4 ms·

I'm personally not a fan of anonymity on the web, most people are using it to insult others, being racists, bigoted and cowardly telling you things they wouldn'

I'm personally not a fan of anonymity on the web, most people are using it to insult others, being racists, bigoted and cowardly telling you things they wouldn't tell you to your face. If you live under a repressive government or need to whistle-blow, then sure, post your critics on an anonymous blog or to wikileaks, but apart from these rare cases, people should take responsibility for what they say and stop the annoying coward attacks. This is how it works in real life, when you have a comment or critic to do, you show your face and who you are before talking.

celoyd 15y ago
But we’re not talking about anonymity on the web, we’re talking about choice of names in a certain social network. I’m less likely to use G+ when I can’t use it to talk to people who aren’t using the form of their name that’s on their birth certificate. That’s quite different from anonymous griefers.
- patrickaljord 15y ago
  > I’m less likely to use G+ when I can’t use it to talk to people who aren’t using the form of their name that’s on their birth certificate. Google+ doesn't force you to use the name that is on your birth certificate. They say you can use what most people call you so you aren't force to use your full second names for example. For example, if your name on your bc is Patrick John David Smith, G+ says it's ok to just use Patrick Smith if that is what most people call you.
  - celoyd 15y ago
    That’s true; I was exaggerating. I’m on G+ using a highly conventional nickname for my given name, on the order of Meg for Megan. The problem here is that many people have legitimate reasons to, for example, go by more than one name. Always having to use your most popular name is simply not good enough in many cases. I think most people are fine with Google trying to discourage lightweight throwaways on their service. What upsets people is what seems like an inflexibility that isn’t in Google’s own interests. Advertising to me under an “alternate” name is not significantly less efective than under my most popular name. If I’m willing to use a name to socially network, clearly I have some significant commitment to it; functionally, it is a real name. I don’t want to rehash all the arguments here, though. I just wanted to point out that requiring “real” names is not necessary or sufficient to prevent G+ from being 4chan, and shouldn’t be conflated with that.
mkr-hn 15y ago
On the flip side, those who advocate for real names are often those in the best position to not be harmed by the consequences of discussing their social/political/etc. views in public.
stmartin 15y ago
You assume that being racist, bigoted and cowardly has no use - but it does. The web can have a therapeutic use as well as people need to let the bad and the ugly stuff out somewhere, not just the good stuff. What you're preaching is - unless you've got something nice to say, don't say it at all. Fine. That's only ONE use, but you cannot ignore the less than noble motives of everyone. E.g. you're a complainer. You just complained about how the web should be used. That's a legit complaint. It's not ugly or bad, but it is a complaint. You're telling people what they should do vs shouldn't. Did you not feel good after you wrote that? And do I necessarily need to know who is behind the moniker 'patrickaljord' for you to get your effect from your complaint? Not really... If Eric Schmidt wants us to stop using nicknames, maybe he should invite us over for a coffee to his house and build a relationship with each of the users he asks to be known rather than anonymous... That might help toward his goal. He's building an impersonal service and asking for people to be personal... it doesn't work like that. Technology isn't the end... it's a means to an end and Eric's treatment isn't such. He treats it as the end....
prof_hobart 15y ago
I really don't get this "don't say it online unless you'd be prepared to say it to their face". Does this mean that I shouldn't be prepared to express opinions unless I'm prepared to defend myself physically for holding those opinions? As I've mentioned elsewhere in this thread, I argue regularly (using a pseudonym) on one of my local football team's forums against a group of racists. Those racists are people who I'm pretty certain have used violence in the past, and I'm pretty certain would be more than happy to use violence in the future. I'm personally not a violent person, so should I simply keep quiet and let the voices of those prepared to use violence be the only ones that are heard?
- patrickaljord 15y ago
  These racists probably wouldn't post their racist coward attacks if they couldn't post them anonymously. Whether you argue with them using your real name or not won't change their opinion and won't change the fact that anonymity allowed them to spew their racists comments in the first place, you're wasting your time. Oh, and if you know who they are and know they attack people violently, you should call the police.
  - icebraining 15y ago
    >These racists probably wouldn't post their racist coward attacks if they couldn't post them anonymously. You don't get out much, do you?
    - patrickaljord 15y ago
      I was born in Paris, France. Lived in Syria for 5 years then I got back to Paris and now I live in Arequipa, Peru. How about you dear?
      - prof_hobart 15y ago
        And you still think that violent racist football fans all hide behind anonymous names on the internet? How sweet.
masterzora 15y ago
most people are using it to insult others, being racists, bigoted and cowardly telling you things they wouldn't tell you to your face I always hate this argument. I honestly don't give a flying fuck what most people are using it for if there exists a nontrivial contingent of people who are using it for legitimate purposes and, trust me, there are a fair number of people using anonymity and pseudonymity for legitimate purposes.
- patrickaljord 15y ago
  I acknowledged that fact in my comment, if you need anonymity, use a private blog or wikileaks or tor or the tons of other solutions there are out there.
  - masterzora 15y ago
    You acknowledged limited and narrow cases. Taking even one example, there are a number of transgendered people holding conversations on online forums anonymously or pseudonymously because of potential IRL consequences if people they knew linked them to the posts. Giving these communities this sort of safe haven is worth all of the asshole anonymous posts we see across the web, and they're only one example.
    - patrickaljord 15y ago
      I talked about opening a private blog, a private forum would be fine too for people who need to remain anonymous.

