4 ms·

Wouldn't the people who perform much of this harassment also fall under this "Real Names" policy? While I'm not saying that the issues would be completely elim

Wouldn't the people who perform much of this harassment also fall under this "Real Names" policy? While I'm not saying that the issues would be completely eliminated, could this perhaps be progress towards reducing such cases?

nollidge 14y ago
There's not much social cost to harassing someone within the limits of the law. Or even just outside the limits, since police rarely are willing/able to do much about online misdemeanors.
- smokinjoe 14y ago
  Well, you can ban the person - and I would believe that some people's vitriol would substantially decrease if they had their names tagged on a particularly hateful statement. And if these Real Names were consistently kept accurate, wouldn't it be easier to sift through and ban offenders?
  - nollidge 14y ago
    Yes, but this only affects people's online activities. It additionally forces otherwise innocent people to open themselves up to offline, real-life harassment.
    - smokinjoe 14y ago
      I just don't find that reason enough to completely eradicate the progression towards holding people accountable for their actions online.
mnicole 14y ago
No one wins in a "Real Names" policy; those who follow it are vulnerable and those who don't care about their reputation or the consequences of their words will be jerks and then find ways to spoof their identities after such a ban. Besides that, the internet benefits from pseudonyms; http://readwrite.com/2012/01/16/people_using_pseudonyms_leave_better_blog_comments http://readwrite.com/2012/01/16/people_using_pseudonyms_leav... And it isn't just blog comments; it's everything. If people here were using their real names and weren't allowed to create sockpuppets for one-off posts, we wouldn't see nearly the honesty and humiliation we do. People being fearful of their reputation just leads to less communication, particularly on topics that are controversial but need to be talked about. You don't need to look far to see how successful communities that embrace pseudonyms are. The argument that it leads to just as many trash posts might be true (although I see just as many idiots using their Facebook accounts to post bile on news sites); but that's why voting exists. Shame the comment, not the commenter.
- smokinjoe 14y ago
  > And it isn't just blog comments; it's everything. If people here were using their real names and weren't allowed to create sockpuppets for one-off posts, we wouldn't see nearly the honesty and humiliation we do. But this isn't about making the Internet as a whole non-anonymous. I realize that Google is a rather large entity, but I put a lot more trust and faith in them than other big internet players. > don't need to look far to see how successful communities that embrace pseudonyms are. I don't find a community where some people can say immensely hateful things as all that great. Sure, they can regulate and ban the user, but there is absolutely no responsibility taken for the aggravator's actions. In my opinion, I'd rather there be several levels of anonymity available. Competition will drive each platform and with any luck, some semblance of a standard practice may come out of it. I personally want people to be responsible for their actions on the Internet, until it has been completely proven it won't help, I don't see a reason to do away with a "Real Names" policy.
  - ShirtlessRod 14y ago
    >> "I don't find a community where some people can say immensely hateful things as all that great. Sure, they can regulate and ban the user, but there is absolutely no responsibility taken for the aggravator's actions." But what action would be taken if you actually knew who they were in real life? You mentioned "hateful" comments, but assuming that isn't actual threats to someone, there is no accountability beyond banning the user, pseudonym or not. This of course also assumes people aren't faking out the "real name" restriction to begin with...
    - smokinjoe 14y ago
      > This of course also assumes people aren't faking out the "real name" restriction to begin with... I'm not talking about a service that half-asses the feature. I'm talking about a legitimate link between my online persona and my actual real name. G+ doesn't nearly meet my demands for this service, but at least they're trying it and hopefully making progress on legitimacy.
fpgeek 14y ago
Who says a "Real Names" policy any significant impact on a harasser? It certainly wouldn't impact an offline harasser (except by making it easier to find their targets offline, of course). And how many of the serious online harassers would really be deterred by it? I suspect that many or even most of the people who would be deterred by a "Real Names" policy aren't the ones doing the harassment in the first place. Plenty of people are willing to attach their names to offline harassment (e.g. Westboro Baptist Church) and I don't see why online harassment would be any different.
- smokinjoe 14y ago
  > Who says a "Real Names" policy any significant impact on a harasser? Because if this service was worth any merit, the real name attached to the hateful speech will have the same reputation-destroying effect as it being printed in any literary source. I completely understand that this won't deter everyone, but it will deter most people. I have very high demands for this type of service, folks assume that people using the platform will just fake the 'Real Names' policy. Well, I don't want some hokey system in place, when I talk about linking a Real Name to someone's content, I'm linking a real person to their content. How will this connection be establish, maintained and not abused? I don't know, but I do know if it worked in the appropriate manner, there wouldn't be so many functional holes as people keep saying. G+ in its current form does not appease my demand for a service that utilizes a real "Real Names" policy - they half-ass it and frankly retard the prospect of someone trying to do it legitimately and true to form.

