Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Blog Anonymously

uglyduck.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 482 posts

Re: Blog Anonymously

#31

Post by teddyh »

dijit wrote: post #4

This goes into the how, but to me the more interesting question is the 'why'. Why should someone interact with something that the author doesn't throw his/her/their name into? I only have one example of why; I'm a genuinely curious and open person and I like having my beliefs tested, some of my beliefs are nuanced enough that I sometimes break down my current beliefs and my reasons into blog posts. Things that I thin…

> Why should someone interact with something that the author doesn't throw his/her/their name into?

Once again: Who is harmed by a "Real Names" policy?

https://geekfeminism.wikia.org/wiki/Who_is_harmed_by_a_%22Re...

Re: Blog Anonymously

#32

Post by syshum »

Having gotten my start on the internet mid 90's it always amazes me the number of people that attached their offline identities to their online identies

This was just something that was unheard of back then. It was an extension of "Stranger Danger" that you did not reveal who you were to the wide internet, sure some of your close friends may have known your online name but it was not openly broadcasted

Fast forward to face book and their failed attempt to "Real names" under the assumption that it would make discourse less extreme we now know that was 100% wrong, and had the polar opposite effect

I dont know if everyone needs to go to the extreme of protecting their ID from State Actors, though maybe we do. Everyone however should at minimum end the concept of "Real names" policy

Re: Blog Anonymously

#34

Post by pydry »

Jaruzel wrote: post #29
wGeF7H8Z59y985y wrote: post #13

> Why should someone interact with something that the author doesn't throw his/her/their name into? We currently live in a "there is only one correct opinion, all others must be canceled" culture. They've already come for anyone who showed even the faintest trace of dissent from the mindlessly woke mob's narrative. Next they'll come for those who have stayed silent. Failure to project virtue signaling will soon be us…

> We currently live in a "there is only one correct opinion, all others must be canceled" culture. I fully blame twitter (and the medias obsession with it) for this.

This is a problem that probably existed before writing itself, never mind Twitter.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#35

Post by P-ala-din »

BorisTheBrave wrote: post #15
dijit wrote: post #4

This goes into the how, but to me the more interesting question is the 'why'. Why should someone interact with something that the author doesn't throw his/her/their name into? I only have one example of why; I'm a genuinely curious and open person and I like having my beliefs tested, some of my beliefs are nuanced enough that I sometimes break down my current beliefs and my reasons into blog posts. Things that I thin…

I think the two most common reasons for anonymity are: * blogging from an oppressive regime * to isolate yourself from online mobs If you write something controversial these days, sometimes it catches a wider audience and you can find yourself under a lot of attention. A minority of those poeple will not be nice, and may send death threats or worse. Your experience is a tiny fraction of what this can be like. Being a…

another factor is the desire to separate ideas from their author.

for example, double-blind peer review.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#36

Post by ralphstodomingo »

wGeF7H8Z59y985y wrote: post #13

> Why should someone interact with something that the author doesn't throw his/her/their name into? We currently live in a "there is only one correct opinion, all others must be canceled" culture. They've already come for anyone who showed even the faintest trace of dissent from the mindlessly woke mob's narrative. Next they'll come for those who have stayed silent. Failure to project virtue signaling will soon be us…

Anonymity solves the issue for the individual, and for the most part I believe it works. The problem is, this current culture of irrational, non-engaging echo-chamber woke cancellations is further propelled to the forefront when those unwilling to partake in the culture are either shamed or silenced.

Platforms like Twitter and Facebook don't make for constructive debate, discussions. There is an option to shore up support through likes, but not much the other way around. I think this explains the diaspora from the latter to the former, and says a lot about the future of Twitter itself (hint: people will move on.)

I do believe one day people will be more rational in handling beliefs and opinions positioned against them, and there are a multitude of valid reasons for one to assume anonymity, but we'd all benefit if we confronted the deeper problem instead, I feel.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#37

Post by pydry »

BorisTheBrave wrote: post #15
dijit wrote: post #4

This goes into the how, but to me the more interesting question is the 'why'. Why should someone interact with something that the author doesn't throw his/her/their name into? I only have one example of why; I'm a genuinely curious and open person and I like having my beliefs tested, some of my beliefs are nuanced enough that I sometimes break down my current beliefs and my reasons into blog posts. Things that I thin…

I think the two most common reasons for anonymity are: * blogging from an oppressive regime * to isolate yourself from online mobs If you write something controversial these days, sometimes it catches a wider audience and you can find yourself under a lot of attention. A minority of those poeple will not be nice, and may send death threats or worse. Your experience is a tiny fraction of what this can be like. Being a…

Also blogging from a regime that may become oppressive in 5-10 years (at which point your blogging history about how great democracy is will come back to bite you in the ass).

Re: Blog Anonymously

#38

Post by teddyh »

pydry wrote: post #34
Jaruzel wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We currently live in a "there is only one correct opinion, all others must be canceled" culture. I fully blame twitter (and the medias obsession with it) for this.

This is a problem that probably existed before writing itself, never mind Twitter.

Cf. The Scarlet Letter from 1850:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scarlet_Letter

Re: Blog Anonymously

#39

Post by newacct583 »

wGeF7H8Z59y985y wrote: post #13

> Why should someone interact with something that the author doesn't throw his/her/their name into? We currently live in a "there is only one correct opinion, all others must be canceled" culture. They've already come for anyone who showed even the faintest trace of dissent from the mindlessly woke mob's narrative. Next they'll come for those who have stayed silent. Failure to project virtue signaling will soon be us…

Good grief. What happened to "Democrats are coming for your guns"? At least that one sorta made sense. Can you name three significant ideas whose debate has been suppressed online? Because I'll bet that for each of those I can find a 200+ comment flame war on this very site.

> They've already come for anyone who showed even the faintest trace of dissent from the mindlessly woke mob's narrative

They did? Who won?

Re: Blog Anonymously

#40

Post by M2Ys4U »

>We currently live in a "there is only one correct opinion, all others must be canceled" culture.

We really, really aren't.

>If speech has consequences that are administered outside the law, then it's not really free.

Just take a moment and thing about what you just wrote. It's absolutely nonsense.

I can't go in to a job interview and call the panel a bunch of cunts and then expect to be hired. That's a consequence of speech "administered outside the law".

Does this mean there's no free speech? No, of course it doesn't.

I find it interminably frustrating that people (moreso on the right, and moreso in America, but neither exclusively) hold free speech above pretty much everything else. People have more than ONE right.

Free association is also a right that needs to be protected. And that means people should be free to associate with (or to NOT associate with) people that have said things they disagree with.

Post reply on HN