4 ms·

> If anything, your viewpoint--that every single website on the internet has to be run the way you would run it--is the more oppressive one. That's an awfully

> If anything, your viewpoint--that every single website on the internet has to be run the way you would run it--is the more oppressive one. That's an awfully cute straw man, but not really what's being discussed here. My calling for some basic human decency is no more "oppressive" than my remarking that hey, people who kick puppies or don't say thank you to waiters are pricks. > by providing a forum for people to speak out anonymously. That doesn't address the issue. The value of large companies with large social graphs is one of networking. Having a soapbox to talk shout into silence doesn't do anything to improve the cause of someone who can't be safe with their own identity online. Cramming people who are unable, for their own safety and well-being, into a ghetto cut off from the larger world is hardly a kind thing to do. For one, it deprives them of the ability to open communications with allies whose circumstances allow for help or resources to begin flowing. At a certain scale, the privilege of network effects comes with social responsibility. People have the right, and often the need, to define their identity along specific parameters. Refusing to acknowledge that does not respect users – and it's entirely valid to condemn that.

philwelch 15y ago
That's an awfully cute straw man, but not really what's being discussed here. My calling for some basic human decency is no more "oppressive" than my remarking that hey, people who kick puppies or don't say thank you to waiters are pricks. Lots of people actually, voluntarily, want to participate in social networks based on people's real names. You don't want to let them do that. Cramming people who are unable, for their own safety and well-being, into a ghetto cut off from the larger world is hardly a kind thing to do. For one, it deprives them of the ability to open communications with allies whose circumstances allow for help or resources to begin flowing. No, it doesn't, because there are lots of places online for people to "open communications with allies whose circumstances allow for help". In fact, most of the web is accepting of pseudonymous or anonymous socialization. (You're on one of many such sites right now.) Facebook (and now Google+) are an exception, and Facebook, at the very least, is popular. That doesn't make it a public utility--it's still a private service that people are free to use or ignore. No one's obligated to use Facebook and no one on Facebook is obligated to truthfully divulge any more information than they want.
- danilocampos 15y ago
  > Lots of people actually, voluntarily, want to participate in social networks based on people's real names. You don't want to let them do that. I certainly don't want a bunch of privileged western jagoffs to enjoy a marginally better online experience at the expense of anyone else not similarly privileged. Ya got me there. I'm just not impressed by the tradeoff. I'm reminded of a favorite book: "Must be a yearning deep in human heart to stop other people from doing as they please. Rules, laws — always for other fellow. A murky part of us, something we had before we came down out of trees, and failed to shuck when we stood up. Because not one of those people said: Please pass this so that I won't be able to do something I know I should stop. Nyet, tovarishchee, was always something they hated to see neighbors doing. Stop them for their own good." I think when we optimize around what the group wants at the expense of the individual, we're on our way to misery. Let each person do what is best for their own needs, so long as it doesn't come at the cost of any other individual. That's a good rule for any human community, including one built on the internet. And that includes companies. If these guys want a completely homogenous platform where everyone is perfectly marketable to advertisers, that's ultimately their decision and their right. But it's a damn waste of a lot of power.
  - philwelch 15y ago
    When you build an online community around the idea of absolute individual freedom, you get 4chan. And, quite in opposition to your viewpoint, this kind of environment brings out all the racism, sexism, homophobia, mob rule, and other assholery you can imagine. Still, people participate in that kind of free for all, and they're free to do so. Outside of 4chan, people are figuring out that online communities, just like communities in real life, work better when there's a social contract. You can get downvoted into oblivion, flagged to death, or hellbanned from Hacker News, but you accept these infringements on your freedom of expression because it keeps the trolls out. Social networks (which, if you've forgotten, are designed to enable communication between people who already know each other, largely in real life) enforce a social norm (or in some cases an actual policy) of using real names. This makes people you know in real life (presumably by their real names) easier to find, and makes your behavior accountable to your real-life reputation. Now, maybe some of these social contracts are wiser than others. But unlike the social contract that governs a physical community[1], online communities are trivial to join, trivial to leave, and not that difficult to form in comparison. This is a freedom of association that's unprecedented in world history, and really gives us the best of both worlds. Finally, if you're all that angry about "privileged western jagoffs" forming their own exclusionary communities, you'd be better served railing against e.g. the Freemasons, rather than Google+. [1] It's worth pointing out that most countries have very strict laws mandating that people are known to the government, their employers, etc. not only by a "real name" that requires legal action to change, but by some sort of identification number. Anonymously earning income, using banks, and getting health care are much bigger problems, and there's much more potential benefit in solving those problems than in bickering about whatever website people are using to share pictures of cats.

