4 ms·

>I also suggested a mechanism to stay anonymous as long as you are not causing problems. And who decides what constitutes "causing problems?" While the vast m

>I also suggested a mechanism to stay anonymous as long as you are not causing problems. And who decides what constitutes "causing problems?" While the vast majority of us (at least I hope so) would agree that violence and murder focused on a particular ethnic, religious or other group is a "problem," most other things have much less widespread support. I have some fairly unpopular ideas, as well as some that are more readily accepted. Should I be doxxed for expressing the thought that all drugs should be legal? For complaining vociferously about the business models of big social media companies? In fact, it doesn't really matter what position I take on pretty much anything (vi vs. emacs, vanilla vs. chocolate ice cream, pandemic policies, etc., etc., etc.), there are those who will disagree -- sometimes with respectful argument/discussion, sometimes with hyperbole and personal attacks, and depending on the topic, even with violence. There are some places in the US where criticizing Trump could get me ostracized, beaten or killed. And yet other places where taking the opposite position could have a similar effect. The hundred or so Hong Kong journalists and activists that are sitting in jails for advocating that the government adhere to its own constitution are there because they were "causing problems." And so I'll pose my question again: Who decides whether or not you, I or anyone else is "causing problems?"

mrtksn 5y ago
Causing problems constitutes whatever the management of the platform thinks so. I am proposing a right to overide management in exchange of giving up your anonymity when you have problem with the management of the platform if you think that you still want to participate in that platform. I'm proposing a system where platforms lose their ability to censor people if the people in question are ready to bear the personal responsibility of their actions.
- nobody9999 5y ago
  >I'm proposing a system where platforms lose their ability to censor people if the people in question are ready to bear the personal responsibility of their actions. It is an interesting idea. However, there are some serious issues with that approach: 1. The old adage, "If it's connected to the Internet, eventually it will be hacked/compromised," applies, potentially exposing the links between accounts and the identities of those who operate them en masse; 2. The business models of most of the big platforms rely upon knowing who you are, so they can pretend that they can "target" advertising effectively. As such, those platforms would never go for such a solution; 3. I go back to the question I initially asked you -- Who decides when someone is 'causing problems' that would trigger the requirement that one give up their anonymity? If the management of a platform is controlled or influenced by governments or powerful special interests, important conversations would likely be stifled by such policies. I'm all for cryptographic mechanisms (providing data integrity/non-repudiation) to identify individual actors (cf. stuff like this: https://pgp.key-server.io/ https://pgp.key-server.io/ ) and validate that they are who they say they are. However, forcing folks to use their "legal" identities to do so is a big mistake, given the propensity of others to harass and verbally/physically attack those with whom they disagree. Giving centralized platforms the ability to force doxxing if they don't like the content of a particular post is problematic at best, and life-threatening at worst.
  - mrtksn 5y ago
    I haven't worked out the cryptographic mechanisms but my ballpark assessment is that it should be possible to work out a mechanism that protects your identity up until you accept to exchange exposure for ability. The business model is probably more of an issue, as you pointed out. Oh BTW, it doesn't have to be a legal identity, I think. It could be some kind of identity that you build, it costs something and can be identical across platforms. The "costs something" doesn't have to be money, something that forces you to have just one practically. The NFT folks advocate for something like that. It could be a Instagram account with substantial number of followers(this one is problematic). Basically, something hard spawn without effort and consequences, something that you built on over time and you don't want to risk it by being a dick to someone. The government ID is a good one as the govt. acts as reliable identity provider with significant identification infrastructure but I don't like that much because a government can abuse it as they can generate ID's without significant effort.
    - nobody9999 5y ago
      >I haven't worked out the cryptographic mechanisms but my ballpark assessment is that it should be possible to work out a mechanism that protects your identity up until you accept to exchange exposure for ability. The business model is probably more of an issue, as you pointed out. Another piece to this that you haven't addressed is that in the environment you propose, once you've chosen to expose your identity, every single thing you've ever posted and will ever post is now de-anonymized. >Oh BTW, it doesn't have to be a legal identity, I think. It could be some kind of identity that you build, it costs something and can be identical across platforms. I'd note that's already the case. If you're pseudonymous and offend the powers that be on a particular platform, they can already ban/censor/block you. Please understand that I am not attacking you, nor am I dismissing your thoughts. There absolutely is merit in exploring ways to combat abuse/trolling/sundry nastiness online. Rather, I find your proposal unconvincing and likely unworkable. It would be way too easy to game such a system and it would impose serious consequences on anyone who might espouse an unpopular opinion -- even if that opinion isn't abusive. I sincerely hope that we can find ways to limit abusive/destructive behaviors online, but given that we've been unable to do so IRL when one's identity is already known, that seems incredibly unlikely.

