5 ms·

I understand her frustration with Google+, because I share it myself. I spent a long time thinking Google might help to save those parts of the internet I loved

I understand her frustration with Google+, because I share it myself. I spent a long time thinking Google might help to save those parts of the internet I loved. They've certainly been a powerful player on things like the fight to preserve net neutrality: http://www.google.co.uk/help/netneutrality_letter.html http://www.google.co.uk/help/netneutrality_letter.html and SOPA: https://www.google.com/doodles/sopa-pipa https://www.google.com/doodles/sopa-pipa ... the difficulty, for those like me who thought Google might keep the internet alive is that it feels like betrayal to have them come out so strongly against anonymity. I'm writing this because it helps to understand where Violet Blue (the author of the article) is coming from, if you realise she was one of the first people to be banned by Google for having a non-standard name: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/violetblue/google-plus-too-much-unnecessary-drama/652 http://www.zdnet.com/blog/violetblue/google-plus-too-much-un... ... and has ever since been a strong proponent of the fact pseudonyms are important: http://mynameisme.org/violet-blue/ http://mynameisme.org/violet-blue/

eliasmacpherson 13y ago
I think jwz makes a solid point on his blog about it too: http://www.jwz.org/blog/2011/09/bodies-hanging-from-bridge-in-mexico-are-warning-to-social-media-users/ http://www.jwz.org/blog/2011/09/bodies-hanging-from-bridge-i...
- kordless 13y ago
  The fact that someone is capable of murdering people and hanging them up on a bridge has very little to do with your right to comment anonymously on a funny cat video.
  - mikeash 13y ago
    Unless you propose that some committee oversee and approve every use of online anonymity to decide whether or not it's legitimate and necessary, it does in fact have everything to do with your right to comment anonymously on a funny cat video.
  - hobs 13y ago
    On any video, blog post, whatever, someone could decide they would like to punish you for what you say. People are not logical. When I was 15 I had the police show up to my house because a 12 year old I was playing a game with lost and was furious for losing. He made up a story about my friend and I threatening him and it finally took his father coming home to figure it all out and realize that his kid was lying. His father called me and personally apologized, but he could have just went with it and I could have had problems. I learned my lesson and make it at least a little harder to find out who I am on the internet.
    - kordless 13y ago
      People are not empathetic. Empathy gives a path to logic, once you begin thinking of others. His father called you because he respected your feelings in the matter. How much of him knowing who you were may have played a part in his decision to call you.
  - DanBC 13y ago
    Someone needs to set up an Internet wide "Creepy PMs" (/r/creepypms) website, so women (and others) can show just how many disturbing contacts they get every day.
gergles 13y ago
Yeah, they were great on net neutrality until it was inconvenient to their profit goals with Verizon and Android: http://stadium.weblogsinc.com/engadget/files/vzw-google-net.pdf http://stadium.weblogsinc.com/engadget/files/vzw-google-net.... (See "Because of the unique technical and operational characteristics of wireless networks, and the competitive and still-developing nature of wireless broadband services, only the transparency principle would apply to wireless broadband at this time.")
nwzpaperman 13y ago
The anonymity issue is really two parts: 1) Is anonymity a right on a public piece of infrastructure? 2) Is it viable on a piece of public infrastructure? In the case of part one, I cannot argue that anonymity on a piece of public infrastructure is a right, but I can argue it is a luxury that some will create and some will pay for. In the case of two, with the scaled information systems we have today and the non-distributed connectivity infrastructure enabling the Internet today, anonymity is no longer viable even if part one was rightful. When Oprah says people are dissatisfied with President Obama and his administration because he is black and offers that no one is saying it, but are certainly thinking it there are a few things to consider in this context. Should these phantom black-American haters she speaks of feel comfortable loudly proclaiming these things in, say, a busy Starbucks? Oprah's phantom black-American haters certainly have the legal protection to do so today, but why aren't they and to what degree is it or is it not a good thing they are not verbalizing these positions in public forums? Depending upon where you stand here, why should a public information exchange be any different? Back to part two; I get it. The Internet has been a place that little people could make big statements about the government and powerful people without consequence. I don't believe that will ever go away, even if anonymity is further diminished. The internet isn't just a public forum, it is a public record and there is physical distance between parties. If anything, I think the technological diminishing of anonymity on public Internet forums is a good thing because it promotes coherent argument instead of trolling ad hominem. Anonymity and privacy will always exist in the same form they have for centuries: in the non-public, non-digital world we know as the real world. People violate their own privacy right by doing stupid things on public Internet forums, not Google, Microsoft, Facebook, etc. Until further notice, you can still take a private shower in the nude in the privacy of your home. If you want private sexual relations, don't record the memory. If you want to critique public policy, you will be much more authoritative and effective if you offer a strong coherent argument for the public record. Spam, porn and trolling are destructive to the Internet. Those are the problems and the solutions will be what they are. OTOH, maybe spam, porn and trolling is the Internet and everyone is pretending otherwise.

