3 ms·

Hard disagree on anonymous speech. Individual humans should have free speech but that is divorced from anonymous speech. With anonymous speech you don’t even k

by lovich 11mo ago

Hard disagree on anonymous speech. Individual humans should have free speech but that is divorced from anonymous speech. With anonymous speech you don’t even know if you’re talking to a person or a program. If you want to say something, then say it with your identity. You don’t get to be anonymous when saying something to my face so why should it be allowed across a screen?

Doxin 11mo ago
While what you're saying sounds like a reasonable enough stance on the face of it, keep in mind that this would deeply fuck over closeted queer folks among other marginalized groups.
- lovich 11mo ago
  It would. Currently they and everyone else are getting deeply fucked because the signal to noise ratio on the internet has been obliterated and everyone is being manipulated all the time by misinformation from humans lying to bots. I think the trade off for a lack of anonymity is worth it. This is crass and old but the penny arcade guys identified this decades ago https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/greater-internet-fuckwad-theory https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/greater-internet-fuckwad-theo...
  - Doxin 11mo ago
    I agree misinformation is a big problem. Possibly the biggest problem of our time, right next to global warming. But as it stands now, as a queer person, you can find a spot on the internet with like-minded people. Even when closeted. Hell when closeted it's the only place you can find like-minded people. If we require people identify themselves online you drive all closeted queer people away, into solitude, into feeling no one will ever understand them. That's not worth the price of admission. We need a better solution than that.
squigz 11mo ago
> If you want to say something, then say it with your identity. You don’t get to be anonymous when saying something to my face so why should it be allowed across a screen? My face is not my identity. Do I have to tell you my full name and address when I talk to you? I sure hope not! Beyond that, what about the threat of violence for saying something? As another commenter points out, this is a real issue for marginalized groups, but also could easily become an issue for your average citizen sharing their political opinion. While I agree it would be nice having some level of assurance that you're talking to a human, particularly going forward, the only way I could support such a system is if no party involved would be able to track what I visit or pin an actual identity to me as a user - but, perhaps more importantly, it also needs to not be easily broken by those actors who it's trying to stop. Otherwise it's useless and just hurts your actual citizens.
- lovich 11mo ago
  > My face is not my identity Nah, it’s infinitely more identity than a screen name. If you speak in person I know which human being had those thoughts. In the medium we’re communicating over right now neither I nor you could tell if the counterparty was just a computer program. > Beyond that, what about the threat of violence for saying something? As another commenter points out, this is a real issue for marginalized groups, but also could easily become an issue for your average citizen sharing their political opinion. If you’re in that situation then you already don’t have free speech, so honestly that tradeoff seems like it doesn’t matter > While I agree it would be nice having some level of assurance that you're talking to a human, particularly going forward, the only way I could support such a system is if no party involved would be able to track what I visit or pin an actual identity to me as a user… That’s a lot of words to say you don’t agree with the idea. Pinning an actual identity to you is what makes it non anonymous
  - squigz 11mo ago
    > If you’re in that situation then you already don’t have free speech, so honestly that tradeoff seems like it doesn’t matter What? Are you saying that if you face the threat of violence for saying something, you don't actually have free speech? By this logic, literally nobody anywhere has free speech.
heavyset_go 11mo ago
Just thought I'd share the EFF's take[1] on the importance of anonymity and its long history with free speech: > Anonymous communications have an important place in our political and social discourse. The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that the right to anonymous free speech is protected by the First Amendment. A frequently cited 1995 Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads: > > Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society. > The tradition of anonymous speech is older than the United States. Founders Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote the Federalist Papers under the pseudonym "Publius " and "the Federal Farmer" spoke up in rebuttal. The US Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized rights to speak anonymously derived from the First Amendment. > The right to anonymous speech is also protected well beyond the printed page. Thus in 2002 the Supreme Court struck down a law requiring proselytizers to register their true names with the Mayor's office before going door-to-door. To build on that, the Fourth Amendment protections against general warrants stems from the fact that general warrants were used to identify and persecute anonymous authors, many of which were founders and framers. [1] https://www.eff.org/issues/anonymity https://www.eff.org/issues/anonymity
zelphirkalt 11mo ago
Probably only works for as long as you are not living in a dictatorship, authoritarian state, utterly corrupt country, or similar. Then suddenly we would want our anonymity back. While anonymity comes with its own issues for society, I am not convinced it would be worth it getting rid of it.

