3 ms·

A study showed that people are more aggressive online when using their real name > Results show that in the context of online firestorms, non-anonymous individ

A study showed that people are more aggressive online when using their real name > Results show that in the context of online firestorms, non-anonymous individuals are more aggressive compared to anonymous individuals. This effect is reinforced if selective incentives are present and if aggressors are intrinsically motivated. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0155923 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...

dd36 4y ago
Weird but I still think Elon’s idea of needing confirmed identity for a checkmark is solid. If anonymous users then are nicer than checkmarked users, I guess the filter will work in reverse? The elimination of bots will be nice if they can do it.
- madeofpalk 4y ago
  Requiring validated identity is anti free speech. There's been so many words spilled online about how terrible of an idea it is to require confirmed identities for online. Recently, see https://twitter.com/mmasnick/status/1576274615231401984 https://twitter.com/mmasnick/status/1576274615231401984 or more casually https://www.garbageday.email/p/oh-cool-were-talking-about-anonymity https://www.garbageday.email/p/oh-cool-were-talking-about-an... > Generally, if your solution is virtually indistinguishable from one of the systems the Chines government is using to keep people in line, your solution is bad.
  - mrtksn 4y ago
    How do you know that requiring identity is anti free speech? Not everyone online is Iranian political dissident. Sure, some people claim that you can't have free speech when your identity is known but I don't see any solid reasoning behind it. Mike Masnick in his tweets repeats some talking points but there's no cohesive argument.
    - dd36 4y ago
      And AFAIK an anonymous political dissident wouldn’t want a blue checkmark? Furthermore, there can be layers of anonymity. There can be anonymous publicly but not to Twitter. That’s dangerous given that Twitter cannot protect your identity from a state actor accessing its internal systems. Thus, again, why would you want a checkmark as a dissident.
      - mrtksn 4y ago
        Again, not every speech revolves around political dissent.
        stale2002 4y ago
        Some does though. So the fact that this applies to some people means that it is an issue for those people.
        mrtksn 4y ago
        We can have special arrangements for special circumstances.
    - madeofpalk 4y ago
      Requiring ID verification is adding limitations on who you permit to speak. It is inherently anti 'free speech'. I think it's fine if that's the sort of website you want to build (twitter at the moment is not a free speech maximalist), but don't pretend that doing this doesn't limit speech.
      - mrtksn 4y ago
        > Requiring ID verification is adding limitations on who you permit to speak Do you mean that in countries where not everyone has government ID? That's not an issue, the government doesn't have to be the authority of ID. Besides, governments can create fake IDs for covert operations anyway. I don't suggest that everyone should connect to the internet with government issued ID card.
  - dd36 4y ago
    That’s an opinion. I disagree with it. It’s a private corporation not the government. You either have people incentivized to self-identify with a checkmark or what? The alternative is to build an AI that identifies you in order to remove bots? I don’t even think that’s possible without it auto removing everyone that uses anonymizing tools like Tor?
- _djo_ 4y ago
  You already require confirmed identity to receive a Twitter blue checkmark. So that wouldn't be a new change.

dd36 4y ago

Weird but I still think Elon’s idea of needing confirmed identity for a checkmark is solid. If anonymous users then are nicer than checkmarked users, I guess the filter will work in reverse? The elimination of bots will be nice if they can do it.

madeofpalk 4y ago
Requiring validated identity is anti free speech. There's been so many words spilled online about how terrible of an idea it is to require confirmed identities for online. Recently, see https://twitter.com/mmasnick/status/1576274615231401984 https://twitter.com/mmasnick/status/1576274615231401984 or more casually https://www.garbageday.email/p/oh-cool-were-talking-about-anonymity https://www.garbageday.email/p/oh-cool-were-talking-about-an... > Generally, if your solution is virtually indistinguishable from one of the systems the Chines government is using to keep people in line, your solution is bad.
- mrtksn 4y ago
  How do you know that requiring identity is anti free speech? Not everyone online is Iranian political dissident. Sure, some people claim that you can't have free speech when your identity is known but I don't see any solid reasoning behind it. Mike Masnick in his tweets repeats some talking points but there's no cohesive argument.
  - dd36 4y ago
    And AFAIK an anonymous political dissident wouldn’t want a blue checkmark? Furthermore, there can be layers of anonymity. There can be anonymous publicly but not to Twitter. That’s dangerous given that Twitter cannot protect your identity from a state actor accessing its internal systems. Thus, again, why would you want a checkmark as a dissident.
    - mrtksn 4y ago
      Again, not every speech revolves around political dissent.
      - stale2002 4y ago
        Some does though. So the fact that this applies to some people means that it is an issue for those people.
        mrtksn 4y ago
        We can have special arrangements for special circumstances.
  - madeofpalk 4y ago
    Requiring ID verification is adding limitations on who you permit to speak. It is inherently anti 'free speech'. I think it's fine if that's the sort of website you want to build (twitter at the moment is not a free speech maximalist), but don't pretend that doing this doesn't limit speech.
    - mrtksn 4y ago
      > Requiring ID verification is adding limitations on who you permit to speak Do you mean that in countries where not everyone has government ID? That's not an issue, the government doesn't have to be the authority of ID. Besides, governments can create fake IDs for covert operations anyway. I don't suggest that everyone should connect to the internet with government issued ID card.
- dd36 4y ago
  That’s an opinion. I disagree with it. It’s a private corporation not the government. You either have people incentivized to self-identify with a checkmark or what? The alternative is to build an AI that identifies you in order to remove bots? I don’t even think that’s possible without it auto removing everyone that uses anonymizing tools like Tor?
_djo_ 4y ago
You already require confirmed identity to receive a Twitter blue checkmark. So that wouldn't be a new change.