7 ms·

> That said, as someone who prizes ethical behavior, it's not possible to practice this and remain wholly honest without some sort of ethical loophole The prim

by rt4mn 4y ago

> That said, as someone who prizes ethical behavior, it's not possible to practice this and remain wholly honest without some sort of ethical loophole The primary "ethical loophole" here is that there is no viable ethical alternative. Something can not be immoral if it is the best of a series of bad options, and if you want to exsist in the world and protect your privacy, the only real option is to create a persona. There is literally no other option that I have been able to find that both protects your privacy and also does not require you to sequester yourself from humanity entirely. Pure anonymity bars you from the following activities: joining a social group, signing up for some longish term business relationship (hiring a contracter, signing up for a service), engaging in the political process, holding a job, and probably more that I cant think of. You simply wont be able to do any of those things if you tried to give your name as "chaboud" or "rt4mn". The best option if you care about your privacy, in those scenarios, is to use a nickname/alias/persona, and be honest and say "no its not" in the vanishingly rare case where you are asked directly whether or not that's the same name you have your birth certificate.

JackFr 4y ago
> Pure anonymity bars you from the following activities: joining a social group, signing up for some longish term business relationship (hiring a contracter, signing up for a service), engaging in the political process, holding a job, and probably more that I cant think of. Why do you believe that’s your right? You have the right to be left alone, but in all the examples you offer you are explicitly not minding your own business. Rather there should be an expectation of reciprocity with respect to identity.
- hgsgm 4y ago
  Do you have that reciprocity with every corporation you engage with? I bet not. They all hide behind personas.
akerl_ 4y ago
> Something can not be immoral if it is the best of a series of bad options You’re presenting this as if it’s a fact, but it doesn’t seem like it is. If for no other reason that it relies on a shared understanding of what’s “best” and what makes options “bad”. You could justify some pretty horrible decisions if you’re holding that as an axiom.
- ianai 4y ago
  “The road to hell is (often?) paved with good intentions.”
- prepend 4y ago
  Of course you can. But you can justify horrible decisions with any axiom. It’s not like this is a worse approach than others. Is there some rule set you’re aware of that if you follow, horrible decisions cannot be justified?
  - akerl_ 4y ago
    I tend to just not invent "rules" out of thin air. In absence of this supposed "rule", where "Something can not be immoral if it is the best of a series of bad options", you'd need to actually consider whether a decision is immoral. The rule shortcuts that and lets you say "well, there's no other option, so I must be in the clear morally here", which would be laughable if it wasn't so dangerous.
    - hgsgm 4y ago
      How is "do the best you can possibly do" not (a) a rule and (b) not moral?
      - akerl_ 4y ago
        That's not a quote that appears anywhere prior to this in the thread, from what I can see. You seem to have made it up from scratch here. The rule given above is "Something can not be immoral if it is the best of a series of bad options". In the context of the thread, it's being used to justify creating a fake persona and providing false details about yourself as part of a strategy of maintaining anonymity. And already the cracks start to show: the other option, "just don't respond" is classified as bad, and thus doesn't count as a viable option. So what you're left with is "lie about yourself", which the rule holds up as being definitely moral because it's the "best" option. But "just don't respond" is only described as bad because it doesn't give you maximum anonymity. If I'm broke, and I need some money for lunch, "steal from my richest friend" could be reasonably argued to be the "best" of "bad options". I need to eat, it'll hurt them the least, so lets crack open their wallet. Because I get to arbitrate the option pool and the definition of "bad" and "best", I've got a neat package that lets me absolve myself of all tricky moral quandries.
zajio1am 4y ago
> The primary "ethical loophole" here is that there is no viable ethical alternative. Something can not be immoral if it is the best of a series of bad options, and if you want to exsist in the world and protect your privacy, the only real option is to create a persona. There are simple ethical alternatives, just not disclose that information, or just avoid that questions. Lying in this case is clearly unacceptable. It is also a signalling issue. There is a universal social contract not to lie. If someone is willing to lie in such minor issues, then such person is totally untrustworthy, because there is no reason to assume they would not lie or hold other social contracts in more serious cases when it does not suit them.
- deegles 4y ago
  I don't agree that your RL identity is a "minor" thing. It's right up among the most important things.
  - mynameisvlad 4y ago
    That entirely depends on who you’re interacting with and the context of that interaction. Your best friend? I would hope you feel comfortable enough sharing your RL identity or deeper secrets. A random company you interact with? Why would it matter, let alone be one of the most important things?
    - pessimizer 4y ago
      The fact that the first person you mention is "your best friend" is an indication of the importance you're placing on it. Nobody is using a nom de plume for their electric bill, you're being deliberately obtuse.
      - mynameisvlad 4y ago
        I mentioned two extremes. A best friend, by definition, is one of the people you choose to trust the most. If you want to replace it with someone else significant in your life, by all means, it doesn’t change the point in any way shape or form. A random company is the other end of the extreme, it’s an example of a very limited relationship. The point is that the bigger your relationship, the more you’d entrust them with secrets. Secrets like your real identity. It’s a pretty basic and obvious concept.
