8 ms·

>Banning anonymous social media accounts is not the answer to online abuse Entirely true, but it is also not the reason for the push to de-anonymise (and de-ps

by _0ffh 5y ago

>Banning anonymous social media accounts is not the answer to online abuse Entirely true, but it is also not the reason for the push to de-anonymise (and de-pseudonymise) the internet. It is merely the pretext. The true reason is to make it impossible to speak your mind without fear of retribution. The democratisation of the public discourse haunts and frightens the ruling classes to their bones. The broad dissemination of information and opinions was firmly in the hands of a feudalistic elite until just a few decades ago. The fact that the masses are no more just bonded serfs in the information ecology has finally firmly arrived in the minds of the feudal lords and they are pushing back to preserve their powers to guide public opinion by interpretation ex cathedra. Strap in firmly everybody, we are about to enter stormy waters - the enlightenment 2.0 is afoot, methinks!

HWR_14 5y ago
You think the push to deanonymize is to censor people? It's to extract more value from them. It's for more ads, more dynamic pricing, etc. Meanwhile, the enlightenment was specifically when a wide variety of viewpoints started getting published.
- throw63738 5y ago
  Is deanonymization going to drive more engagement?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- _0ffh 5y ago
  >It's to extract more value from them. It's for more ads, more dynamic pricing, etc. Yes, this is a good point. But in my mind this is more of an incidental convenience, not the primary reason. >Meanwhile, the enlightenment was specifically when a wide variety of viewpoints started getting published. Exactly! And when was it easier than now, or even possible, to get access to practically the whole variety of viewpoints? Everyone can now play an active part in the conversation with barely any barriers at all.
  - naravara 5y ago
    > Everyone can now play an active part in the conversation with barely any barriers at all. There are barriers. What people will actually see are mediated by algorithms that favor certain styles of presentation and types of content. It takes a fair amount of knowledge to not just make a point, but make it in a way that will gain traction rather than being shouted into a void. That knowledge comes from refinement and practice. It's why everyone on Twitter starts to sound the same once they get a big follower count. The likes and shares are actually training them to talk about certain things and certain ways through a reinforcement loop.
- treeman79 5y ago
  https://nationalpost.com/opinion/jesse-kline-china-and-india-censor-the-internet-and-canadas-liberals-are-jealous https://nationalpost.com/opinion/jesse-kline-china-and-india... Censorship is here and a big deal.
- Zpalmtree 5y ago
  It's probably both
- seoulmetro 5y ago
  It's all of the above. Censorship, control, easier to target (for ads, etc.). Basically it's just tagging everyone like the sheep that we are. Terribly scary for anyone who isn't already brainwashed.
Hokusai 5y ago
> The democratisation of the public discourse haunts and frightens the ruling classes to their bones. "democratization" does not exist in social media. Algorithms designed to maximize profit rule what people read and watch. It's not a meritocracy, and you even can buy credibility of you want. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dum0bqWfiGw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dum0bqWfiGw) So, be careful on thinking that no rules means that everybody has the same opportunities.
- fouric 5y ago
  Social media is indeed not "democratic" - but the reasons that you gave are completely wrong. "Algorithms designed to maximize profit" are a feature of specific social networks - Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, TikTok - not the concept of social networks. For instance: Mastodon/Fediverse. Sure, it's not popular at all - but it's still social media without manipulative profit-maximizing algorithms. So, if anything, the issue is with those algorithms, or specific platforms.
  - naravara 5y ago
    The profit-maximizing algorithms are ad-supported, which means they maximize profit by maximizing engagement time and attention. This means things that don't maximize around those things will inherently be disadvantaged against the manipulative ones (barring regulation against the manipulation or some sort of very unlikely social movement to consciously eschew the manipulative ones). As long as this particular set of incentives are in place, the algorithm problem is going to be a feature of the universe of social networks.
    - wintermutestwin 5y ago
      >inherently be disadvantaged If the only measure of social platform success is $. I'd say the true measure is adoption and the existing players are not on such strong fortifications by that measure. The existing platforms are begging to be disrupted by non-profit or benefit corps. It's not like you would need FB's salary budget to build a more healthy social platform.
mrtksn 5y ago
But retribution is an important social construct. Sometimes, you speak your mind and get retribution. Sometimes you deserve it however if you are not getting a fair one people side with you. I know that this is very unpopular opinion but there are very few cases where anonymity is useful. The rest is mostly useful for the abusive ones. Instead of banning people and removing content, I would prefer losing anonymity. I actually think that we can have the best of both worlds. What if we remain anonymous to the discussion parties but guaranteed linked identity to the systems that host us? If someone does something very bad, the identity could be revealed, i.e. doxxed. This way, many can self watch their behavior and remain anonymous. So when the time comes and you post something objectionable or the mods flag you, the system can present you the option to remove your last post and lock your account OR override the mods, keep the content and reveal your identity. It’s a shame that the current norm of dealing with people on the internet is to remove their content and lock them out. In my opinion, everyone should be guaranteed right to speak. If the the thing they do is illegal, punish them through the legal system but don’t silence them.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- q1w2 5y ago
