8 ms·

Its things like this that have made me start to think that anonymity on the internet does more harm then good. If every person who wrote comments online had to

Its things like this that have made me start to think that anonymity on the internet does more harm then good. If every person who wrote comments online had to have their own real name next to the comment, some of this abuse would be mitigated. True, it would make secret communication harder, but if I have documents I want published in the Washington Post, I could just fedex an envelope to Woodward and/or Bernstein.

zozbot234 5y ago
Anonymity on the internet would make it easier for people to tweet about trivial stuff without exposing their meatspace identity. The fact that we expect people to reveal their "Real Names" on social media is a huge facilitator for abuse.
- Miner49er 5y ago
  I thought the same thing, but then I thought more, and wouldn't the abuse still happen? If she was pseudo-anonymous, but still clearly a women, wouldn't these people still hate on her? They would just use her username rather then her real name. They'd still try and dox her as well. It doesn't seem like it would really solve the issue.
  - zozbot234 5y ago
    Why would they hate on her? She would be just a rando posting about her day at the gym, as opposed to a semi-public figure that people might want to pick a fight with for unrelated reasons. She wouldn't have to stand behind everything she posts with a public real-world identity, only the stuff that's actually relevant to, e.g. her broader work.
    - Miner49er 5y ago
      As a writer, isn't Twitter a place where she can do her job? I think her Twitter is a part of her work. So I was more thinking she would be totally pseduoanonymous (published writing and all). I wasn't picturing a split like you suggest. I don't think that really works with her career, her Twitter is part of her writing. Plus, part of her hate is from her "broader work". The comic that the Proud Boy guy targeted.
- munk-a 5y ago
  I think the core issue is the partial allowance for anonymity. I don't want to come across as saying an internet without any anonymity would be a better place - I'm quite on the fence and I can see clear problems at both extremes... but if that haters had their anonymity also revoked then I think it'd have a chilling effect on how much hate speech people are willing to put out there. If you are a notable public figure that calls out election fraud without much to back it up you might face removal from professional organizations or other loss of opportunity but your fame will be enough to crowd fund your continued comfortable lifestyle. If you're a pleb that does the same thing, and gets caught, you'll feel the full force of the law and while some doors in life might open to you out of shared sympathy a lot more doors are going to be closed either over an opposing view point or simply not wanting to pull someone who may be volatile again into close proximity of your company. So I think if anonymity was withdrawn from the internet a lot of these small fry folks would be a lot more cautious about throwing hate speech out so casually since it could significantly impact their lives - and hateful organizations would have a harder time recruiting and growing since people would be a lot more motivated to keep a pleasant outward appearance up. I think there's a fair amount of proof in this from how much more extreme the elderly tend to get as keeping up appearances to maintain your income gets removed from consideration. And, as mentioned above, there are a whole lot of negatives that come along with removing anonymity - again, I don't know what the right answer here is, I just see that there are obviously problems on each end.
  - zozbot234 5y ago
    > haters had their anonymity also revoked then I think it'd have a chilling effect on how much hate speech people are willing to put out there. This is empirically falsified. Look at the stuff people write on Facebook - lack of anonymity is no barrier. There are of course people who are expected to "keep up appearances", but they're a rare and self-selected bunch.
    - munk-a 5y ago
      I believe the amount of crap on Facebook actually is reduced from the stuff on places like 4chan... but I also believe that the existence of 4chan empowers people to act out in other parts of the internet because "But Timmy is getting an ice cream" - I'm not certain if there is a term for internally rationalized what-about-ism but I think that's a factor.
floatingatoll 5y ago
Privacy would be fine, as long as the identity is traceable by admins and authorities. We’ve experimented with true anonymity and it’s garbage for humanity, so now we need to come up with a better way to protect people from being identified except to admins and law enforcement, and pass laws to protect our right to keep our real life identity from being divulged maliciously.
- lambic 5y ago
  What if the admins and law enforcement are working for an authoritarian regime?
  - floatingatoll 5y ago
    Authoritarian countries that actively seek to identify and prosecute their citizens for thoughtcrimes have simply compelled citizens to install tracking apps and/or use government-monitored data centers and/or SSL proxies that de-anonymize them, largely removing their ability to make use of whatever online anonymity remains, if they’re even allowed to access our Internet at all. Their access to anonymity from authorities online is therefore neutralized, as countries such as Russia and China and North Korea are all demonstrating today. Meanwhile, lots of people (especially women and minorities) in non-authoritarian countries on the Internet are being threatened, harmed, or killed (for example, by SWATting) by anonymous people in the Internet. What arguments exist that support non-accountable anonymity online in today’s world, now that we’ve seen the outcomes of endorsing those argument three decades ago and the resulting harm to societies?
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
      - floatingatoll 5y ago
        I disagree. The vast majority of SWATting has not been considered worth prosecuting, much less targeted hate speech directed at women. We are nowhere near the absolute minimum that societies enforce in-person.
detaro 5y ago
Pretty much every news site with a Facebook-based comment section gives you pretty good idea what kind of things people are willing write under real identities.
evilotto 5y ago
This was a plot point in "Version Zero" - a hacker connected the real identities of that universe's 4chan and crossposted them to that universe's facebook.
lambic 5y ago
Using real names just means the John Smiths of the world can say what they want while Sally-Annabel Numblenuts has to be careful.
cycomanic 5y ago
I saw some post from a news magazine who actually called back people who had left threatening messages on electoral helpers phones. None of them felt like they did anything wrong. So I'm not sure if people would not do this without being anonymous.
lmkg 5y ago
The opening anecdote is about a video posted by a person who is widely known and recognized for promoting that type of content. In fact, founded a public organization based around it. Anonymity would keep out the cowards, but that may or may not be a substantial portion.
Zababa 5y ago
Anonymity is pretty useful when you're a young LGBT and try to find people online to talk about this because you're not in the right environment IRL. It's naive to think that anonymity will ony benefit harassers. You can see on twitter that lots of them are harassing this person without being anonymous. In the end, anonymity is neutral. It'll benefit people and not benefit others.
stjohnswarts 5y ago
It doesn't though. The internet (along with anonymity) is a tool. You can't ban hammers because you can beat someone's brains out with them because we also need them to build homes, tear down walls, and hold down papers.
lnxg33k1 5y ago
I'm not sure I agree with you at all, removing anonymity has serious and real consequences, but having it, with all due respect to the women, is just being offended by some randomer on the Twitter that you can always block and delete

