4 ms·

I think pseudonymity will be important for the future of ideas (expanded beyond HN but into actual journalistic practice). You don't have to put up your real na

I think pseudonymity will be important for the future of ideas (expanded beyond HN but into actual journalistic practice). You don't have to put up your real name, aka your full reputation behind interesting ideas that could risk damage to you as a person (being cancelled, character assassination, or otherwise) I also believe that this kind of work will invite better discussion and critique around different topics since the focus can only be on the merit of the content. Of course, anonymity also has its downsides, but good work usually finds a way into circles while bad work gets nipped at the bud fairly quickly

alextheparrot 6y ago
The Rolodex re-purposed, keeping track of all of our own identities instead of other's I do think this is interesting as an adaption, though to have any coherence of identity then that identity will need to re-used. That makes an interesting game, where people effectively wager different amounts of reputation, while understanding that some or total loss of that reputation could also occur. The natural advantage to having reputation is that you are better discovery status, more exposure. Imagine debating if the "top" tier identity or the "low" tier identity should be used to promote a new idea, as it is riskier. Overall, I think this expansion of pseudonymity as a society would just lead to additional fragmentation of personality. The "coherence" of a person as one, consistent individual is an interesting breakdown of self. We see this already with "online" vs "real-life" personalities can be highly divergent (Insta-self vs actual-self).
- bobbiechen 6y ago
  > Imagine debating if the "top" tier identity or the "low" tier identity should be used to promote a new idea, as it is riskier. This sentence reminds me a lot of Ender's Game, in which the characters of Locke and Demosthenes are created to contrast views. > They used throwaway names with their early efforts, not the identities that Peter planned to make famous and influential... When Peter was satisfied that they knew how to sound adult, he killed the old identities and they began to prepare to attract real attention.
  - neilv 6y ago
    I think xkcd's take on how that would play out is more typical: https://xkcd.com/635/ https://xkcd.com/635/
kleer001 6y ago
How would you fix the problem of sock puppets, the absurd cruelty that online anonymity tends to bring out over time, and the potential for doxxing those pseudononmous accounts?
- darawk 6y ago
  Pseudonymity in my experience tends to lead to less cruelty than anonymity. I think the cruelty problem is solved reasonably well by strict moderation and intentional, reputation-based communities. When people care about the reputation of their pseudonym, and the culture awards respect to those who maintain those standards, they can be maintained reasonably well.
  - kleer001 6y ago
    > strict moderation and intentional, reputation-based communities Those sound expensive, as in time, time and money, or just money. But I don't have a lot of experience in that space. What's your experience with that?
    - darawk 6y ago
      They can be, although often community members are willing to do the work for free. An example of this working well is the slatestarcodex community, the blog that recently canceled itself because of the NYT piece that was coming out on it. It has a community over at: https://reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex https://reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex and https://reddit.com/r/themotte https://reddit.com/r/themotte That, despite often discussing controversial issues, remains mostly civil and low cruelty.
      - kleer001 6y ago
        Lovely! I wish there were more of them. I guess only by adding 'rarity' to my list of costs would make it wholly correct.

alextheparrot 6y ago

The Rolodex re-purposed, keeping track of all of our own identities instead of other's I do think this is interesting as an adaption, though to have any coherence of identity then that identity will need to re-used. That makes an interesting game, where people effectively wager different amounts of reputation, while understanding that some or total loss of that reputation could also occur. The natural advantage to having reputation is that you are better discovery status, more exposure. Imagine debating if the "top" tier identity or the "low" tier identity should be used to promote a new idea, as it is riskier. Overall, I think this expansion of pseudonymity as a society would just lead to additional fragmentation of personality. The "coherence" of a person as one, consistent individual is an interesting breakdown of self. We see this already with "online" vs "real-life" personalities can be highly divergent (Insta-self vs actual-self).

bobbiechen 6y ago
> Imagine debating if the "top" tier identity or the "low" tier identity should be used to promote a new idea, as it is riskier. This sentence reminds me a lot of Ender's Game, in which the characters of Locke and Demosthenes are created to contrast views. > They used throwaway names with their early efforts, not the identities that Peter planned to make famous and influential... When Peter was satisfied that they knew how to sound adult, he killed the old identities and they began to prepare to attract real attention.
- neilv 6y ago
  I think xkcd's take on how that would play out is more typical: https://xkcd.com/635/ https://xkcd.com/635/

kleer001 6y ago

How would you fix the problem of sock puppets, the absurd cruelty that online anonymity tends to bring out over time, and the potential for doxxing those pseudononmous accounts?

darawk 6y ago
Pseudonymity in my experience tends to lead to less cruelty than anonymity. I think the cruelty problem is solved reasonably well by strict moderation and intentional, reputation-based communities. When people care about the reputation of their pseudonym, and the culture awards respect to those who maintain those standards, they can be maintained reasonably well.
- kleer001 6y ago
  > strict moderation and intentional, reputation-based communities Those sound expensive, as in time, time and money, or just money. But I don't have a lot of experience in that space. What's your experience with that?
  - darawk 6y ago
    They can be, although often community members are willing to do the work for free. An example of this working well is the slatestarcodex community, the blog that recently canceled itself because of the NYT piece that was coming out on it. It has a community over at: https://reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex https://reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex and https://reddit.com/r/themotte https://reddit.com/r/themotte That, despite often discussing controversial issues, remains mostly civil and low cruelty.
    - kleer001 6y ago
      Lovely! I wish there were more of them. I guess only by adding 'rarity' to my list of costs would make it wholly correct.