7 ms·

disagree with this take. It might stifle free speech but in my book it does not stifle democracy, and reducing the latter to the former is a mistake. I think th

disagree with this take. It might stifle free speech but in my book it does not stifle democracy, and reducing the latter to the former is a mistake. I think the basic unit of democracy is the citizen, and the citizen is not a private person. Being a citizen means participating in public life, and public life brings with it, trust, accountability and reputation. I do not belief at all that such a thing as an anonymous democracy can exist. Anonymity might be a useful tool against certain forms of authority, that is to say it can guard certain negative rights, but i think it is an absolutely wrong tool to build a community in any active sense, because to be part of a community means to have an identity and be accountable. I think anonymity is appropriate for whistleblowers or transparency activists, but not for ordinary people who wish to participate in public and political life or discourse. I also don't buy the argument of the article that power imbalance justifies anonymity. People in power are not wrong just because they are in power. They should have the same recourse against say, vile attacks or defamation that anyone else has. This 'stick it to the man' impulse that allows viciousness in discourse just because there are imbalances in power is i think a form of misguided egalitarianism. HN is I think a good example. Quite a lot of people here have their real names attached to their accounts, those that don't at least comment under a consistent pseudonym, the site is quite harsh when it comes to avoiding bans. This elevates the discussions here compared to completely anonymous websites which are effectively a toxic swamp. If I had to pick between the HN democracy and the 4chan democracy, I knew what I would pick.