  Maybe it would be interesting to have different platforms that have different levels of anonymity so that we can see what sort of conversations would form differently. We also have to remember that internationally, the standards for what is acceptable speech is wildly different, so de-anonymization can literally cause people to be imprisoned and/or killed. In my opinion, highly moderated forums tend to have their conversations reduced to low-value self-reinforcing memes/jokes/self-congratulations/hate-for-the-other-party. But more importantly, there are certain truths that would go unspoken in a completely de-anonymous internet. ...and as forum providers consolidate ever-closer to governments, that class of illegal words gets larger.
  - mrtksn 5y ago
    > We also have to remember that internationally, the standards for what is acceptable speech is wildly different, so de-anonymization can literally cause people to be imprisoned and/or killed. That’s the one of the few rare cases where anonymity is important. Add whistlelowers etc. to the mix but these are edge cases that can have specialized mechanisms. For many cases the default approach could be good enough though. Your identity will be encrypted in the system and when the moderators of a specific platform think that you are a trouble, they lock you and remove your content but they don’t know your identity. It’s up to you to unlock your account by revealing your identity. So, you can simply post to places that are not hostile to you and you stay anonymous. Russians journalists can post to American forums for example.
heavyset_go 5y ago
> Entirely true, but it is also not the reason for the push to de-anonymise (and de-pseudonymise) the internet. It is merely the pretext. The true reason is to make it impossible to speak your mind without fear of retribution. The democratisation of the public discourse haunts and frightens the ruling classes to their bones. The broad dissemination of information and opinions was firmly in the hands of a feudalistic elite until just a few decades ago. Social media companies are fiefdoms whose real customers are other companies and individuals with large piles of money that want to use it to sway public opinion for profit or power. YouTube et al. had no problem taking plenty of Mercer money to promote things like Brexit and other content that shifts focus away from those in power to other working class individuals. All someone with enough money has to do is pay to run promoted content on the platforms and it will be disseminated instantly to billions of eyeballs. Social media platform owners and operators regularly remove content that might rock the boat. They already know that governments will pull the kill switch on them should real unrest happen, because it's happened countless times before. That's bad for revenue, so they play ball with people in power.
gremloni 5y ago
Let’s not make this about purely a class war. There are terrible people online that “speak their mind” and foment racial and sexist hate. Banning individual anonymous accounts is the best way forward. I don’t want to be deanonymized and I don’t want speaking your mind online to lead to a rolling stone that gathers hate as it goes.
croutonwagon 5y ago
I will say. Over the last year I have more and more just pulled back. I have regularly wiped my Reddit account, come back for a bit, notes the toxicity and blatant bias and wiped it again. Within my circle of friends I no longer really discuss current events or politics. Once a pastime of challenging our beliefs and opinions has kinda just….stopped. And most are pretty moderate and more just burned out from the toxicity of others that we prefer not to engage it even in a relatively “safe” quarters because well, even some of our peers that traditionally have been level headed are less so and you never know who you will offend now. For the most part I really only pull information now from RSS feeds. I no longer even seek out discussion. I just try and get a high level overview and call it good. There’s a part of me that wants to discuss these things. But yeah, many are just over the top. I was discussing daycares with some colleagues at work over the “water cooler” and where we sent our kids. I mentioned the one we used because someone asked how it was. I gave them a rundown of my experience and someone else said the owners were “deplorable” and “advertised on xyz radio” and they were probably brain washing my….get it…3 year old. I told them I’m not huge on applying politics where it’s irrelevant if it’s not affecting the product. And that was it, everything went cold, and I ended up getting asked by my boss what I said. My kids are not even aware there are other people in this world with the same name yet, and I offended someone by just mentioning a daycare center. And it’s a death by a thousand cuts, I’ll just pull back more I suppose.
- mlac 5y ago
  Yeah. I’d like to run for office one day, but I would need the wife fully on board and I don’t want it to impact the kid(s). I don’t post really anything on social media, but I do have this account. I believe that if I do run for office that the things I’ve written here, in the context of today, will be dug up and taken out of context then. But I need to develop my thinking somewhere, and oddly enough this site has the most civil discourse I can find. I don’t want to give up my anonymity and I don’t feel right now is the right time. Right now, candidates are pigeon holed into two extremes, so I’m ok waiting on the sidelines and learning and reading more. I think what you bring up, and the cost of running for office (e.g. it could screw up your career if you’re targeted with a smear campaign) definitely limits the pool of candidates. It’s definitely a sacrifice, especially if you lose. It turns you into a lightning rod, has the potential to ruin about half of your relationships, could wreck your career, and puts your anonymity and personal security in jeopardy. But I appreciate the opportunity that being born in this country gave me. And I feel a responsibility to do my part to provide those opportunities for the next generation and those who want to come here from around the world.
908B64B197 5y ago
> The true reason is to make it impossible to speak your mind without fear of retribution I've seen this with Diversity and Inclusion. You can't openly be against it or suggest that the bar was lowered for someone. So instead it's discussed behind closed doors, and you hear things like "You know X is here for the right reasons. He went to Y and is Asian so you know he's qualified". Else you end up like the cancelled MIT lecturer.