nollidge 14y ago

There's not much social cost to harassing someone within the limits of the law. Or even just outside the limits, since police rarely are willing/able to do much about online misdemeanors.

smokinjoe 14y ago
Well, you can ban the person - and I would believe that some people's vitriol would substantially decrease if they had their names tagged on a particularly hateful statement. And if these Real Names were consistently kept accurate, wouldn't it be easier to sift through and ban offenders?
- nollidge 14y ago
  Yes, but this only affects people's online activities. It additionally forces otherwise innocent people to open themselves up to offline, real-life harassment.
  - smokinjoe 14y ago
    I just don't find that reason enough to completely eradicate the progression towards holding people accountable for their actions online.

mnicole 14y ago

No one wins in a "Real Names" policy; those who follow it are vulnerable and those who don't care about their reputation or the consequences of their words will be jerks and then find ways to spoof their identities after such a ban. Besides that, the internet benefits from pseudonyms; http://readwrite.com/2012/01/16/people_using_pseudonyms_leave_better_blog_comments http://readwrite.com/2012/01/16/people_using_pseudonyms_leav... And it isn't just blog comments; it's everything. If people here were using their real names and weren't allowed to create sockpuppets for one-off posts, we wouldn't see nearly the honesty and humiliation we do. People being fearful of their reputation just leads to less communication, particularly on topics that are controversial but need to be talked about. You don't need to look far to see how successful communities that embrace pseudonyms are. The argument that it leads to just as many trash posts might be true (although I see just as many idiots using their Facebook accounts to post bile on news sites); but that's why voting exists. Shame the comment, not the commenter.

smokinjoe 14y ago
> And it isn't just blog comments; it's everything. If people here were using their real names and weren't allowed to create sockpuppets for one-off posts, we wouldn't see nearly the honesty and humiliation we do. But this isn't about making the Internet as a whole non-anonymous. I realize that Google is a rather large entity, but I put a lot more trust and faith in them than other big internet players. > don't need to look far to see how successful communities that embrace pseudonyms are. I don't find a community where some people can say immensely hateful things as all that great. Sure, they can regulate and ban the user, but there is absolutely no responsibility taken for the aggravator's actions. In my opinion, I'd rather there be several levels of anonymity available. Competition will drive each platform and with any luck, some semblance of a standard practice may come out of it. I personally want people to be responsible for their actions on the Internet, until it has been completely proven it won't help, I don't see a reason to do away with a "Real Names" policy.
- ShirtlessRod 14y ago
  >> "I don't find a community where some people can say immensely hateful things as all that great. Sure, they can regulate and ban the user, but there is absolutely no responsibility taken for the aggravator's actions." But what action would be taken if you actually knew who they were in real life? You mentioned "hateful" comments, but assuming that isn't actual threats to someone, there is no accountability beyond banning the user, pseudonym or not. This of course also assumes people aren't faking out the "real name" restriction to begin with...
  - smokinjoe 14y ago
    > This of course also assumes people aren't faking out the "real name" restriction to begin with... I'm not talking about a service that half-asses the feature. I'm talking about a legitimate link between my online persona and my actual real name. G+ doesn't nearly meet my demands for this service, but at least they're trying it and hopefully making progress on legitimacy.

fpgeek 14y ago

Who says a "Real Names" policy any significant impact on a harasser? It certainly wouldn't impact an offline harasser (except by making it easier to find their targets offline, of course). And how many of the serious online harassers would really be deterred by it? I suspect that many or even most of the people who would be deterred by a "Real Names" policy aren't the ones doing the harassment in the first place. Plenty of people are willing to attach their names to offline harassment (e.g. Westboro Baptist Church) and I don't see why online harassment would be any different.

smokinjoe 14y ago
> Who says a "Real Names" policy any significant impact on a harasser? Because if this service was worth any merit, the real name attached to the hateful speech will have the same reputation-destroying effect as it being printed in any literary source. I completely understand that this won't deter everyone, but it will deter most people. I have very high demands for this type of service, folks assume that people using the platform will just fake the 'Real Names' policy. Well, I don't want some hokey system in place, when I talk about linking a Real Name to someone's content, I'm linking a real person to their content. How will this connection be establish, maintained and not abused? I don't know, but I do know if it worked in the appropriate manner, there wouldn't be so many functional holes as people keep saying. G+ in its current form does not appease my demand for a service that utilizes a real "Real Names" policy - they half-ass it and frankly retard the prospect of someone trying to do it legitimately and true to form.