chmod775 5y ago
> I think anonymity is appropriate for whistleblowers or transparency activists, I guess the state should get to decide who qualifies? That'll work out swimmingly.
- notriddle 5y ago
  No, it obviously should not be the state that decides something like this. This is journalists' work. The most difficult part of whistleblowing is proving that any of this stuff is happening. If I started posting on HN about a black market for human baby meat, you probably wouldn't even see it: pg would ban me almost immediately as a troll, and he'd be right to do so. But what if there actually is one? (and I'm not even really anonymous; if you want to, you can find my real name) A journalist who knows the real identity of an anonymous informant has the ability to prove that they are who they say they are, and that the stuff they're trying to blow the cover of is actually happening. You don't know the identity of the informant, but there is still a real-world identity and reputation tied to the information, which is at least supposed to mean that if they're full of crap, you don't listen to them next time. There is, simply put, a chain of custody for reliable information.
actusual 5y ago
> I think the basic unit of democracy is the citizen, and the citizen is not a private person. Being a citizen means participating in public life, and public life brings with it, trust, accountability and reputation. I disagree with this, mostly for the reason that the requirement for trust, accountability and reputation to exist in a society is different person to person when conditioned on wealth. If I have massive wealth, I can participate in society and democracy entirely anonymously. I vote, which is anonymous, and that's it. I have no requirement for trust, accountability and reputation. Not only that but trust, accountability and reputation are all subjective measures based on who is measuring them. Mark Zuckerberg is trustworthy, accountable, and has high reputation for some folks at FB, while a large number of other people would disagree with that. Who's opinion matters? Has his measures of trust, accountability and reputation changed over time? Additionally, trust, accountability and reputation don't matter to him if he's still one of the richest people on earth.
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  I agree with you about voting. But if I'm speaking, reputation usually matters. People want to know whether to assign credibility to what I say, and knowing who I am plays a large part in that. Now, HN is an interesting example of that. Anyone can read my comment history (unless I create a throwaway for one post), but nobody knows who I am (unless I make my name and/or email address public). Still, I can build up a reputation here, either good or bad. And I do the same for others. "Oh, user X usually has interesting things to say. I was maybe going to skip this comment, but because of who wrote it, I'll read it." Some users get that extra benefit of the doubt, because with me they have built up credibility over time. This happens in politics, too. Consider the Federalist Papers. At the time, the writers were not known, but they built up a consistent, solid argument. We respect them now, not because of who the writers were, but because of the quality of the material. (If anything, we respect the writers more because of what they wrote, not the other way around.) So this can work in politics - people with a reputation, and still anonymous. But then there's Q. Q has built up a reputation (both good and bad) while remaining anonymous. But my personal conspiracy theory is that Q was a Russian disinformation campaign. ("Was" is perhaps too optimistic - I would expect Q to re-emerge as we get to the 2022 or 2024 elections.) I would really like to know who Q was, in order that people would have a better basis for judging what Q says.
ashtonkem 5y ago
I think such takes have to contend with the fact that the biggest social media cesspool is the one with the least anonymity: Facebook.
- actusual 5y ago
  This is a really interesting point. While some "social media" hubs are much more toxic (think 8 chan), their reach is largely neutered because the upside just isn't there for the average citizen.
  - ashtonkem 5y ago
    I think anonymity, non-anonymity, and pseudonyms are all pretty nuanced, and don’t have as linear an impact on the discourse as is commonly represented. We all know of anonymous forums that are utter cesspools, such as 4chan. We’ve also probably been part of forums and social media sites where pseudonyms were the norm, yet everyone jealously protected their good name and comported themself according to the norms and expectations of that community. Scale, social cohesion, moderation quality, and other site decisions have a huge impact on how people behave, possibly bigger than whether or not people use their real names.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
int_19h 5y ago
100 million people is not a "community". Even 100 thousand is not a "community". You're right that anonymity is not how you build proper communities. But proper communities can only operate on a scale much smaller than any social media. Now, a Facebook group might be a community - but then surely it should be up to its members to decide how to deal with anonymity?
- spywaregorilla 5y ago
  What if it's members are secretly 70% shills and bots, and the community itself is somewhat of an illusion
  - int_19h 5y ago
    Then the remaining 30% should probably just go elsewhere?
    - spywaregorilla 5y ago
      But how would you know? What if you're looking for a new community and the one you find is already compromised but from all outsider views seems to be a healthy source of expertise on a topic?
      - int_19h 5y ago
        I find it very doubtful that a community that's mostly bots would "seem to be a healthy source of expertise" from the outside. If you're only looking at the materials that the community itself publishes (i.e. group description etc) - then sure, but that's not doing one's due diligence. But even if you can't see it from the outside, it's not like it's a one-way door. Regardless, what do you suggest as a remediation? By definition, if it looks good to the outsiders, how could the outsiders meaningfully moderate it?
        spywaregorilla 5y ago
        >I find it very doubtful that a community that's mostly bots would "seem to be a healthy source of expertise" from the outside. If you're only looking at the materials that the community itself publishes (i.e. group description etc) - then sure, but that's not doing one's due diligence. What about one human and 100 bot slaves that help his content gain the appearance of social agreement and importance? I also think the bar for the appearance of expertise is basically nothing if you're new to the area. I'm a fan of removing anonymity from sufficiently large platforms personally.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
ghoward 5y ago
> It might stifle free speech but in my book it does not stifle democracy, and reducing the latter to the former is a mistake. Curious: how do you have democracy without free speech? To me, it seems that free speech is a prerequisite for democracy. If it does not exist, then how can ordinary citizens enact change?

chmod775 5y ago

> I think anonymity is appropriate for whistleblowers or transparency activists, I guess the state should get to decide who qualifies? That'll work out swimmingly.

notriddle 5y ago
No, it obviously should not be the state that decides something like this. This is journalists' work. The most difficult part of whistleblowing is proving that any of this stuff is happening. If I started posting on HN about a black market for human baby meat, you probably wouldn't even see it: pg would ban me almost immediately as a troll, and he'd be right to do so. But what if there actually is one? (and I'm not even really anonymous; if you want to, you can find my real name) A journalist who knows the real identity of an anonymous informant has the ability to prove that they are who they say they are, and that the stuff they're trying to blow the cover of is actually happening. You don't know the identity of the informant, but there is still a real-world identity and reputation tied to the information, which is at least supposed to mean that if they're full of crap, you don't listen to them next time. There is, simply put, a chain of custody for reliable information.

actusual 5y ago

> I think the basic unit of democracy is the citizen, and the citizen is not a private person. Being a citizen means participating in public life, and public life brings with it, trust, accountability and reputation. I disagree with this, mostly for the reason that the requirement for trust, accountability and reputation to exist in a society is different person to person when conditioned on wealth. If I have massive wealth, I can participate in society and democracy entirely anonymously. I vote, which is anonymous, and that's it. I have no requirement for trust, accountability and reputation. Not only that but trust, accountability and reputation are all subjective measures based on who is measuring them. Mark Zuckerberg is trustworthy, accountable, and has high reputation for some folks at FB, while a large number of other people would disagree with that. Who's opinion matters? Has his measures of trust, accountability and reputation changed over time? Additionally, trust, accountability and reputation don't matter to him if he's still one of the richest people on earth.