by lovich 11mo ago

Doxin 11mo ago

While what you're saying sounds like a reasonable enough stance on the face of it, keep in mind that this would deeply fuck over closeted queer folks among other marginalized groups.

lovich 11mo ago
It would. Currently they and everyone else are getting deeply fucked because the signal to noise ratio on the internet has been obliterated and everyone is being manipulated all the time by misinformation from humans lying to bots. I think the trade off for a lack of anonymity is worth it. This is crass and old but the penny arcade guys identified this decades ago https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/greater-internet-fuckwad-theory https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/greater-internet-fuckwad-theo...
- Doxin 11mo ago
  I agree misinformation is a big problem. Possibly the biggest problem of our time, right next to global warming. But as it stands now, as a queer person, you can find a spot on the internet with like-minded people. Even when closeted. Hell when closeted it's the only place you can find like-minded people. If we require people identify themselves online you drive all closeted queer people away, into solitude, into feeling no one will ever understand them. That's not worth the price of admission. We need a better solution than that.

squigz 11mo ago

> If you want to say something, then say it with your identity. You don’t get to be anonymous when saying something to my face so why should it be allowed across a screen? My face is not my identity. Do I have to tell you my full name and address when I talk to you? I sure hope not! Beyond that, what about the threat of violence for saying something? As another commenter points out, this is a real issue for marginalized groups, but also could easily become an issue for your average citizen sharing their political opinion. While I agree it would be nice having some level of assurance that you're talking to a human, particularly going forward, the only way I could support such a system is if no party involved would be able to track what I visit or pin an actual identity to me as a user - but, perhaps more importantly, it also needs to not be easily broken by those actors who it's trying to stop. Otherwise it's useless and just hurts your actual citizens.

lovich 11mo ago
> My face is not my identity Nah, it’s infinitely more identity than a screen name. If you speak in person I know which human being had those thoughts. In the medium we’re communicating over right now neither I nor you could tell if the counterparty was just a computer program. > Beyond that, what about the threat of violence for saying something? As another commenter points out, this is a real issue for marginalized groups, but also could easily become an issue for your average citizen sharing their political opinion. If you’re in that situation then you already don’t have free speech, so honestly that tradeoff seems like it doesn’t matter > While I agree it would be nice having some level of assurance that you're talking to a human, particularly going forward, the only way I could support such a system is if no party involved would be able to track what I visit or pin an actual identity to me as a user… That’s a lot of words to say you don’t agree with the idea. Pinning an actual identity to you is what makes it non anonymous
- squigz 11mo ago
  > If you’re in that situation then you already don’t have free speech, so honestly that tradeoff seems like it doesn’t matter What? Are you saying that if you face the threat of violence for saying something, you don't actually have free speech? By this logic, literally nobody anywhere has free speech.

heavyset_go 11mo ago

Just thought I'd share the EFF's take[1] on the importance of anonymity and its long history with free speech: > Anonymous communications have an important place in our political and social discourse. The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that the right to anonymous free speech is protected by the First Amendment. A frequently cited 1995 Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads: > > Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society. > The tradition of anonymous speech is older than the United States. Founders Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote the Federalist Papers under the pseudonym "Publius " and "the Federal Farmer" spoke up in rebuttal. The US Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized rights to speak anonymously derived from the First Amendment. > The right to anonymous speech is also protected well beyond the printed page. Thus in 2002 the Supreme Court struck down a law requiring proselytizers to register their true names with the Mayor's office before going door-to-door. To build on that, the Fourth Amendment protections against general warrants stems from the fact that general warrants were used to identify and persecute anonymous authors, many of which were founders and framers. [1] https://www.eff.org/issues/anonymity https://www.eff.org/issues/anonymity

zelphirkalt 11mo ago

Probably only works for as long as you are not living in a dictatorship, authoritarian state, utterly corrupt country, or similar. Then suddenly we would want our anonymity back. While anonymity comes with its own issues for society, I am not convinced it would be worth it getting rid of it.