by _0ffh 5y ago

HWR_14 5y ago

You think the push to deanonymize is to censor people? It's to extract more value from them. It's for more ads, more dynamic pricing, etc. Meanwhile, the enlightenment was specifically when a wide variety of viewpoints started getting published.

throw63738 5y ago
Is deanonymization going to drive more engagement?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
_0ffh 5y ago
>It's to extract more value from them. It's for more ads, more dynamic pricing, etc. Yes, this is a good point. But in my mind this is more of an incidental convenience, not the primary reason. >Meanwhile, the enlightenment was specifically when a wide variety of viewpoints started getting published. Exactly! And when was it easier than now, or even possible, to get access to practically the whole variety of viewpoints? Everyone can now play an active part in the conversation with barely any barriers at all.
- naravara 5y ago
  > Everyone can now play an active part in the conversation with barely any barriers at all. There are barriers. What people will actually see are mediated by algorithms that favor certain styles of presentation and types of content. It takes a fair amount of knowledge to not just make a point, but make it in a way that will gain traction rather than being shouted into a void. That knowledge comes from refinement and practice. It's why everyone on Twitter starts to sound the same once they get a big follower count. The likes and shares are actually training them to talk about certain things and certain ways through a reinforcement loop.
treeman79 5y ago
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/jesse-kline-china-and-india-censor-the-internet-and-canadas-liberals-are-jealous https://nationalpost.com/opinion/jesse-kline-china-and-india... Censorship is here and a big deal.
Zpalmtree 5y ago
It's probably both
seoulmetro 5y ago
It's all of the above. Censorship, control, easier to target (for ads, etc.). Basically it's just tagging everyone like the sheep that we are. Terribly scary for anyone who isn't already brainwashed.

