5 ms·

The challenge here is three fold. Companies like Facebook pretending they are not publishers, people posting content believing they should be able to publish a

The challenge here is three fold. Companies like Facebook pretending they are not publishers, people posting content believing they should be able to publish anything without consequences, and professional weather makers ( PR/comms/lobbyists etc ) using this confusion to get around traditional controls on their dark arts. In the end I think the only solution that works in the long term is to have everything tied back to an individual - and that person is responsible for what they do. You know - like in the 'real' world. That does mean giving up the charade of pseudo-anonymity - but if we don't want online discourse dominated by bots controlled by people with no-conscience - then it's probably the grown up thing to do.

HPsquared 2y ago
If it's worth doing it should happen naturally, verified accounts having more weight in the eyes of readers etc.
- DrScientist 2y ago
  I'd like to think so, but I'm not so sure - doesn't it depend where the incentives come from? Optimising simply for demand without any principles leads to things like street fentanyl, and junk food and mass shootings ( there is a demand to own assault rifles ). Online right now there is a heady mix of large monetary incentives and the ability to rapidly optimise objective functions. Let's not pretend Meta's recent change isn't simply about Zuckerberg maintaining his power.
DecoySalamander 2y ago
The only thing that removing anonymity would do is make it easier to harass people with dissenting opinions. Professional bad actors can switch to posting under "real people" names, just as spammers now post from home IP proxies.
- DrScientist 2y ago
  I share your concern - however harassing people is illegal and if you can't be anonymous to do it then that's also much less likely. I don't buy favourite argument of the US gun lobby - that only criminals ( yes by definition ) would have guns/anonymous accounts if you banned it therefore we shouldn't do anything. You could apply that to anything that's illegal - by definition only criminals are outside the law - so why any laws at all? I'd also be concerned about repressive governments - but I think you could distinguish between mass/public communication and private 1:1 communication. Just like in the real world there is a whole world of difference between saying something in private and publishing something in a national newspaper.
  - redserk 2y ago
    I suggest you consider looking how much it costs to go through the legal system, as it seems your assertion is based in a theoretical understanding of our system. Filing a civil suit can be pretty expensive if you want a lawyer -- which, yes, you do effectively need one. This is effectively a tax on the victims of harassment.
    - DrScientist 2y ago
      If it's criminal harrassment - I'd expect the police et al to do the prosecution. Obviously I don't know which legal system you are talking about - but it does raise the issue of cross-boundary jurisdiction which I think is more of a potential challenge.
jiriknesl 2y ago
Social media are not publishers. They are way more public squares, but online. On top of that, even when publishers usually curate content, there is no obligation to do so. It's just something that has been done, because publishing used to be expensive. Now, when sharing data online is cheaper and cheaper, this limiting factor is fading away. -- At the same time, we have just 16 hours of attention per day. So you have to decide whether you want to invest your time in more curated publishing (I read a lot of books, often old books which stood the test of time), or if you want to go to the public square where practically anyone can shout as he sees fit. I do that too, but I try to moderate both my time using social media and what I see there. And I am proud I haven't used TikTok, I stopped using Facebook, Instagram, I don't watch any Reels, Shorts, etc. So publishers still are not lost, but what they are selling is not curation because of technological limitations, but because of limits of how much we can read and see in the day. -- At the same time, publishers are biased. They publish what they see as high quality. They publish what they consider worthy. They publish things they would want to read. And they have publication checklists that prohibit publishing certain things even if they are true. Public squares don't have such an attribute. There are things to be published and heard, even when mainstream people would disagree. There are things that should be public, even when it's against a law in certain countries. And online anonymity mixed with public square enables people to tell about atrocities that happen, or about corruption, government inefficiencies, about people breaking human rights and so on. -- If you end anonymity and public squares, you end a channel for democratic feedback. Because publishers don't play this role any more. They are biased, people realize it and are fed of it.
- DrScientist 2y ago
  > Social media are not publishers. They are way more public squares, but online. I'd believe that if they didn't promote or suppress content - in my view as soon as you get into that game you become part of the publishing process. > On top of that, even when publishers usually curate content, there is no obligation to do so. It's just something that has been done, because publishing used to be expensive. Eh? Publishers take care of what they publish because they are responsible for it in law - if they publish a lie about somebody ( even if it's a quote from somebody else - ie somebody elses 'content' ) - they are on the hook for that. In a similar way, if I defame you and then a newspaper/facebook promotes that around the world, most of the damage actually comes from the promotion of the original defamation - the publishing/amplification. > If you end anonymity and public squares, you end a channel for democratic feedback. You are already assuming we live in a society where people are too afraid to say what they think in public . And I would also argue if you stand on a soap box in a public square then you are not anonymous - you are public. You are confusing a public square with people whispering behind masks.

