5 ms·

I have never understood this aversion to Anonymous Speech, free speech requires Anonymous Speech. Some of the most important events in history (like the Found

by syshum 4y ago

I have never understood this aversion to Anonymous Speech, free speech requires Anonymous Speech. Some of the most important events in history (like the Founding of the United States) would never have happened with out Anonymous Speech. We should debate idea's not authors. Anonymous Speech enables idea's to be spread not personality cults, one would thing those opposing Elon believing that people just support him because of his personality and fame would want more Anonymous Speech not less

Spooky23 4y ago
Verification and anonymity aren’t mutually exclusive. Spooky23 is a persona on HN. If I were to post under my real name, I would want a way to verify who I am. Facebook pushes “real names” because Zuck thought it was a good idea, and it makes them more money.
- gunfighthacksaw 4y ago
  I don’t think HN is a good example of verification considering SWIM made an account with a disposable email address to segregate shitposting/anything-interesting from the sterile corporate persona that the account bearing their actual online handle uses.
- selcuka 4y ago
  > Facebook pushes “real names” because Zuck thought it was a good idea, and it makes them more money. To be fair Facebook started with the "(re)connect with your college friends" premise, so it made sense for them to push real names. Not that they couldn't have changed it later, though.
- raxxorrax 4y ago
  That case is a lesser form of anonymity since the platform knows your identity. With laws like the EU just recently voted for, this can become a problem. Sure, they may log your IP and your ISP could connect the dots, but it still provides privacy.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
zimpenfish 4y ago
> We should debate idea's not authors. This only works if you guarantee that both sides are going to argue in good faith and, well, gestures at the world, that just isn't realistic right now?
- tunesmith 4y ago
  Trolls existed back in the days of Aristotle as well, so "the existence of trolls" is not quite sufficient. The part that is new is the ability for trolling to have hugely asymmetric impact. Before it was a voice in the town square everyone knew to ignore, now it's troll farms from the other side of the world. But I'm starting to think even that doesn't really get to the heart of the issue. I think there's something about the network effects that leads to a dumbing down even if everyone thinks they are arguing in good faith. I feel like I've noticed a negative difference in discussion quality even over the past year. I can read a reddit headline now and feel more confident I can predict the content of the top two or three comments, the lazy popular thoughtless replies. And I've seen emergence of widely upvoted opinions that you know people adopt not because they've thought through it themselves, but because they've seen it two or three other places and thought it sounded good, irrespective of truth or accuracy. So I think we're seeing behavior that appears trollish even though it may not have come from actual trolls. Call it structural trollism, maybe.
  - trompetenaccoun 4y ago
    Reddit becoming horrible is a function of how it's set up, with "community" moderators being able to ban anyone for any reason and the admins putting pressure on the mods or outright removing/replacing them where they see fit in order to only allow correct speech. If HN can be described as an autocracy with benevolent dictators at the top, reddit is a crazed totalitarian system with Red Guards on the loose all around the communities looking for wrong opinions to report. The voting and some other mechanisms they've set up makes the echo chambers complete. It progressively gets worse and worse, the main subs are already unusable and while there are niche communities that might still be worth visiting, their number keeps shrinking. Not that they literally disappear in most cases, they just get infected with reddit thought.