Hokusai 5y ago

> The democratisation of the public discourse haunts and frightens the ruling classes to their bones. "democratization" does not exist in social media. Algorithms designed to maximize profit rule what people read and watch. It's not a meritocracy, and you even can buy credibility of you want. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dum0bqWfiGw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dum0bqWfiGw) So, be careful on thinking that no rules means that everybody has the same opportunities.

fouric 5y ago
Social media is indeed not "democratic" - but the reasons that you gave are completely wrong. "Algorithms designed to maximize profit" are a feature of specific social networks - Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, TikTok - not the concept of social networks. For instance: Mastodon/Fediverse. Sure, it's not popular at all - but it's still social media without manipulative profit-maximizing algorithms. So, if anything, the issue is with those algorithms, or specific platforms.
- naravara 5y ago
  The profit-maximizing algorithms are ad-supported, which means they maximize profit by maximizing engagement time and attention. This means things that don't maximize around those things will inherently be disadvantaged against the manipulative ones (barring regulation against the manipulation or some sort of very unlikely social movement to consciously eschew the manipulative ones). As long as this particular set of incentives are in place, the algorithm problem is going to be a feature of the universe of social networks.
  - wintermutestwin 5y ago
    >inherently be disadvantaged If the only measure of social platform success is $. I'd say the true measure is adoption and the existing players are not on such strong fortifications by that measure. The existing platforms are begging to be disrupted by non-profit or benefit corps. It's not like you would need FB's salary budget to build a more healthy social platform.

mrtksn 5y ago

But retribution is an important social construct. Sometimes, you speak your mind and get retribution. Sometimes you deserve it however if you are not getting a fair one people side with you. I know that this is very unpopular opinion but there are very few cases where anonymity is useful. The rest is mostly useful for the abusive ones. Instead of banning people and removing content, I would prefer losing anonymity. I actually think that we can have the best of both worlds. What if we remain anonymous to the discussion parties but guaranteed linked identity to the systems that host us? If someone does something very bad, the identity could be revealed, i.e. doxxed. This way, many can self watch their behavior and remain anonymous. So when the time comes and you post something objectionable or the mods flag you, the system can present you the option to remove your last post and lock your account OR override the mods, keep the content and reveal your identity. It’s a shame that the current norm of dealing with people on the internet is to remove their content and lock them out. In my opinion, everyone should be guaranteed right to speak. If the the thing they do is illegal, punish them through the legal system but don’t silence them.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
q1w2 5y ago
Maybe it would be interesting to have different platforms that have different levels of anonymity so that we can see what sort of conversations would form differently. We also have to remember that internationally, the standards for what is acceptable speech is wildly different, so de-anonymization can literally cause people to be imprisoned and/or killed. In my opinion, highly moderated forums tend to have their conversations reduced to low-value self-reinforcing memes/jokes/self-congratulations/hate-for-the-other-party. But more importantly, there are certain truths that would go unspoken in a completely de-anonymous internet. ...and as forum providers consolidate ever-closer to governments, that class of illegal words gets larger.
- mrtksn 5y ago
  > We also have to remember that internationally, the standards for what is acceptable speech is wildly different, so de-anonymization can literally cause people to be imprisoned and/or killed. That’s the one of the few rare cases where anonymity is important. Add whistlelowers etc. to the mix but these are edge cases that can have specialized mechanisms. For many cases the default approach could be good enough though. Your identity will be encrypted in the system and when the moderators of a specific platform think that you are a trouble, they lock you and remove your content but they don’t know your identity. It’s up to you to unlock your account by revealing your identity. So, you can simply post to places that are not hostile to you and you stay anonymous. Russians journalists can post to American forums for example.

