their real names for fear of being "cancelled", come on.

josteink 6y ago
I’ve long stopped using my real identity when voicing “deviant” political opinions. The threat of cancel culture is very, very real.
- emerged 6y ago
  It's hard to imagine being so uncontroversial in your opinions, that you could afford not to even believe cancel culture is a real thing. Thing is, eventually everyone is targeted for one reason or another as the focus shifts, and over time the focus of the day will contradict the focus of the past.
  - newacct583 6y ago
    I don't think I claimed it didn't exist, I claimed that the paranoia about it that exists right now on the American right is a fabrication. It's the theme that the Trump campaign has decided on running against (c.f. the speech at Mt. Rushmore[1]) which is why it's en vogue to talk about and no doubt why it sprung so readily to your fingers in a discussion about internet anonymity. [1] For those old enough to remember "They hate us for our freedoms" and "Radical Islamic Terrorism", this obsession seems like pretty weak sauce, at least as existential threats go. Previous administrations could at least invoke the threat of death. The worst terrors of the modern conservative are apparently being yelled at by hippies on the internet.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

ahoy 6y ago

cancel culture, as its commonly understood ("woke" scolds running well-meaning people out of public life) largely doesn't exist. There are a few high profile cases of it happening to actual sexual predators, otherwise it's as ephemeral as Fox News hosts hyping fear over the "knockout game".

rglullis 6y ago
Would you tell that to JK Rowling and Martina Navratilova?
- untog 6y ago
  Edit: can’t delete my post but realised I have no interest in being a part of this conversation so deleting the text
  - mc32 6y ago
    She has the clout and independence that affords her that. Other people don’t enjoy that possibility.
    - untog 6y ago
      So why on earth cite her as an example?
  - rglullis 6y ago
    Cancel culture is not just that. It is the 21st century version of ostracism. She was not just "criticized" for it. You have industry-related websites now claiming to mention her only with hashtag #JKR. She's literally become "the one who shall not be named". Who knows what will come of any future project that she is working on. All of that for the very controversial opinion of "There is a word for 'people who menstruate' that the newspaper could've used" Also Martina. One of the first openly gay tennis players, an actual defender of women's rights, "canceled" because she dared to say that trans-women would have an unfair advantage and should not be put to play with biologically-born women. The audacity...

uniqueid 6y ago

I don't want an internet of bullshit, but that's all we'll ever have, as long as anyone can create 50,0000 sock puppet accounts, and claim to be Pope Francis himself. The vast majority of the time, I don't need to know your name, but if you're claiming to have knowledge of something, I do need a consistent way to verify your claims via a third party (eg: does a neutral third party vouch that the speaker truly is a certified mechanic? Truly a highschool graduate? Cancer patient? Citizen of Iceland?). Unless we have some standard for notarization and identification built into the internet, it's turtles all the way down.

cameldrv 6y ago
I also don't care whether I know your real name, although I'll take you more seriously if you provide it. The main thing I want is the ability to block/mute someone and have it stick. Perhaps everyone should be able to have a secondary/tertiary account, but I also want to be able to easily see that it is not their main account, and perhaps mute everyone not using a primary account. Reputation is a large part of how civilization remains civilized. There are advantages to not having your reputation follow you around forever -- sometimes people make mistakes and need a fresh start, but there are also advantages in having consequences for bad behavior. For commercial social platforms though, at least in the short-medium term, allowing anonymity is good because it creates a greater incentive for outrage and conflict, which drives engagement. This is IMO at the root of many current problems in society.

gentleman11 6y ago

I wonder if you couldn’t have both: a sign in authority that verifies people are people and have not signed up for a site yet, provides tokens, and then other sites can use those tokens to let users create anonymous accounts. The sign in authority would need to have an iron clad privacy policy and some sort of no knowledge guarantee between themselves and other sites. Is this possible?

mc32 6y ago
That would be one solution; the one big problem is future revelation. Either someone buys them out, there is a breach, insider information/leak etc. But in principle it sounds like it may work though I’d like to see an enforceable TOS that doesn’t undermine the purpose.
emerged 6y ago
That's what I've been thinking of as well. Anonymous identities which are linked to your real identity in some way. It could prevent the sock puppet issues without exposing you to privacy issues.

eli 6y ago

Cancel culture is not really a thing. But I agree there’s lots of good reasons to be anonymous or use a different name. I think we’ve also clearly seen that a Real Names policy hasn’t exactly prevented bad behavior on Facebook