zozbot234 5y ago

Anonymity on the internet would make it easier for people to tweet about trivial stuff without exposing their meatspace identity. The fact that we expect people to reveal their "Real Names" on social media is a huge facilitator for abuse.

Miner49er 5y ago
I thought the same thing, but then I thought more, and wouldn't the abuse still happen? If she was pseudo-anonymous, but still clearly a women, wouldn't these people still hate on her? They would just use her username rather then her real name. They'd still try and dox her as well. It doesn't seem like it would really solve the issue.
- zozbot234 5y ago
  Why would they hate on her? She would be just a rando posting about her day at the gym, as opposed to a semi-public figure that people might want to pick a fight with for unrelated reasons. She wouldn't have to stand behind everything she posts with a public real-world identity, only the stuff that's actually relevant to, e.g. her broader work.
  - Miner49er 5y ago
    As a writer, isn't Twitter a place where she can do her job? I think her Twitter is a part of her work. So I was more thinking she would be totally pseduoanonymous (published writing and all). I wasn't picturing a split like you suggest. I don't think that really works with her career, her Twitter is part of her writing. Plus, part of her hate is from her "broader work". The comic that the Proud Boy guy targeted.
munk-a 5y ago
I think the core issue is the partial allowance for anonymity. I don't want to come across as saying an internet without any anonymity would be a better place - I'm quite on the fence and I can see clear problems at both extremes... but if that haters had their anonymity also revoked then I think it'd have a chilling effect on how much hate speech people are willing to put out there. If you are a notable public figure that calls out election fraud without much to back it up you might face removal from professional organizations or other loss of opportunity but your fame will be enough to crowd fund your continued comfortable lifestyle. If you're a pleb that does the same thing, and gets caught, you'll feel the full force of the law and while some doors in life might open to you out of shared sympathy a lot more doors are going to be closed either over an opposing view point or simply not wanting to pull someone who may be volatile again into close proximity of your company. So I think if anonymity was withdrawn from the internet a lot of these small fry folks would be a lot more cautious about throwing hate speech out so casually since it could significantly impact their lives - and hateful organizations would have a harder time recruiting and growing since people would be a lot more motivated to keep a pleasant outward appearance up. I think there's a fair amount of proof in this from how much more extreme the elderly tend to get as keeping up appearances to maintain your income gets removed from consideration. And, as mentioned above, there are a whole lot of negatives that come along with removing anonymity - again, I don't know what the right answer here is, I just see that there are obviously problems on each end.
- zozbot234 5y ago
  > haters had their anonymity also revoked then I think it'd have a chilling effect on how much hate speech people are willing to put out there. This is empirically falsified. Look at the stuff people write on Facebook - lack of anonymity is no barrier. There are of course people who are expected to "keep up appearances", but they're a rare and self-selected bunch.
  - munk-a 5y ago
    I believe the amount of crap on Facebook actually is reduced from the stuff on places like 4chan... but I also believe that the existence of 4chan empowers people to act out in other parts of the internet because "But Timmy is getting an ice cream" - I'm not certain if there is a term for internally rationalized what-about-ism but I think that's a factor.

