3 ms·

More and more I think we need proof of being human to participate in the "town square". It essentially means the end of anonimity online, but I struggle to see

More and more I think we need proof of being human to participate in the "town square". It essentially means the end of anonimity online, but I struggle to see how we overcome bots without it.

onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
In the future, I imagine part of the web is anonymous and signal to noise ratio is 1:1,000,000 - and the other part of the web is authenticated and the single to noise ratio is much better.
Nasrudith 4y ago
I struggle to see how that would help. There are already plenty of paid shills out there. Just feed your shills the script and once again you have a sacrifice of anonymity for nothing. Like how real naming policies just made people double down. Frankly I find it disturbing that people jump straight to throwing away rights as the solution.
- lifeisstillgood 4y ago
  Honestly I don't see anonymity as a right. It is a sticking plaster defence against the loss of other rights and protections. Yes it is useful for people to organise against oppressive regiemes (either Amazon strikebreakers in Wisconsin or police / security forces in Tehran) but we really should have a clear and direct solution to Amazon in a democratic society. And if we cannot then anonymity is a poor second best. Secondly, yeah you want to be a paid shill for Russia / BP / Qatar etc go for it. Reputation matters. Maybe some kind of labelling / fair advertising is a good idea "all opinions expressed here have been paid for by tonights sponsor Marlboro." I would be interested in hearing from a proper human rights lawyer - anonymity is going to have a lot of case law surely?
mostlylurks 4y ago
Requiring proof of humanity does not necessitate deanonymizing users to anyone except the platform itself; they can still be anonymous to other users and onlookers.
seydor 4y ago
The real town square, the one that elects politicians has not been a literal town square for a while. People with money who control the media are the real town square and it is they who set the context and frame
- lifeisstillgood 4y ago
  I doubt the town square ever existed as an idealised thing - social underclasses would always have struggled to even be allowed into the square, it would have been commercially dominated and social success would have correlated wrongly to commercial and political success. Luckily we get to design the rules for our society and town squares and so improve access. In my view most of the so called "social justice wars" are to do with how far to the front shoukd one push previously excluded underclasses.
  - defrost 4y ago
    Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, George Orwell, and others have all had their down and out days and spoken their truth to power at Hyde Park. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speakers%27_Corner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speakers%27_Corner
    - lifeisstillgood 4y ago
      I suppose I meant a town square where all people n the town where and able to listen. That seems very small and scales up badly. I guess we mean "public discourse" - which mostly means books and newspapers then, and all variety of media today. And trust me, they did not get their impact by standing on a cold pavement outside hyde park. They used other media :-)

More and more I think we need proof of being human to participate in the "town square". It essentially means the end of anonimity online, but I struggle to see how we overcome bots without it.

onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago

In the future, I imagine part of the web is anonymous and signal to noise ratio is 1:1,000,000 - and the other part of the web is authenticated and the single to noise ratio is much better.

Nasrudith 4y ago

I struggle to see how that would help. There are already plenty of paid shills out there. Just feed your shills the script and once again you have a sacrifice of anonymity for nothing. Like how real naming policies just made people double down. Frankly I find it disturbing that people jump straight to throwing away rights as the solution.

lifeisstillgood 4y ago
Honestly I don't see anonymity as a right. It is a sticking plaster defence against the loss of other rights and protections. Yes it is useful for people to organise against oppressive regiemes (either Amazon strikebreakers in Wisconsin or police / security forces in Tehran) but we really should have a clear and direct solution to Amazon in a democratic society. And if we cannot then anonymity is a poor second best. Secondly, yeah you want to be a paid shill for Russia / BP / Qatar etc go for it. Reputation matters. Maybe some kind of labelling / fair advertising is a good idea "all opinions expressed here have been paid for by tonights sponsor Marlboro." I would be interested in hearing from a proper human rights lawyer - anonymity is going to have a lot of case law surely?

mostlylurks 4y ago

Requiring proof of humanity does not necessitate deanonymizing users to anyone except the platform itself; they can still be anonymous to other users and onlookers.

seydor 4y ago

The real town square, the one that elects politicians has not been a literal town square for a while. People with money who control the media are the real town square and it is they who set the context and frame

lifeisstillgood 4y ago
I doubt the town square ever existed as an idealised thing - social underclasses would always have struggled to even be allowed into the square, it would have been commercially dominated and social success would have correlated wrongly to commercial and political success. Luckily we get to design the rules for our society and town squares and so improve access. In my view most of the so called "social justice wars" are to do with how far to the front shoukd one push previously excluded underclasses.
- defrost 4y ago
  Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, George Orwell, and others have all had their down and out days and spoken their truth to power at Hyde Park. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speakers%27_Corner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speakers%27_Corner
  - lifeisstillgood 4y ago
    I suppose I meant a town square where all people n the town where and able to listen. That seems very small and scales up badly. I guess we mean "public discourse" - which mostly means books and newspapers then, and all variety of media today. And trust me, they did not get their impact by standing on a cold pavement outside hyde park. They used other media :-)