bdw5204 4y ago
You can definitely participate in political discourse under a pseudonym. The anonymous Twitter account "Catturd" is one currently famous example.
Thorentis 4y ago
> Something can not be immoral if it is the best of a series of bad options Woo, big claim. You're basically saying "best" can be determined entirely in terms of utility with no consideration for morality. A utilitarian world view, which not everybody shares.
- fsckboy 4y ago
  > A utilitarian world view, which not everybody shares. you make it sound like it's not a complete or consistent system, but it's just a worldview where only some people have the attribute of being in the right, unfortunately an attribute not everybody shares.
  - trinsic2 4y ago
    I don't think its not complete, it just doesn't always apply to every situation. Thats why there are other belief systems like Deontology[1] which I tend to gravitate towards the most. Utilitarianism has plenty of issues. Doing whats right for everyone, doesn't always yield the best results for society. Sometimes you need to do whats right for the few because the masses doesn't always understand the long ranging ramifications of decisions based off this belief. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontology)
- prepend 4y ago
  I don’t think OP made that claim. “Bad” can be determined holistically with morals and utility and other factors. For example, I think it’s moral to portray a false persona to avoid invasion of privacy. Not to mention that most people project some level of falseness just in day to day operations. For example replying “I’m fine, how are you?” Whenever asked.
lo_zamoyski 4y ago
> Something can not be immoral if it is the best of a series of bad options, and if you want to exsist in the world and protect your privacy, the only real option is to create a persona. Let's substitute some of the bits with variables... "Something can not be immoral if it is the best of a series of bad options, and if you want to exist in the world and X, the only real option is to Y." ...and see how this holds up... X="be rich"; Y="kill your neighbor" Now, you might object "that's absurdly extreme!". True, I have chosen an extreme example, but only because it makes the fallacy conspicuous. Ethical principles don't have loopholes or dispensations. It's not as if big lies are bad because they're big and small lies are okay because they're small. They're both bad because they're both lies. An evil effect of one's actions may be tolerable under specific circumstances, but a means that is inherently evil doesn't cease to be evil because you have no other option to attain the desired good. Ends don't justify means. In this case, a pseudonym is not a lie when a) the intent is not to deceive but to conceal, and b) there is no normative expectation that the name given is real and thus when you do not owe others your real name. On social media, while we know many might conclude that a pseudonym is real, generally speaking, I would say that error is a tolerable side effect (it depends on the particular social medium; LinkedIn is different than Twitter, for example). However, IMO, things start to become more dicey with active fabrication. There is a fine but definite line between lying and mental reservation. There is a difference between speaking ambiguously or evasively on the one hand and lying on the other. This places rather severe limits on what you can licitly say or express. Constructing a persona means you must actively engage in creating a fictional character that you intend people to believe is real as a means of concealing you identity. This is by definition a lie and different from allowing people to falsely infer a persona based on what is ambiguous information that is intended to conceal truths others have no right to. "Create and post a back-story to answer (instead of avoid) the frequently asked questions." The article's author's advice is effectively precisely because it involves lying. Lying works exactly because the default expectation based on the essential function of speech is to communicate the truth.
somecompanyguy 4y ago
ethics are for suckers. source : observe the world in 2023.
jameshart 4y ago
> hiring a contracter, ..., engaging in the political process, holding a job These are all situations where the desire for anonymity is outweighed by the requirement for accountability. You're aware that 'hiring a contractor' requires entering into a contract right? And so does being employed. Entering into a contract without establishing your identity implies a desire not to be bound by the terms of that contract. Is that your intent? As for 'engaging in the political process', I have never heard anyone argue that the problem with politics is that people are too honest and open. Do we need more anonymous political party donors?
chaboud 4y ago
By the way, and this is abnormal: My name is Matt Chaboud. My username is my last name, and I'm easy to find. I try to behave online in a way that doesn't rely on anonymity (though I recognize that that carries some risk). But I think your point is understood. However, a handle, to me, by virtue of convention, leaves little room for confusion as to whether it is a real or artificial/partial identity (generally).
- rt4mn 4y ago
  Thats fair enough. Googling for my username takes you pretty quickly to my name as well. I don't think I did a good enough job in my initial reply emphasizing that from my perspective a nickname that you only used in certian social contexts is functionally a persona. If your wife calls you Jason but all your drinking buddies call you Jack because of a hilarious collage hijink (or something), a random passer by at the bar would have no clue that the name on your birth certificate (the one that can be used to impersonate you) is actually Jason. Thats really what I am talking about. As long as you dont lie about the fact that "Jack" is a nickname when asked, your not being unethical, in my view.
User23 4y ago
> The primary "ethical loophole" here is that there is no viable ethical alternative. Something can not be immoral if it is the best of a series of bad options, and if you want to exsist in the world and protect your privacy, the only real option is to create a persona. No, that's not how ethics works. Sometimes you're just in a no win situation and there is nothing moral other than self sacrifice.