floatingatoll 5y ago

Privacy would be fine, as long as the identity is traceable by admins and authorities. We’ve experimented with true anonymity and it’s garbage for humanity, so now we need to come up with a better way to protect people from being identified except to admins and law enforcement, and pass laws to protect our right to keep our real life identity from being divulged maliciously.

lambic 5y ago
What if the admins and law enforcement are working for an authoritarian regime?
- floatingatoll 5y ago
  Authoritarian countries that actively seek to identify and prosecute their citizens for thoughtcrimes have simply compelled citizens to install tracking apps and/or use government-monitored data centers and/or SSL proxies that de-anonymize them, largely removing their ability to make use of whatever online anonymity remains, if they’re even allowed to access our Internet at all. Their access to anonymity from authorities online is therefore neutralized, as countries such as Russia and China and North Korea are all demonstrating today. Meanwhile, lots of people (especially women and minorities) in non-authoritarian countries on the Internet are being threatened, harmed, or killed (for example, by SWATting) by anonymous people in the Internet. What arguments exist that support non-accountable anonymity online in today’s world, now that we’ve seen the outcomes of endorsing those argument three decades ago and the resulting harm to societies?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
    - floatingatoll 5y ago
      I disagree. The vast majority of SWATting has not been considered worth prosecuting, much less targeted hate speech directed at women. We are nowhere near the absolute minimum that societies enforce in-person.

detaro 5y ago

Pretty much every news site with a Facebook-based comment section gives you pretty good idea what kind of things people are willing write under real identities.

evilotto 5y ago

This was a plot point in "Version Zero" - a hacker connected the real identities of that universe's 4chan and crossposted them to that universe's facebook.

lambic 5y ago

Using real names just means the John Smiths of the world can say what they want while Sally-Annabel Numblenuts has to be careful.

cycomanic 5y ago

I saw some post from a news magazine who actually called back people who had left threatening messages on electoral helpers phones. None of them felt like they did anything wrong. So I'm not sure if people would not do this without being anonymous.

lmkg 5y ago

The opening anecdote is about a video posted by a person who is widely known and recognized for promoting that type of content. In fact, founded a public organization based around it. Anonymity would keep out the cowards, but that may or may not be a substantial portion.

Zababa 5y ago

Anonymity is pretty useful when you're a young LGBT and try to find people online to talk about this because you're not in the right environment IRL. It's naive to think that anonymity will ony benefit harassers. You can see on twitter that lots of them are harassing this person without being anonymous. In the end, anonymity is neutral. It'll benefit people and not benefit others.

stjohnswarts 5y ago

It doesn't though. The internet (along with anonymity) is a tool. You can't ban hammers because you can beat someone's brains out with them because we also need them to build homes, tear down walls, and hold down papers.

lnxg33k1 5y ago

I'm not sure I agree with you at all, removing anonymity has serious and real consequences, but having it, with all due respect to the women, is just being offended by some randomer on the Twitter that you can always block and delete