heavyset_go 5y ago

> Entirely true, but it is also not the reason for the push to de-anonymise (and de-pseudonymise) the internet. It is merely the pretext. The true reason is to make it impossible to speak your mind without fear of retribution. The democratisation of the public discourse haunts and frightens the ruling classes to their bones. The broad dissemination of information and opinions was firmly in the hands of a feudalistic elite until just a few decades ago. Social media companies are fiefdoms whose real customers are other companies and individuals with large piles of money that want to use it to sway public opinion for profit or power. YouTube et al. had no problem taking plenty of Mercer money to promote things like Brexit and other content that shifts focus away from those in power to other working class individuals. All someone with enough money has to do is pay to run promoted content on the platforms and it will be disseminated instantly to billions of eyeballs. Social media platform owners and operators regularly remove content that might rock the boat. They already know that governments will pull the kill switch on them should real unrest happen, because it's happened countless times before. That's bad for revenue, so they play ball with people in power.

gremloni 5y ago

Let’s not make this about purely a class war. There are terrible people online that “speak their mind” and foment racial and sexist hate. Banning individual anonymous accounts is the best way forward. I don’t want to be deanonymized and I don’t want speaking your mind online to lead to a rolling stone that gathers hate as it goes.

croutonwagon 5y ago

I will say. Over the last year I have more and more just pulled back. I have regularly wiped my Reddit account, come back for a bit, notes the toxicity and blatant bias and wiped it again. Within my circle of friends I no longer really discuss current events or politics. Once a pastime of challenging our beliefs and opinions has kinda just….stopped. And most are pretty moderate and more just burned out from the toxicity of others that we prefer not to engage it even in a relatively “safe” quarters because well, even some of our peers that traditionally have been level headed are less so and you never know who you will offend now. For the most part I really only pull information now from RSS feeds. I no longer even seek out discussion. I just try and get a high level overview and call it good. There’s a part of me that wants to discuss these things. But yeah, many are just over the top. I was discussing daycares with some colleagues at work over the “water cooler” and where we sent our kids. I mentioned the one we used because someone asked how it was. I gave them a rundown of my experience and someone else said the owners were “deplorable” and “advertised on xyz radio” and they were probably brain washing my….get it…3 year old. I told them I’m not huge on applying politics where it’s irrelevant if it’s not affecting the product. And that was it, everything went cold, and I ended up getting asked by my boss what I said. My kids are not even aware there are other people in this world with the same name yet, and I offended someone by just mentioning a daycare center. And it’s a death by a thousand cuts, I’ll just pull back more I suppose.

mlac 5y ago
Yeah. I’d like to run for office one day, but I would need the wife fully on board and I don’t want it to impact the kid(s). I don’t post really anything on social media, but I do have this account. I believe that if I do run for office that the things I’ve written here, in the context of today, will be dug up and taken out of context then. But I need to develop my thinking somewhere, and oddly enough this site has the most civil discourse I can find. I don’t want to give up my anonymity and I don’t feel right now is the right time. Right now, candidates are pigeon holed into two extremes, so I’m ok waiting on the sidelines and learning and reading more. I think what you bring up, and the cost of running for office (e.g. it could screw up your career if you’re targeted with a smear campaign) definitely limits the pool of candidates. It’s definitely a sacrifice, especially if you lose. It turns you into a lightning rod, has the potential to ruin about half of your relationships, could wreck your career, and puts your anonymity and personal security in jeopardy. But I appreciate the opportunity that being born in this country gave me. And I feel a responsibility to do my part to provide those opportunities for the next generation and those who want to come here from around the world.

908B64B197 5y ago

> The true reason is to make it impossible to speak your mind without fear of retribution I've seen this with Diversity and Inclusion. You can't openly be against it or suggest that the bar was lowered for someone. So instead it's discussed behind closed doors, and you hear things like "You know X is here for the right reasons. He went to Y and is Asian so you know he's qualified". Else you end up like the cancelled MIT lecturer.