eliasmacpherson 13y ago

I think jwz makes a solid point on his blog about it too: http://www.jwz.org/blog/2011/09/bodies-hanging-from-bridge-in-mexico-are-warning-to-social-media-users/ http://www.jwz.org/blog/2011/09/bodies-hanging-from-bridge-i...

kordless 13y ago
The fact that someone is capable of murdering people and hanging them up on a bridge has very little to do with your right to comment anonymously on a funny cat video.
- mikeash 13y ago
  Unless you propose that some committee oversee and approve every use of online anonymity to decide whether or not it's legitimate and necessary, it does in fact have everything to do with your right to comment anonymously on a funny cat video.
- hobs 13y ago
  On any video, blog post, whatever, someone could decide they would like to punish you for what you say. People are not logical. When I was 15 I had the police show up to my house because a 12 year old I was playing a game with lost and was furious for losing. He made up a story about my friend and I threatening him and it finally took his father coming home to figure it all out and realize that his kid was lying. His father called me and personally apologized, but he could have just went with it and I could have had problems. I learned my lesson and make it at least a little harder to find out who I am on the internet.
  - kordless 13y ago
    People are not empathetic. Empathy gives a path to logic, once you begin thinking of others. His father called you because he respected your feelings in the matter. How much of him knowing who you were may have played a part in his decision to call you.
- DanBC 13y ago
  Someone needs to set up an Internet wide "Creepy PMs" (/r/creepypms) website, so women (and others) can show just how many disturbing contacts they get every day.

gergles 13y ago

Yeah, they were great on net neutrality until it was inconvenient to their profit goals with Verizon and Android: http://stadium.weblogsinc.com/engadget/files/vzw-google-net.pdf http://stadium.weblogsinc.com/engadget/files/vzw-google-net.... (See "Because of the unique technical and operational characteristics of wireless networks, and the competitive and still-developing nature of wireless broadband services, only the transparency principle would apply to wireless broadband at this time.")

nwzpaperman 13y ago

The anonymity issue is really two parts: 1) Is anonymity a right on a public piece of infrastructure? 2) Is it viable on a piece of public infrastructure? In the case of part one, I cannot argue that anonymity on a piece of public infrastructure is a right, but I can argue it is a luxury that some will create and some will pay for. In the case of two, with the scaled information systems we have today and the non-distributed connectivity infrastructure enabling the Internet today, anonymity is no longer viable even if part one was rightful. When Oprah says people are dissatisfied with President Obama and his administration because he is black and offers that no one is saying it, but are certainly thinking it there are a few things to consider in this context. Should these phantom black-American haters she speaks of feel comfortable loudly proclaiming these things in, say, a busy Starbucks? Oprah's phantom black-American haters certainly have the legal protection to do so today, but why aren't they and to what degree is it or is it not a good thing they are not verbalizing these positions in public forums? Depending upon where you stand here, why should a public information exchange be any different? Back to part two; I get it. The Internet has been a place that little people could make big statements about the government and powerful people without consequence. I don't believe that will ever go away, even if anonymity is further diminished. The internet isn't just a public forum, it is a public record and there is physical distance between parties. If anything, I think the technological diminishing of anonymity on public Internet forums is a good thing because it promotes coherent argument instead of trolling ad hominem. Anonymity and privacy will always exist in the same form they have for centuries: in the non-public, non-digital world we know as the real world. People violate their own privacy right by doing stupid things on public Internet forums, not Google, Microsoft, Facebook, etc. Until further notice, you can still take a private shower in the nude in the privacy of your home. If you want private sexual relations, don't record the memory. If you want to critique public policy, you will be much more authoritative and effective if you offer a strong coherent argument for the public record. Spam, porn and trolling are destructive to the Internet. Those are the problems and the solutions will be what they are. OTOH, maybe spam, porn and trolling is the Internet and everyone is pretending otherwise.