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

When operating "at web scale", users often simply don't have "real names"

plus.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 119 posts

Re: When operating "at web scale", users often simply don't have "real names"

#21

Post by blauwbilgorgel »

SeoxyS wrote: post #15

For the most part, I think that Google's crackdown on pseudonyms and anonymity is actually a good thing. In most cases, anonymity online brings out the worst of us—just look at 4chan, littered with mobs of minions proliferating senseless hacking and child pornography[1]. You need but look at the news lately to see the damages of unchecked anonymity: "LulzSec this," "Anonymous that" and so on. Enforcing real names is…

So should in your view Wikipedia and GitHub enforce real usernames?

You make it sound like there is no responsibility and accountability in pseudo-anonymous cooperation.

How about real names on license plates? X-Box live accounts?

Enforcing real names is _not_ always a good thing. They already have my IP and the police can demand my ISP for my personal data; not just a stalker, impersonator, or any fraud.

Enforcing real names on 4chan will solve nothing, and likely make matters worse (in your view): It would create a more vibrant Freenet or Darknet where people are a lot more anonymous and 4chan seems civil by comparison.

Re: When operating "at web scale", users often simply don't have "real names"

#22

Post by DarkShikari »

SeoxyS wrote: post #15

For the most part, I think that Google's crackdown on pseudonyms and anonymity is actually a good thing. In most cases, anonymity online brings out the worst of us—just look at 4chan, littered with mobs of minions proliferating senseless hacking and child pornography[1]. You need but look at the news lately to see the damages of unchecked anonymity: "LulzSec this," "Anonymous that" and so on. Enforcing real names is…

I have browsed thru /b/ many times, and the behavior of people there truly is the worst I've seen ever.

This has little to do with anonymity. Millions of people act equally stupidly on Facebook or Youtube as well, where there isn't such anonymity. The quality of posts is determined by the quality of the community and its members, not whether or not they have names.

/b/ is hardly representative of anonymity on the internet, and if there wasn't any anonymity, /b/ would be just as bad as it is today. Even on 4chan, the vast majority of the boards have a vastly higher quality of posting than /b/.

Re: When operating "at web scale", users often simply don't have "real names"

#23

Post by archgoon »

gaius wrote: post #9
patio11 wrote: post #2

This title is 5 words longer than it could be, because people don't have real names. Apologies in advance for the self-citation: http://www.kalzumeus.com/2010/06/17/falsehoods-programmers-b... My name+ is confusing gibberish where I live. It is highly likely likely that when I have children, they will go through life having multiple sets of gibberish so that they can pick the non-gibberish option when asked "What is…

Well, I know people who IRL insist on being called by made-up names, mostly goths, you know, something like Darkraven Bloodmisery. Whatever they called themselves in Livejournal. Very few of them follow through tho' and fill in a deed poll form! For me that's the acid test: whatever it says on your passport is your real name. And government IT - the least efficient kind! - has managed to solve this. Why can't the mig…

I believe that a point that patio11 is arguing that all names are made up. Some names are given certain legal uses over others, but this is not universal. Google is an international organization, that is attempting to form a social network application, so it cannot assume, well, anything about its users cultures and how those users use names. This is a huge problem, because the first thing that a social networking application has to do is: "Make people feel welcome". Telling them that the name that everyone uses to identify them isn't a 'real name' doesn't help to do that.

Also, I know a fair number of people, who, for a variety of reasons, have their names in transition. These new names are not yet their official names, and they may change what they ultimately decide on. It's _really_ not the place of Google to effectively say "Make up your damn mind".

Re: When operating "at web scale", users often simply don't have "real names"

#24

Post by MostAwesomeDude »

FaceKicker wrote: post #11

As much as I understand the privacy concerns etc., am I the only one who REALLY hates being on Facebook and seeing a fake name with all sorts of odd punctuation and random capitalization in a list that consists otherwise of clean "Firstname Lastname"s? Even seeing "Equality" as someone's middle name bothers me to an extent. Maybe I have OCD, but I'm personally glad I don't have to see this on Google+ for now (but I w…

Currently on my Facebook friends list:

  * A MTF transsexual who prefers going by a feminine spelling of her name
  * A Vietnamese girl who prefers to go by an adopted American name
  * A Jewish woman who prefers to spell her name in Hebrew, and whose legal name contains six names
For all the things Facebook gets wrong, the name input is really not one of them, compared to Google+.

People have known me as MAD for over a decade now, and although I sometimes wish I could just go by Corbin, it's something that I'm stuck with, better or worse. Nomenclature is hard, and any attempt to shoehorn names into a single culture's rules is going to fail.