by rt4mn 4y ago

JackFr 4y ago

> Pure anonymity bars you from the following activities: joining a social group, signing up for some longish term business relationship (hiring a contracter, signing up for a service), engaging in the political process, holding a job, and probably more that I cant think of. Why do you believe that’s your right? You have the right to be left alone, but in all the examples you offer you are explicitly not minding your own business. Rather there should be an expectation of reciprocity with respect to identity.

hgsgm 4y ago
Do you have that reciprocity with every corporation you engage with? I bet not. They all hide behind personas.

akerl_ 4y ago

> Something can not be immoral if it is the best of a series of bad options You’re presenting this as if it’s a fact, but it doesn’t seem like it is. If for no other reason that it relies on a shared understanding of what’s “best” and what makes options “bad”. You could justify some pretty horrible decisions if you’re holding that as an axiom.

ianai 4y ago
“The road to hell is (often?) paved with good intentions.”
prepend 4y ago
Of course you can. But you can justify horrible decisions with any axiom. It’s not like this is a worse approach than others. Is there some rule set you’re aware of that if you follow, horrible decisions cannot be justified?
- akerl_ 4y ago
  I tend to just not invent "rules" out of thin air. In absence of this supposed "rule", where "Something can not be immoral if it is the best of a series of bad options", you'd need to actually consider whether a decision is immoral. The rule shortcuts that and lets you say "well, there's no other option, so I must be in the clear morally here", which would be laughable if it wasn't so dangerous.
  - hgsgm 4y ago
    How is "do the best you can possibly do" not (a) a rule and (b) not moral?
    - akerl_ 4y ago
      That's not a quote that appears anywhere prior to this in the thread, from what I can see. You seem to have made it up from scratch here. The rule given above is "Something can not be immoral if it is the best of a series of bad options". In the context of the thread, it's being used to justify creating a fake persona and providing false details about yourself as part of a strategy of maintaining anonymity. And already the cracks start to show: the other option, "just don't respond" is classified as bad, and thus doesn't count as a viable option. So what you're left with is "lie about yourself", which the rule holds up as being definitely moral because it's the "best" option. But "just don't respond" is only described as bad because it doesn't give you maximum anonymity. If I'm broke, and I need some money for lunch, "steal from my richest friend" could be reasonably argued to be the "best" of "bad options". I need to eat, it'll hurt them the least, so lets crack open their wallet. Because I get to arbitrate the option pool and the definition of "bad" and "best", I've got a neat package that lets me absolve myself of all tricky moral quandries.

zajio1am 4y ago

> The primary "ethical loophole" here is that there is no viable ethical alternative. Something can not be immoral if it is the best of a series of bad options, and if you want to exsist in the world and protect your privacy, the only real option is to create a persona. There are simple ethical alternatives, just not disclose that information, or just avoid that questions. Lying in this case is clearly unacceptable. It is also a signalling issue. There is a universal social contract not to lie. If someone is willing to lie in such minor issues, then such person is totally untrustworthy, because there is no reason to assume they would not lie or hold other social contracts in more serious cases when it does not suit them.

deegles 4y ago
I don't agree that your RL identity is a "minor" thing. It's right up among the most important things.
- mynameisvlad 4y ago
  That entirely depends on who you’re interacting with and the context of that interaction. Your best friend? I would hope you feel comfortable enough sharing your RL identity or deeper secrets. A random company you interact with? Why would it matter, let alone be one of the most important things?
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    The fact that the first person you mention is "your best friend" is an indication of the importance you're placing on it. Nobody is using a nom de plume for their electric bill, you're being deliberately obtuse.
    - mynameisvlad 4y ago
      I mentioned two extremes. A best friend, by definition, is one of the people you choose to trust the most. If you want to replace it with someone else significant in your life, by all means, it doesn’t change the point in any way shape or form. A random company is the other end of the extreme, it’s an example of a very limited relationship. The point is that the bigger your relationship, the more you’d entrust them with secrets. Secrets like your real identity. It’s a pretty basic and obvious concept.

bdw5204 4y ago

You can definitely participate in political discourse under a pseudonym. The anonymous Twitter account "Catturd" is one currently famous example.

