3 ms·

I think marvin has an excellent point: people as a universal culture tend to shun certain subjects and embrace others, and these change between nations, faiths,

I think marvin has an excellent point: people as a universal culture tend to shun certain subjects and embrace others, and these change between nations, faiths, etc.. The availability of an anonymous forum in which to address these shunned portions ideas is a useful tool when it is leveraged in the right way. There are many things people would not say if they were to be held personally accountable for their thoughts and feelings by those who would rather punish their "abnormal" beliefs than appreciate their candid honesty. I think the major issue here is the responsible use of the Anonymous tag. Too many hateful, prejudicial, or otherwise ignorant comments are tossed out from behind that shield of "you can't see me" that is the anonymous internet, and this becomes the norm by which others come to judge such communities. I firmly believe that our state of being as a society indicates there must be a striation in the internet: one where we are who we are, and one where we can discuss counter-culture or taboo subjects without fear of reprisal. Ideally these would be the same place, but realistically they cannot be until our society becomes much more accepting of itself. (Also, I've never commented on here, but HN is the Bee Knees.)

marvin 15y ago
You have a good point about people who hide behind anonymity just to cause damage. Thankfully, the latest generation of Internet forums has been able to keep these voices confined to places where they don't cause any damage, or, in the case of /b/, in an environment where they can actually generate something worthwhile. I'm not sure we will ever see a society which is so diverse and open that many of the views we see in internet forums could be brought into the wider public area. It would be awesome if this happened, because you often see groups of people who have interests and views which are considered unfit in most public gatherings (a mundane example that many of us are familiar with is simply admitting that you're a nerd and talking about a technically complicated subject), but which could flourish if the people who have them were brought together. There is an idea of "the normal" which almost everyone tries to adhere to, while repressing the ideas and impulses they really care about. In the meantime it is still very valuable to have a place where it's possible to be honest. There are way too many games and too much acting in Western society. This might be the case everywhere, but the West is the only culture I know well enough to be sure.
- heed 15y ago
  >In the meantime it is still very valuable to have a place where it's possible to be honest. It's also a place where you can be completely dishonest, make up stories, be someone else with almost no repercussions. I think most people are being honest on reddit or HN, but the small percent that like to make up stories, personas, etc. makes it difficult for me to fully trust many of the comments I come across.
  - throwaway32 15y ago
    just because you know somebody's name, doesn't make them honest either, if it did politics would be a whole different ballgame.
    - true_religion 15y ago
      It does mean that their lies can be tagged back against them. A name, a "real name" has a certain irrevocability to it.
      - Foolness 15y ago
        Not necessarily. I don't know of an official term but it's some form of authoritarian fallacy. The fallacy that tagging back to people's name is in some way a key to preventing anything. Like if you ban something and there's enough demand, government agencies would somehow be able to distinguish between who are criminals and who are accidental criminals and that their regulation will serve the needs of the good guys. Tagging identities can at most link back traces to a "guy". Doesn't mean it would ever scale to lie detection. Especially when one considers the virtue of lie detection as not being a zero sum game. A liar can use a pseudonym and not a real name and he can just as be caught. A better liar can acquire a fake "legal reality" real name and he can be just as hard to catch. Even in minor cases that only require modding, the name is not as important as a "history" and a history will always be there with things like IP addresses. The need for a real name is just an assurance to satisfy the fears of those who are looking less for solutions and more at assurances that an unknown environment like anonymous internet would work closer to the proximity of reality that are more known to us even though in reality, our understanding of reality is just as false. We can totally live in a world (especially for urban areas) where our next neighbors are terrorists and we wouldn't know any better even if we are friends with them and know their names. (Which is not to say they are but the issue of names is fueled by our fear of the unknown and media and service providers banking on our fears to justify such identification procedures.)
v21 15y ago
I don't see a way of distinguishing between bad behaviour and discussing taboo topics. They're so often the same thing - consider flat out racism or misogyny for example. An things get even more complicated when you consider /b/-like levels of irony and inversion of meaning, where it;s difficult to tell what is a incredibly subtle troll of racists, and what is actual racism. But I'm glad that the whole internet isn't /b/. I'm glad that terrible perspectives are often shunned from conversations. It's good to remember they're there, but if someone comes along and expresses terrible things then they should feel shame. And that only happens if those perspectives are not welcome, and are made to feel not welcome.
wetbrain 15y ago
I think the community has as much to do with discussion as anonymity. r/programming, r/technology, r/hacking are pretty simmilar in topic, though with less emphasis on buisiness/econ. But the comment style is totally different. As obvious as it is that community changes discussion quality, I think it's overlooked in the whole anonymity debate. HN's been doing just fine, for the most part. I haven't been here for long, but isn't HN at least as anonymous as reddit?