Re: When operating "at web scale", users often simply don't have "real names"

#26

Post by SeoxyS »

saurik wrote: post #20
SeoxyS wrote: post #15

For the most part, I think that Google's crackdown on pseudonyms and anonymity is actually a good thing. In most cases, anonymity online brings out the worst of us—just look at 4chan, littered with mobs of minions proliferating senseless hacking and child pornography[1]. You need but look at the news lately to see the damages of unchecked anonymity: "LulzSec this," "Anonymous that" and so on. Enforcing real names is…

4chan is an example of an "anonymous" system, not a "pseudonymous" one: the difference is whether you have stable identities over time, and therefore can build up reputation (positive or negative) for a particular "pseudo-name". As long as you have mechanisms, whether social or political, to "default distrust" new users that don't have much "cred" yet (mechanisms like the "green" user rendering that Hacker News uses…

I agree with you on two points. Firstly, you are right to make the distinction between anonymous and pseudonymous, they're two different things and you can build a reputation system and healthy community on a pseudonymous system (see HN). However, I think they both exhibit the same underlying problem that comes with lack of accountability. HN has been lucky, because it's for the most part an elite community full of smart people. Digg or reddit have not been so lucky, and the quality of comments there is quite low. HN is the exception, not the rule.

Secondly, I also agree that there's definitely some edge cases where it make sense for people to be anonymous, or pseudonymous. If you need to shield yourself from your employer for legal reasons, I think it makes sense for you to do so. What I'm arguing is that in most cases, though, it's good for the overall community to enforce true names.

Re: When operating "at web scale", users often simply don't have "real names"

#27

Post by hoopadoop »

jchrisa wrote: post #3

One of the stupidest things we've done as a culture in the last generation, is bend our ideas about what is and isn't "well-formed", so that we don't offend computers. Fixing this is a big part of why I am motivated to work on schemaless databases. When your database doesn't ask you do predefine the data structures, it's one less opportunity for an ignorant programmer to blunt the human spirit.

Whoa, easy there - many of 'us, as a culture' have been fighting this tooth and nail.

Re: When operating "at web scale", users often simply don't have "real names"

#28

Post by patio11 »

archgoon wrote: post #23
gaius wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I know people who IRL insist on being called by made-up names, mostly goths, you know, something like Darkraven Bloodmisery. Whatever they called themselves in Livejournal. Very few of them follow through tho' and fill in a deed poll form! For me that's the acid test: whatever it says on your passport is your real name. And government IT - the least efficient kind! - has managed to solve this. Why can't the mig…

I believe that a point that patio11 is arguing that all names are made up. Some names are given certain legal uses over others, but this is not universal. Google is an international organization, that is attempting to form a social network application, so it cannot assume, well, anything about its users cultures and how those users use names. This is a huge problem, because the first thing that a social networking ap…

I believe that a point that patio11 is arguing that all names are made up.

Well, there's a continuum of "made up", going all the way from Darkbane Bloodlovin' to our idealized gold standard of "Whatever two inexpert people who have known you for less than a few hours decided would be the best thing for the entire world to know you as for the rest of your life."

P.S. Got to love that I'm referred to as "patio11" in that comment. (I don't know where "My friend in middle school was from Puerto Rico and he just couldn't manage -ck most days so 'Patio' it was" fits on the continuum, but it stuck so hard that even my siblings routinely use it now, so I won't complain about it.)

Re: When operating "at web scale", users often simply don't have "real names"

#29

Post by saurik »

SeoxyS wrote: post #16
FaceKicker wrote: post #11

As much as I understand the privacy concerns etc., am I the only one who REALLY hates being on Facebook and seeing a fake name with all sorts of odd punctuation and random capitalization in a list that consists otherwise of clean "Firstname Lastname"s? Even seeing "Equality" as someone's middle name bothers me to an extent. Maybe I have OCD, but I'm personally glad I don't have to see this on Google+ for now (but I w…

I totally agree. I can't stand people who put random crap in their Facebook names (and actually tend to unfriend them.) Similarly, I religiously give everybody on my IM buddy list their real name. I would go crazy if everyday I only saw pseudonyms and had no idea who was who.

What do you do when two people have the same real name? Also, I personally only think remembering everyone's last names, in an area of society where you hardly ever use them, becomes infeasible once you scroll through your address book and find 15-20 people named "Michael" (this is the case in my phone): it is often much more valuable to name people to include their context.

(Which, I might say, is another "myth of names" to add to patio11's list: "the list of names someone goes by is objective and transitive"; I might think of that person as "that Steve from Hacker News", when other people call him "Steve Johanson", "Stevey", or even "stivox".)

Re: When operating "at web scale", users often simply don't have "real names"

#30

Post by aristus »

gaius wrote: post #9
patio11 wrote: post #2

This title is 5 words longer than it could be, because people don't have real names. Apologies in advance for the self-citation: http://www.kalzumeus.com/2010/06/17/falsehoods-programmers-b... My name+ is confusing gibberish where I live. It is highly likely likely that when I have children, they will go through life having multiple sets of gibberish so that they can pick the non-gibberish option when asked "What is…

Well, I know people who IRL insist on being called by made-up names, mostly goths, you know, something like Darkraven Bloodmisery. Whatever they called themselves in Livejournal. Very few of them follow through tho' and fill in a deed poll form! For me that's the acid test: whatever it says on your passport is your real name. And government IT - the least efficient kind! - has managed to solve this. Why can't the mig…

Not even my passport has it right. My "real name" is ridiculously long and formal, and I refuse to use it. Luckily my shortened name passes. Unfortunately it collides with a famous futbol star, so you never know what will happen.
Post reply on HN