philwelch 15y ago

That's an awfully cute straw man, but not really what's being discussed here. My calling for some basic human decency is no more "oppressive" than my remarking that hey, people who kick puppies or don't say thank you to waiters are pricks. Lots of people actually, voluntarily, want to participate in social networks based on people's real names. You don't want to let them do that. Cramming people who are unable, for their own safety and well-being, into a ghetto cut off from the larger world is hardly a kind thing to do. For one, it deprives them of the ability to open communications with allies whose circumstances allow for help or resources to begin flowing. No, it doesn't, because there are lots of places online for people to "open communications with allies whose circumstances allow for help". In fact, most of the web is accepting of pseudonymous or anonymous socialization. (You're on one of many such sites right now.) Facebook (and now Google+) are an exception, and Facebook, at the very least, is popular. That doesn't make it a public utility--it's still a private service that people are free to use or ignore. No one's obligated to use Facebook and no one on Facebook is obligated to truthfully divulge any more information than they want.

danilocampos 15y ago
> Lots of people actually, voluntarily, want to participate in social networks based on people's real names. You don't want to let them do that. I certainly don't want a bunch of privileged western jagoffs to enjoy a marginally better online experience at the expense of anyone else not similarly privileged. Ya got me there. I'm just not impressed by the tradeoff. I'm reminded of a favorite book: "Must be a yearning deep in human heart to stop other people from doing as they please. Rules, laws — always for other fellow. A murky part of us, something we had before we came down out of trees, and failed to shuck when we stood up. Because not one of those people said: Please pass this so that I won't be able to do something I know I should stop. Nyet, tovarishchee, was always something they hated to see neighbors doing. Stop them for their own good." I think when we optimize around what the group wants at the expense of the individual, we're on our way to misery. Let each person do what is best for their own needs, so long as it doesn't come at the cost of any other individual. That's a good rule for any human community, including one built on the internet. And that includes companies. If these guys want a completely homogenous platform where everyone is perfectly marketable to advertisers, that's ultimately their decision and their right. But it's a damn waste of a lot of power.
- philwelch 15y ago
  When you build an online community around the idea of absolute individual freedom, you get 4chan. And, quite in opposition to your viewpoint, this kind of environment brings out all the racism, sexism, homophobia, mob rule, and other assholery you can imagine. Still, people participate in that kind of free for all, and they're free to do so. Outside of 4chan, people are figuring out that online communities, just like communities in real life, work better when there's a social contract. You can get downvoted into oblivion, flagged to death, or hellbanned from Hacker News, but you accept these infringements on your freedom of expression because it keeps the trolls out. Social networks (which, if you've forgotten, are designed to enable communication between people who already know each other, largely in real life) enforce a social norm (or in some cases an actual policy) of using real names. This makes people you know in real life (presumably by their real names) easier to find, and makes your behavior accountable to your real-life reputation. Now, maybe some of these social contracts are wiser than others. But unlike the social contract that governs a physical community[1], online communities are trivial to join, trivial to leave, and not that difficult to form in comparison. This is a freedom of association that's unprecedented in world history, and really gives us the best of both worlds. Finally, if you're all that angry about "privileged western jagoffs" forming their own exclusionary communities, you'd be better served railing against e.g. the Freemasons, rather than Google+. [1] It's worth pointing out that most countries have very strict laws mandating that people are known to the government, their employers, etc. not only by a "real name" that requires legal action to change, but by some sort of identification number. Anonymously earning income, using banks, and getting health care are much bigger problems, and there's much more potential benefit in solving those problems than in bickering about whatever website people are using to share pictures of cats.