3 ms·
I prefer anonymity. Google knows too much about me already, I'd prefer they stop trying to make every fact about me known by the servers that serve me pages.
by maeon3 15y ago
I prefer anonymity. Google knows too much about me already, I'd prefer they stop trying to make every fact about me known by the servers that serve me pages. I don't want every link on the internet an opportunity for the authorities to stop that click event.
- ltamake 15y agoAgreed. Just because I may be anonymous doesn't automatically mean I'm evil.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- baddox 15y agoI don't understand how anonymity would work with a social network.
- dredmorbius 15y agoThat does pose some interesting questions. Simply drawing social graphs by itself is hugely informative. That said, a federated system in which I could present numerous identities of varying levels of persistence and/or repudiability could be of some interest.
- sixtofour 15y agoI have a lot of people in my G+ circles. I've never met 99% of them before G+. As far as I'm concerned John Smith is as anonymous to me as Sp00n B4nder, neither one has any context for me except what I read from them. And yet, I interact "socially" with them just fine, and I think of them as John Smith and Sp00n B4nder. It causes me zero problems. Names in this context are just labels, and I don't care what the labels say, I just care what they point to.
- protomyth 15y agoAs mentioned in jwz's post http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Papers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Papers makes a very interesting reference. You could kick around a very interesting model based on the method of publication. On the other hand, most people here really don't know who each other are except via the words written under a username.