4 ms·

> "Let them track me, I've got nothing to hide." Interestingly, this attitude used to be default even here on Hacker News ~5 years ago. I am so glad to see it'

> "Let them track me, I've got nothing to hide." Interestingly, this attitude used to be default even here on Hacker News ~5 years ago. I am so glad to see it's changing. Why I'm finding this interesting? Because this audience always knew what's going on even without layman articles like this, but did not care for some reason. This shows how just knowing isn't enough sometimes. Public sentiment matters.

SavantIdiot 5y ago
I think HN rules are still behind the times. One of the rules discourages multiple accounts, in an attempt to create a community. OTOH: a longer paper trail means more easy to identify. This is why I create a new account every few months. Since I cannot delete old posts to "cover my tracks", I have no choice if I want to use the site. Maybe I just shouldn't use HN. I dunno. I learn a lot from discussions, but I don't always tell the truth because I don't want to be traced.
- dredmorbius 5y ago
  I've got some sympathy with this viewpoint, and have used HN myself under a pseudonym I take pains not to associate with my real-world identity. But at the same time, the practice of regularly and routinely recycling user identities is ... well, it really does prevent the formation of a community. The most toxic community I'd ever encountered was a supposedly "kinder and gentler Reddit", the late and unlamented Imzy. A core feature was that individuals could spin up a new pseudonym on each individual thread. The result was both absolutely disorienting and gave rise to vicious bandwagon and brigade attacks. Whatever problem Imzy was trying to solve, that was the wrong solution. (I'm aware that chans often follow a similar tactic, and that ... they tend not to engender highly constructive behaviours.)
  - everdrive 5y ago
    On the other hand, Twitter may be one of the greatest evils with regard to social media, and is well populated with non-anonymous accounts. And of course, HN stands at odds with this theory as well. No one "knows" me on HN. I don't have a reputation, or a real identity, and I'm cordial enough. (I hope) HN enforces conduct, and this enforcement is not defeated by anonymity.
- grzm 5y ago
  Another take is that those running HN know what kind of forum they want (one that promotes community) and understand and accept that trade-off. 'dang has written about this at length, so I think that's very likely the case. That's not one you're willing to make and you adjust your behavior accordingly. HN can't be all things to all people. And that's okay. You clearly find some value in HN as it is because you continue to use it. Something to consider: changes you might like to see may very well change the community as a whole to make it less a place you want to be. Hard to say, without running the experiment, but one of the hazards is that running the experiment could irreparably damage/change HN. And rebooting it would be likely nigh impossible. (If it were easy, we'd all create the fora we wanted.)
mtone 5y ago
And public sentiment is not the same everywhere - for instance, the US tends to be more suspicious of government than of (large, public) corporations whereas elsewhere it's the complete opposite.

SavantIdiot 5y ago

I think HN rules are still behind the times. One of the rules discourages multiple accounts, in an attempt to create a community. OTOH: a longer paper trail means more easy to identify. This is why I create a new account every few months. Since I cannot delete old posts to "cover my tracks", I have no choice if I want to use the site. Maybe I just shouldn't use HN. I dunno. I learn a lot from discussions, but I don't always tell the truth because I don't want to be traced.

dredmorbius 5y ago
I've got some sympathy with this viewpoint, and have used HN myself under a pseudonym I take pains not to associate with my real-world identity. But at the same time, the practice of regularly and routinely recycling user identities is ... well, it really does prevent the formation of a community. The most toxic community I'd ever encountered was a supposedly "kinder and gentler Reddit", the late and unlamented Imzy. A core feature was that individuals could spin up a new pseudonym on each individual thread. The result was both absolutely disorienting and gave rise to vicious bandwagon and brigade attacks. Whatever problem Imzy was trying to solve, that was the wrong solution. (I'm aware that chans often follow a similar tactic, and that ... they tend not to engender highly constructive behaviours.)
- everdrive 5y ago
  On the other hand, Twitter may be one of the greatest evils with regard to social media, and is well populated with non-anonymous accounts. And of course, HN stands at odds with this theory as well. No one "knows" me on HN. I don't have a reputation, or a real identity, and I'm cordial enough. (I hope) HN enforces conduct, and this enforcement is not defeated by anonymity.
grzm 5y ago
Another take is that those running HN know what kind of forum they want (one that promotes community) and understand and accept that trade-off. 'dang has written about this at length, so I think that's very likely the case. That's not one you're willing to make and you adjust your behavior accordingly. HN can't be all things to all people. And that's okay. You clearly find some value in HN as it is because you continue to use it. Something to consider: changes you might like to see may very well change the community as a whole to make it less a place you want to be. Hard to say, without running the experiment, but one of the hazards is that running the experiment could irreparably damage/change HN. And rebooting it would be likely nigh impossible. (If it were easy, we'd all create the fora we wanted.)

mtone 5y ago

And public sentiment is not the same everywhere - for instance, the US tends to be more suspicious of government than of (large, public) corporations whereas elsewhere it's the complete opposite.