marvin 15y ago

You have a good point about people who hide behind anonymity just to cause damage. Thankfully, the latest generation of Internet forums has been able to keep these voices confined to places where they don't cause any damage, or, in the case of /b/, in an environment where they can actually generate something worthwhile. I'm not sure we will ever see a society which is so diverse and open that many of the views we see in internet forums could be brought into the wider public area. It would be awesome if this happened, because you often see groups of people who have interests and views which are considered unfit in most public gatherings (a mundane example that many of us are familiar with is simply admitting that you're a nerd and talking about a technically complicated subject), but which could flourish if the people who have them were brought together. There is an idea of "the normal" which almost everyone tries to adhere to, while repressing the ideas and impulses they really care about. In the meantime it is still very valuable to have a place where it's possible to be honest. There are way too many games and too much acting in Western society. This might be the case everywhere, but the West is the only culture I know well enough to be sure.

heed 15y ago
>In the meantime it is still very valuable to have a place where it's possible to be honest. It's also a place where you can be completely dishonest, make up stories, be someone else with almost no repercussions. I think most people are being honest on reddit or HN, but the small percent that like to make up stories, personas, etc. makes it difficult for me to fully trust many of the comments I come across.
- throwaway32 15y ago
  just because you know somebody's name, doesn't make them honest either, if it did politics would be a whole different ballgame.
  - true_religion 15y ago
    It does mean that their lies can be tagged back against them. A name, a "real name" has a certain irrevocability to it.
    - Foolness 15y ago
      Not necessarily. I don't know of an official term but it's some form of authoritarian fallacy. The fallacy that tagging back to people's name is in some way a key to preventing anything. Like if you ban something and there's enough demand, government agencies would somehow be able to distinguish between who are criminals and who are accidental criminals and that their regulation will serve the needs of the good guys. Tagging identities can at most link back traces to a "guy". Doesn't mean it would ever scale to lie detection. Especially when one considers the virtue of lie detection as not being a zero sum game. A liar can use a pseudonym and not a real name and he can just as be caught. A better liar can acquire a fake "legal reality" real name and he can be just as hard to catch. Even in minor cases that only require modding, the name is not as important as a "history" and a history will always be there with things like IP addresses. The need for a real name is just an assurance to satisfy the fears of those who are looking less for solutions and more at assurances that an unknown environment like anonymous internet would work closer to the proximity of reality that are more known to us even though in reality, our understanding of reality is just as false. We can totally live in a world (especially for urban areas) where our next neighbors are terrorists and we wouldn't know any better even if we are friends with them and know their names. (Which is not to say they are but the issue of names is fueled by our fear of the unknown and media and service providers banking on our fears to justify such identification procedures.)

v21 15y ago

I don't see a way of distinguishing between bad behaviour and discussing taboo topics. They're so often the same thing - consider flat out racism or misogyny for example. An things get even more complicated when you consider /b/-like levels of irony and inversion of meaning, where it;s difficult to tell what is a incredibly subtle troll of racists, and what is actual racism. But I'm glad that the whole internet isn't /b/. I'm glad that terrible perspectives are often shunned from conversations. It's good to remember they're there, but if someone comes along and expresses terrible things then they should feel shame. And that only happens if those perspectives are not welcome, and are made to feel not welcome.

wetbrain 15y ago

I think the community has as much to do with discussion as anonymity. r/programming, r/technology, r/hacking are pretty simmilar in topic, though with less emphasis on buisiness/econ. But the comment style is totally different. As obvious as it is that community changes discussion quality, I think it's overlooked in the whole anonymity debate. HN's been doing just fine, for the most part. I haven't been here for long, but isn't HN at least as anonymous as reddit?