bsder 4y ago
> I have never understood this aversion to Anonymous Speech, free speech requires Anonymous Speech. Some of the most important events in history (like the Founding of the United States) would never have happened with out Anonymous Speech. The difference before the Internet is that if I found your idea odious I could punch you in the nose you even if you were "anonymous". And, in return, you were not likely to be attacked by a mob unless you actively did something really horrible. There are two big problems with social media: 1) I have no way to directly punish you when I find what you are saying sufficiently irritating. You are unlikely to say something really nasty to my face if I could slap you for it. I am unlikely to slap you if you can do so in return unless there is a really good reason. I don't have a good suggestion as to how to implement something which works for this. 2) You have no way to defend against a mob who finds what you are saying sufficiently irritating. In the US, we, nominally, run on presumption of innocence before we punish someone, and the defendant has the right to confront their accusers. Mobs are anathema to both of these. The solution for this is that social media should not be granted safe harbor. If you need moderators, you should also be liable for what is being said on your platform. If you want safe harbor, you should only schelp electrons.
- syshum 4y ago
  >>The difference before the Internet is that if I found your idea odious I could punch you in the nose you even if you were "anonymous". And, in return, you were not likely to be attacked by a mob unless you actively did something really horrible. That is false, you do understand that many seminal works like the Federalist Papers where penned anonymously with attribution only coming by way of historians looking at other known works, the entire purpose of Publius was to ensure people were debating the IDEA's not the people. You seem to be operating under the false idea that before the internet the only communication was in person verbally. >I have no way to directly punish you that is not a problem and you should not be empowered to "punish" anyone for their speech, it is very sad you do not respect the concept of free expression but people like you are the exact reason Anonymous Speech is required. You reject the premise of "I may disagree with you but I will defend your right to say it" Respecting speech you approve of is easy, respecting speech you find offensive is what requires protection. We have lost that in principle in modern times >You are unlikely to say something really nasty to my face if I could slap you for it. if you did, you would and should be jailed for battery. Physical violence is NEVER an acceptable response to speech. This modern "punch a nazi" narratives prevent in the authoritarian left is an affront to the principal of free expression
EricE 4y ago
>We should debate idea's not authors. How can you cancel anyone with a better idea than you have if you don't know who they are?
shawn-butler 4y ago
It’s not anonymous speech though but pseudonymous. The “profile” can get trusted over time without knowing the real identity by establishing a reputation for good content. Although this will probably get derailed now by GPT3-esque astroturfing/trolling. Anonymous speech is like graffiti, pseudonymous is like Banksy.
raxxorrax 4y ago
> We should debate idea's not authors There is a large group of people that is more interested in other people instead of ideas and to evaluate anything they need to check their trust in the person uttering it. I think they simply need different platforms. Otherwise I 100% agree, there are good behaving anonymous platforms but I don't know if Twitter ever can become one. I would never register with my real name though.

