3 ms·

The conclusion is a weird one, given the premise. The crux of the argument is basically true. Its an all or nothing proposition. Or you can lead a double life.

The conclusion is a weird one, given the premise. The crux of the argument is basically true. Its an all or nothing proposition. Or you can lead a double life. One for your public persona, where you don't care at all about security, and your real persona, where you do. This has been my approach on the internet since basically it started and handles were a common thing.

caslon 5y ago
With that in mind, you just might have posted this comment on the wrong account.
ReactiveJelly 5y ago
> The crux of the argument is basically true. Its an all or nothing proposition. No, it's not. Every online account (that doesn't involve money or legal paperwork) can have its own name. Then you can decide whether to have _some_ accounts ultimately link back to your legal name, or all accounts, or none. > Or you can lead a double life. ... This has been my approach on the internet since basically it started and handles were a common thing. That's exactly what I'm doing, and neither of us are living in the Brazilian rainforest, so anonymity really is a spectrum.
- numpad0 5y ago
  > Then you can decide whether to have _some_ accounts ultimately link back to your legal name, No, you don't. Someone else could, if there is one with high enough affection to you. I think you'll have to think of bulk ingestion and on-prem processing to be sure your activities won't trace back to you.
aqme28 5y ago
I don’t think it’s all or nothing. Look at anonymous public personas like Banksy or Dril. People have tracked them down, and you can look up who they are if you try. But for the most part these people are anonymous, and get to enjoy some of the benefits of that.
- wyclif 5y ago
  Handles like that provide plausible deniability, not bulletproof anonymity.
  - lmm 5y ago
    Which is kind of the point. You can choose where you stand on a spectrum of how hard it is to identify you. It's a tradeoff between how much effort you make and how hard you want to make it for others.

caslon 5y ago

With that in mind, you just might have posted this comment on the wrong account.

ReactiveJelly 5y ago

> The crux of the argument is basically true. Its an all or nothing proposition. No, it's not. Every online account (that doesn't involve money or legal paperwork) can have its own name. Then you can decide whether to have _some_ accounts ultimately link back to your legal name, or all accounts, or none. > Or you can lead a double life. ... This has been my approach on the internet since basically it started and handles were a common thing. That's exactly what I'm doing, and neither of us are living in the Brazilian rainforest, so anonymity really is a spectrum.

numpad0 5y ago
> Then you can decide whether to have _some_ accounts ultimately link back to your legal name, No, you don't. Someone else could, if there is one with high enough affection to you. I think you'll have to think of bulk ingestion and on-prem processing to be sure your activities won't trace back to you.

aqme28 5y ago

I don’t think it’s all or nothing. Look at anonymous public personas like Banksy or Dril. People have tracked them down, and you can look up who they are if you try. But for the most part these people are anonymous, and get to enjoy some of the benefits of that.

wyclif 5y ago
Handles like that provide plausible deniability, not bulletproof anonymity.
- lmm 5y ago
  Which is kind of the point. You can choose where you stand on a spectrum of how hard it is to identify you. It's a tradeoff between how much effort you make and how hard you want to make it for others.