HPsquared 2y ago

If it's worth doing it should happen naturally, verified accounts having more weight in the eyes of readers etc.

DrScientist 2y ago
I'd like to think so, but I'm not so sure - doesn't it depend where the incentives come from? Optimising simply for demand without any principles leads to things like street fentanyl, and junk food and mass shootings ( there is a demand to own assault rifles ). Online right now there is a heady mix of large monetary incentives and the ability to rapidly optimise objective functions. Let's not pretend Meta's recent change isn't simply about Zuckerberg maintaining his power.

DecoySalamander 2y ago

The only thing that removing anonymity would do is make it easier to harass people with dissenting opinions. Professional bad actors can switch to posting under "real people" names, just as spammers now post from home IP proxies.

DrScientist 2y ago
I share your concern - however harassing people is illegal and if you can't be anonymous to do it then that's also much less likely. I don't buy favourite argument of the US gun lobby - that only criminals ( yes by definition ) would have guns/anonymous accounts if you banned it therefore we shouldn't do anything. You could apply that to anything that's illegal - by definition only criminals are outside the law - so why any laws at all? I'd also be concerned about repressive governments - but I think you could distinguish between mass/public communication and private 1:1 communication. Just like in the real world there is a whole world of difference between saying something in private and publishing something in a national newspaper.
- redserk 2y ago
  I suggest you consider looking how much it costs to go through the legal system, as it seems your assertion is based in a theoretical understanding of our system. Filing a civil suit can be pretty expensive if you want a lawyer -- which, yes, you do effectively need one. This is effectively a tax on the victims of harassment.
  - DrScientist 2y ago
    If it's criminal harrassment - I'd expect the police et al to do the prosecution. Obviously I don't know which legal system you are talking about - but it does raise the issue of cross-boundary jurisdiction which I think is more of a potential challenge.

jiriknesl 2y ago

Social media are not publishers. They are way more public squares, but online. On top of that, even when publishers usually curate content, there is no obligation to do so. It's just something that has been done, because publishing used to be expensive. Now, when sharing data online is cheaper and cheaper, this limiting factor is fading away. -- At the same time, we have just 16 hours of attention per day. So you have to decide whether you want to invest your time in more curated publishing (I read a lot of books, often old books which stood the test of time), or if you want to go to the public square where practically anyone can shout as he sees fit. I do that too, but I try to moderate both my time using social media and what I see there. And I am proud I haven't used TikTok, I stopped using Facebook, Instagram, I don't watch any Reels, Shorts, etc. So publishers still are not lost, but what they are selling is not curation because of technological limitations, but because of limits of how much we can read and see in the day. -- At the same time, publishers are biased. They publish what they see as high quality. They publish what they consider worthy. They publish things they would want to read. And they have publication checklists that prohibit publishing certain things even if they are true. Public squares don't have such an attribute. There are things to be published and heard, even when mainstream people would disagree. There are things that should be public, even when it's against a law in certain countries. And online anonymity mixed with public square enables people to tell about atrocities that happen, or about corruption, government inefficiencies, about people breaking human rights and so on. -- If you end anonymity and public squares, you end a channel for democratic feedback. Because publishers don't play this role any more. They are biased, people realize it and are fed of it.

DrScientist 2y ago
> Social media are not publishers. They are way more public squares, but online. I'd believe that if they didn't promote or suppress content - in my view as soon as you get into that game you become part of the publishing process. > On top of that, even when publishers usually curate content, there is no obligation to do so. It's just something that has been done, because publishing used to be expensive. Eh? Publishers take care of what they publish because they are responsible for it in law - if they publish a lie about somebody ( even if it's a quote from somebody else - ie somebody elses 'content' ) - they are on the hook for that. In a similar way, if I defame you and then a newspaper/facebook promotes that around the world, most of the damage actually comes from the promotion of the original defamation - the publishing/amplification. > If you end anonymity and public squares, you end a channel for democratic feedback. You are already assuming we live in a society where people are too afraid to say what they think in public . And I would also argue if you stand on a soap box in a public square then you are not anonymous - you are public. You are confusing a public square with people whispering behind masks.