by syshum 4y ago

Spooky23 4y ago

Verification and anonymity aren’t mutually exclusive. Spooky23 is a persona on HN. If I were to post under my real name, I would want a way to verify who I am. Facebook pushes “real names” because Zuck thought it was a good idea, and it makes them more money.

gunfighthacksaw 4y ago
I don’t think HN is a good example of verification considering SWIM made an account with a disposable email address to segregate shitposting/anything-interesting from the sterile corporate persona that the account bearing their actual online handle uses.
selcuka 4y ago
> Facebook pushes “real names” because Zuck thought it was a good idea, and it makes them more money. To be fair Facebook started with the "(re)connect with your college friends" premise, so it made sense for them to push real names. Not that they couldn't have changed it later, though.
raxxorrax 4y ago
That case is a lesser form of anonymity since the platform knows your identity. With laws like the EU just recently voted for, this can become a problem. Sure, they may log your IP and your ISP could connect the dots, but it still provides privacy.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

zimpenfish 4y ago

> We should debate idea's not authors. This only works if you guarantee that both sides are going to argue in good faith and, well, gestures at the world, that just isn't realistic right now?

tunesmith 4y ago
Trolls existed back in the days of Aristotle as well, so "the existence of trolls" is not quite sufficient. The part that is new is the ability for trolling to have hugely asymmetric impact. Before it was a voice in the town square everyone knew to ignore, now it's troll farms from the other side of the world. But I'm starting to think even that doesn't really get to the heart of the issue. I think there's something about the network effects that leads to a dumbing down even if everyone thinks they are arguing in good faith. I feel like I've noticed a negative difference in discussion quality even over the past year. I can read a reddit headline now and feel more confident I can predict the content of the top two or three comments, the lazy popular thoughtless replies. And I've seen emergence of widely upvoted opinions that you know people adopt not because they've thought through it themselves, but because they've seen it two or three other places and thought it sounded good, irrespective of truth or accuracy. So I think we're seeing behavior that appears trollish even though it may not have come from actual trolls. Call it structural trollism, maybe.
- trompetenaccoun 4y ago
  Reddit becoming horrible is a function of how it's set up, with "community" moderators being able to ban anyone for any reason and the admins putting pressure on the mods or outright removing/replacing them where they see fit in order to only allow correct speech. If HN can be described as an autocracy with benevolent dictators at the top, reddit is a crazed totalitarian system with Red Guards on the loose all around the communities looking for wrong opinions to report. The voting and some other mechanisms they've set up makes the echo chambers complete. It progressively gets worse and worse, the main subs are already unusable and while there are niche communities that might still be worth visiting, their number keeps shrinking. Not that they literally disappear in most cases, they just get infected with reddit thought.

bsder 4y ago

> I have never understood this aversion to Anonymous Speech, free speech requires Anonymous Speech. Some of the most important events in history (like the Founding of the United States) would never have happened with out Anonymous Speech. The difference before the Internet is that if I found your idea odious I could punch you in the nose you even if you were "anonymous". And, in return, you were not likely to be attacked by a mob unless you actively did something really horrible. There are two big problems with social media: 1) I have no way to directly punish you when I find what you are saying sufficiently irritating. You are unlikely to say something really nasty to my face if I could slap you for it. I am unlikely to slap you if you can do so in return unless there is a really good reason. I don't have a good suggestion as to how to implement something which works for this. 2) You have no way to defend against a mob who finds what you are saying sufficiently irritating. In the US, we, nominally, run on presumption of innocence before we punish someone, and the defendant has the right to confront their accusers. Mobs are anathema to both of these. The solution for this is that social media should not be granted safe harbor. If you need moderators, you should also be liable for what is being said on your platform. If you want safe harbor, you should only schelp electrons.

syshum 4y ago
>>The difference before the Internet is that if I found your idea odious I could punch you in the nose you even if you were "anonymous". And, in return, you were not likely to be attacked by a mob unless you actively did something really horrible. That is false, you do understand that many seminal works like the Federalist Papers where penned anonymously with attribution only coming by way of historians looking at other known works, the entire purpose of Publius was to ensure people were debating the IDEA's not the people. You seem to be operating under the false idea that before the internet the only communication was in person verbally. >I have no way to directly punish you that is not a problem and you should not be empowered to "punish" anyone for their speech, it is very sad you do not respect the concept of free expression but people like you are the exact reason Anonymous Speech is required. You reject the premise of "I may disagree with you but I will defend your right to say it" Respecting speech you approve of is easy, respecting speech you find offensive is what requires protection. We have lost that in principle in modern times >You are unlikely to say something really nasty to my face if I could slap you for it. if you did, you would and should be jailed for battery. Physical violence is NEVER an acceptable response to speech. This modern "punch a nazi" narratives prevent in the authoritarian left is an affront to the principal of free expression

EricE 4y ago

>We should debate idea's not authors. How can you cancel anyone with a better idea than you have if you don't know who they are?

shawn-butler 4y ago

It’s not anonymous speech though but pseudonymous. The “profile” can get trusted over time without knowing the real identity by establishing a reputation for good content. Although this will probably get derailed now by GPT3-esque astroturfing/trolling. Anonymous speech is like graffiti, pseudonymous is like Banksy.

raxxorrax 4y ago

> We should debate idea's not authors There is a large group of people that is more interested in other people instead of ideas and to evaluate anything they need to check their trust in the person uttering it. I think they simply need different platforms. Otherwise I 100% agree, there are good behaving anonymous platforms but I don't know if Twitter ever can become one. I would never register with my real name though.