mrtksn 5y ago

Causing problems constitutes whatever the management of the platform thinks so. I am proposing a right to overide management in exchange of giving up your anonymity when you have problem with the management of the platform if you think that you still want to participate in that platform. I'm proposing a system where platforms lose their ability to censor people if the people in question are ready to bear the personal responsibility of their actions.

nobody9999 5y ago
>I'm proposing a system where platforms lose their ability to censor people if the people in question are ready to bear the personal responsibility of their actions. It is an interesting idea. However, there are some serious issues with that approach: 1. The old adage, "If it's connected to the Internet, eventually it will be hacked/compromised," applies, potentially exposing the links between accounts and the identities of those who operate them en masse; 2. The business models of most of the big platforms rely upon knowing who you are, so they can pretend that they can "target" advertising effectively. As such, those platforms would never go for such a solution; 3. I go back to the question I initially asked you -- Who decides when someone is 'causing problems' that would trigger the requirement that one give up their anonymity? If the management of a platform is controlled or influenced by governments or powerful special interests, important conversations would likely be stifled by such policies. I'm all for cryptographic mechanisms (providing data integrity/non-repudiation) to identify individual actors (cf. stuff like this: https://pgp.key-server.io/ https://pgp.key-server.io/ ) and validate that they are who they say they are. However, forcing folks to use their "legal" identities to do so is a big mistake, given the propensity of others to harass and verbally/physically attack those with whom they disagree. Giving centralized platforms the ability to force doxxing if they don't like the content of a particular post is problematic at best, and life-threatening at worst.
- mrtksn 5y ago
  I haven't worked out the cryptographic mechanisms but my ballpark assessment is that it should be possible to work out a mechanism that protects your identity up until you accept to exchange exposure for ability. The business model is probably more of an issue, as you pointed out. Oh BTW, it doesn't have to be a legal identity, I think. It could be some kind of identity that you build, it costs something and can be identical across platforms. The "costs something" doesn't have to be money, something that forces you to have just one practically. The NFT folks advocate for something like that. It could be a Instagram account with substantial number of followers(this one is problematic). Basically, something hard spawn without effort and consequences, something that you built on over time and you don't want to risk it by being a dick to someone. The government ID is a good one as the govt. acts as reliable identity provider with significant identification infrastructure but I don't like that much because a government can abuse it as they can generate ID's without significant effort.
  - nobody9999 5y ago
    >I haven't worked out the cryptographic mechanisms but my ballpark assessment is that it should be possible to work out a mechanism that protects your identity up until you accept to exchange exposure for ability. The business model is probably more of an issue, as you pointed out. Another piece to this that you haven't addressed is that in the environment you propose, once you've chosen to expose your identity, every single thing you've ever posted and will ever post is now de-anonymized. >Oh BTW, it doesn't have to be a legal identity, I think. It could be some kind of identity that you build, it costs something and can be identical across platforms. I'd note that's already the case. If you're pseudonymous and offend the powers that be on a particular platform, they can already ban/censor/block you. Please understand that I am not attacking you, nor am I dismissing your thoughts. There absolutely is merit in exploring ways to combat abuse/trolling/sundry nastiness online. Rather, I find your proposal unconvincing and likely unworkable. It would be way too easy to game such a system and it would impose serious consequences on anyone who might espouse an unpopular opinion -- even if that opinion isn't abusive. I sincerely hope that we can find ways to limit abusive/destructive behaviors online, but given that we've been unable to do so IRL when one's identity is already known, that seems incredibly unlikely.