3 ms·
> Ironically, your advocacy for lack-of-privacy is exactly what would put people into more potential danger. First step to harming someone: knowing who they are
by wxs 11y ago
> Ironically, your advocacy for lack-of-privacy is exactly what would put people into more potential danger. First step to harming someone: knowing who they are to begin with.
Just a small note. I actually currently do support pseudonymity with the caveat that we need to find a way for it to exist non-hatefully. If Reddit, by shutting down problem communities or some other approach, manages to clean up their act while staying pseudonymous I will be very happy.
Incidentally I don't think your "total privacy" solution will work as we live more of our lives online. People will post PII. It's almost impossible for most people not to.
- Nadya 11y ago>Incidentally I don't think your "total privacy" solution will work as we live more of our lives online. People will post PII. It's almost impossible for most people not to. If I hand a criminal a gun and he shoots me, perhaps I should not have given him a gun? I don't defend the criminal for shooting me, that isn't right either, but it was preventable. I find it hard to emphasize with people who willingly choose to hand their abusers weapons to beat them. The choice was theirs and the outcome predictable. There are people, like me, whom exist without a Facebook. Without a Twitter. Who post very little, or sometimes fabricated details, of their personal lives. We exist and function in society but have opted out of placing ourselves at risk by sharing our PII with the world. We refuse to give others a weapon. Not surprisingly, I never hear about an anonymous user being abused. It's always someone with a name. Someone with an identity. Someone who has provided people with something to attack. People have nothing to attack about me but my opinions - and I'm always willing to defend my opinions; rather than asking my opinions not be attacked.