celoyd 15y ago

But we’re not talking about anonymity on the web, we’re talking about choice of names in a certain social network. I’m less likely to use G+ when I can’t use it to talk to people who aren’t using the form of their name that’s on their birth certificate. That’s quite different from anonymous griefers.

patrickaljord 15y ago
> I’m less likely to use G+ when I can’t use it to talk to people who aren’t using the form of their name that’s on their birth certificate. Google+ doesn't force you to use the name that is on your birth certificate. They say you can use what most people call you so you aren't force to use your full second names for example. For example, if your name on your bc is Patrick John David Smith, G+ says it's ok to just use Patrick Smith if that is what most people call you.
- celoyd 15y ago
  That’s true; I was exaggerating. I’m on G+ using a highly conventional nickname for my given name, on the order of Meg for Megan. The problem here is that many people have legitimate reasons to, for example, go by more than one name. Always having to use your most popular name is simply not good enough in many cases. I think most people are fine with Google trying to discourage lightweight throwaways on their service. What upsets people is what seems like an inflexibility that isn’t in Google’s own interests. Advertising to me under an “alternate” name is not significantly less efective than under my most popular name. If I’m willing to use a name to socially network, clearly I have some significant commitment to it; functionally, it is a real name. I don’t want to rehash all the arguments here, though. I just wanted to point out that requiring “real” names is not necessary or sufficient to prevent G+ from being 4chan, and shouldn’t be conflated with that.

mkr-hn 15y ago

On the flip side, those who advocate for real names are often those in the best position to not be harmed by the consequences of discussing their social/political/etc. views in public.

stmartin 15y ago

You assume that being racist, bigoted and cowardly has no use - but it does. The web can have a therapeutic use as well as people need to let the bad and the ugly stuff out somewhere, not just the good stuff. What you're preaching is - unless you've got something nice to say, don't say it at all. Fine. That's only ONE use, but you cannot ignore the less than noble motives of everyone. E.g. you're a complainer. You just complained about how the web should be used. That's a legit complaint. It's not ugly or bad, but it is a complaint. You're telling people what they should do vs shouldn't. Did you not feel good after you wrote that? And do I necessarily need to know who is behind the moniker 'patrickaljord' for you to get your effect from your complaint? Not really... If Eric Schmidt wants us to stop using nicknames, maybe he should invite us over for a coffee to his house and build a relationship with each of the users he asks to be known rather than anonymous... That might help toward his goal. He's building an impersonal service and asking for people to be personal... it doesn't work like that. Technology isn't the end... it's a means to an end and Eric's treatment isn't such. He treats it as the end....

prof_hobart 15y ago

I really don't get this "don't say it online unless you'd be prepared to say it to their face". Does this mean that I shouldn't be prepared to express opinions unless I'm prepared to defend myself physically for holding those opinions? As I've mentioned elsewhere in this thread, I argue regularly (using a pseudonym) on one of my local football team's forums against a group of racists. Those racists are people who I'm pretty certain have used violence in the past, and I'm pretty certain would be more than happy to use violence in the future. I'm personally not a violent person, so should I simply keep quiet and let the voices of those prepared to use violence be the only ones that are heard?

patrickaljord 15y ago
These racists probably wouldn't post their racist coward attacks if they couldn't post them anonymously. Whether you argue with them using your real name or not won't change their opinion and won't change the fact that anonymity allowed them to spew their racists comments in the first place, you're wasting your time. Oh, and if you know who they are and know they attack people violently, you should call the police.
- icebraining 15y ago
  >These racists probably wouldn't post their racist coward attacks if they couldn't post them anonymously. You don't get out much, do you?
  - patrickaljord 15y ago
    I was born in Paris, France. Lived in Syria for 5 years then I got back to Paris and now I live in Arequipa, Peru. How about you dear?
    - prof_hobart 15y ago
      And you still think that violent racist football fans all hide behind anonymous names on the internet? How sweet.

masterzora 15y ago

most people are using it to insult others, being racists, bigoted and cowardly telling you things they wouldn't tell you to your face I always hate this argument. I honestly don't give a flying fuck what most people are using it for if there exists a nontrivial contingent of people who are using it for legitimate purposes and, trust me, there are a fair number of people using anonymity and pseudonymity for legitimate purposes.

patrickaljord 15y ago
I acknowledged that fact in my comment, if you need anonymity, use a private blog or wikileaks or tor or the tons of other solutions there are out there.
- masterzora 15y ago
  You acknowledged limited and narrow cases. Taking even one example, there are a number of transgendered people holding conversations on online forums anonymously or pseudonymously because of potential IRL consequences if people they knew linked them to the posts. Giving these communities this sort of safe haven is worth all of the asshole anonymous posts we see across the web, and they're only one example.
  - patrickaljord 15y ago
    I talked about opening a private blog, a private forum would be fine too for people who need to remain anonymous.