Thorentis 4y ago

> Something can not be immoral if it is the best of a series of bad options Woo, big claim. You're basically saying "best" can be determined entirely in terms of utility with no consideration for morality. A utilitarian world view, which not everybody shares.

fsckboy 4y ago
> A utilitarian world view, which not everybody shares. you make it sound like it's not a complete or consistent system, but it's just a worldview where only some people have the attribute of being in the right, unfortunately an attribute not everybody shares.
- trinsic2 4y ago
  I don't think its not complete, it just doesn't always apply to every situation. Thats why there are other belief systems like Deontology[1] which I tend to gravitate towards the most. Utilitarianism has plenty of issues. Doing whats right for everyone, doesn't always yield the best results for society. Sometimes you need to do whats right for the few because the masses doesn't always understand the long ranging ramifications of decisions based off this belief. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontology)
prepend 4y ago
I don’t think OP made that claim. “Bad” can be determined holistically with morals and utility and other factors. For example, I think it’s moral to portray a false persona to avoid invasion of privacy. Not to mention that most people project some level of falseness just in day to day operations. For example replying “I’m fine, how are you?” Whenever asked.

lo_zamoyski 4y ago

> Something can not be immoral if it is the best of a series of bad options, and if you want to exsist in the world and protect your privacy, the only real option is to create a persona. Let's substitute some of the bits with variables... "Something can not be immoral if it is the best of a series of bad options, and if you want to exist in the world and X, the only real option is to Y." ...and see how this holds up... X="be rich"; Y="kill your neighbor" Now, you might object "that's absurdly extreme!". True, I have chosen an extreme example, but only because it makes the fallacy conspicuous. Ethical principles don't have loopholes or dispensations. It's not as if big lies are bad because they're big and small lies are okay because they're small. They're both bad because they're both lies. An evil effect of one's actions may be tolerable under specific circumstances, but a means that is inherently evil doesn't cease to be evil because you have no other option to attain the desired good. Ends don't justify means. In this case, a pseudonym is not a lie when a) the intent is not to deceive but to conceal, and b) there is no normative expectation that the name given is real and thus when you do not owe others your real name. On social media, while we know many might conclude that a pseudonym is real, generally speaking, I would say that error is a tolerable side effect (it depends on the particular social medium; LinkedIn is different than Twitter, for example). However, IMO, things start to become more dicey with active fabrication. There is a fine but definite line between lying and mental reservation. There is a difference between speaking ambiguously or evasively on the one hand and lying on the other. This places rather severe limits on what you can licitly say or express. Constructing a persona means you must actively engage in creating a fictional character that you intend people to believe is real as a means of concealing you identity. This is by definition a lie and different from allowing people to falsely infer a persona based on what is ambiguous information that is intended to conceal truths others have no right to. "Create and post a back-story to answer (instead of avoid) the frequently asked questions." The article's author's advice is effectively precisely because it involves lying. Lying works exactly because the default expectation based on the essential function of speech is to communicate the truth.

somecompanyguy 4y ago

ethics are for suckers. source : observe the world in 2023.

jameshart 4y ago

> hiring a contracter, ..., engaging in the political process, holding a job These are all situations where the desire for anonymity is outweighed by the requirement for accountability. You're aware that 'hiring a contractor' requires entering into a contract right? And so does being employed. Entering into a contract without establishing your identity implies a desire not to be bound by the terms of that contract. Is that your intent? As for 'engaging in the political process', I have never heard anyone argue that the problem with politics is that people are too honest and open. Do we need more anonymous political party donors?

chaboud 4y ago

By the way, and this is abnormal: My name is Matt Chaboud. My username is my last name, and I'm easy to find. I try to behave online in a way that doesn't rely on anonymity (though I recognize that that carries some risk). But I think your point is understood. However, a handle, to me, by virtue of convention, leaves little room for confusion as to whether it is a real or artificial/partial identity (generally).

rt4mn 4y ago
Thats fair enough. Googling for my username takes you pretty quickly to my name as well. I don't think I did a good enough job in my initial reply emphasizing that from my perspective a nickname that you only used in certian social contexts is functionally a persona. If your wife calls you Jason but all your drinking buddies call you Jack because of a hilarious collage hijink (or something), a random passer by at the bar would have no clue that the name on your birth certificate (the one that can be used to impersonate you) is actually Jason. Thats really what I am talking about. As long as you dont lie about the fact that "Jack" is a nickname when asked, your not being unethical, in my view.

User23 4y ago