AnimalMuppet 5y ago
I agree with you about voting. But if I'm speaking, reputation usually matters. People want to know whether to assign credibility to what I say, and knowing who I am plays a large part in that. Now, HN is an interesting example of that. Anyone can read my comment history (unless I create a throwaway for one post), but nobody knows who I am (unless I make my name and/or email address public). Still, I can build up a reputation here, either good or bad. And I do the same for others. "Oh, user X usually has interesting things to say. I was maybe going to skip this comment, but because of who wrote it, I'll read it." Some users get that extra benefit of the doubt, because with me they have built up credibility over time. This happens in politics, too. Consider the Federalist Papers. At the time, the writers were not known, but they built up a consistent, solid argument. We respect them now, not because of who the writers were, but because of the quality of the material. (If anything, we respect the writers more because of what they wrote, not the other way around.) So this can work in politics - people with a reputation, and still anonymous. But then there's Q. Q has built up a reputation (both good and bad) while remaining anonymous. But my personal conspiracy theory is that Q was a Russian disinformation campaign. ("Was" is perhaps too optimistic - I would expect Q to re-emerge as we get to the 2022 or 2024 elections.) I would really like to know who Q was, in order that people would have a better basis for judging what Q says.

ashtonkem 5y ago

I think such takes have to contend with the fact that the biggest social media cesspool is the one with the least anonymity: Facebook.

actusual 5y ago
This is a really interesting point. While some "social media" hubs are much more toxic (think 8 chan), their reach is largely neutered because the upside just isn't there for the average citizen.
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  I think anonymity, non-anonymity, and pseudonyms are all pretty nuanced, and don’t have as linear an impact on the discourse as is commonly represented. We all know of anonymous forums that are utter cesspools, such as 4chan. We’ve also probably been part of forums and social media sites where pseudonyms were the norm, yet everyone jealously protected their good name and comported themself according to the norms and expectations of that community. Scale, social cohesion, moderation quality, and other site decisions have a huge impact on how people behave, possibly bigger than whether or not people use their real names.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

int_19h 5y ago

100 million people is not a "community". Even 100 thousand is not a "community". You're right that anonymity is not how you build proper communities. But proper communities can only operate on a scale much smaller than any social media. Now, a Facebook group might be a community - but then surely it should be up to its members to decide how to deal with anonymity?

spywaregorilla 5y ago
What if it's members are secretly 70% shills and bots, and the community itself is somewhat of an illusion
- int_19h 5y ago
  Then the remaining 30% should probably just go elsewhere?
  - spywaregorilla 5y ago
    But how would you know? What if you're looking for a new community and the one you find is already compromised but from all outsider views seems to be a healthy source of expertise on a topic?
    - int_19h 5y ago
      I find it very doubtful that a community that's mostly bots would "seem to be a healthy source of expertise" from the outside. If you're only looking at the materials that the community itself publishes (i.e. group description etc) - then sure, but that's not doing one's due diligence. But even if you can't see it from the outside, it's not like it's a one-way door. Regardless, what do you suggest as a remediation? By definition, if it looks good to the outsiders, how could the outsiders meaningfully moderate it?
      - spywaregorilla 5y ago
        >I find it very doubtful that a community that's mostly bots would "seem to be a healthy source of expertise" from the outside. If you're only looking at the materials that the community itself publishes (i.e. group description etc) - then sure, but that's not doing one's due diligence. What about one human and 100 bot slaves that help his content gain the appearance of social agreement and importance? I also think the bar for the appearance of expertise is basically nothing if you're new to the area. I'm a fan of removing anonymity from sufficiently large platforms personally.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

ghoward 5y ago

> It might stifle free speech but in my book it does not stifle democracy, and reducing the latter to the former is a mistake. Curious: how do you have democracy without free speech? To me, it seems that free speech is a prerequisite for democracy. If it does not exist, then how can ordinary citizens enact change?