I have released many pieces of software which could've brought a shitstorm down on me, legally and otherwise. I've decided in every case to do so under my real name, as I felt that I was in the right and if others disagreed, the downside for me was low (I have no house to lose, no family to support, etc). Others in the same exact position would've chosen to release these things under a pseudonym, as they had more on the line; this is a reasonable choice, and one that should be respected. In an environment where everything has to be tied to your name, you don't just crush malicious actions, you crush anything controversial. That's not alright.
Randi Zuckerberg Runs in the Wrong Direction on Pseudonymity Online
11–20 of 64 posts
Re: Randi Zuckerberg Runs in the Wrong Direction on Pseudonymity Online
#12I would hate to see a tradition in political discourse older than the US be given up for advertising dollars. How would a modern version of the Federalist Papers work with no pseudonyms?
Re: Randi Zuckerberg Runs in the Wrong Direction on Pseudonymity Online
#13In real life people use their real names ... doesn't stop idiots being idiots.
Re: Randi Zuckerberg Runs in the Wrong Direction on Pseudonymity Online
#14I think anonymity on the Internet has to go away. People behave a lot better when they have their real names down. … I think people hide behind anonymity and they feel like they can say whatever they want behind closed doors.
That's nice that you feel that way. Why do I need to care, though? I can say whatever I want behind closed doors.
Re: Randi Zuckerberg Runs in the Wrong Direction on Pseudonymity Online
#15i think anonymous should take this as a challenge, and hunt down everything negative there is to know about her online.
I'm sure if they look hard enough they can dig up plenty of dirt on her.
But even if they do, it wont' be all of it, since noone is that stupid as to use their real name online. If she has even a single account online that uses a pseudonym or a username she is a hypocrite
Re: Randi Zuckerberg Runs in the Wrong Direction on Pseudonymity Online
#16Relevant TED Talk: Christopher "moot" Poole: The case for anonymity online http://www.ted.com/talks/christopher_m00t_poole_the_case_for...
I enjoyed that. To be honest though, he does not make a very strong case for anonymity. That is not to say that there is not a strong case for anonymity, but anecdotes like "they saved a cat" and "they protested scientology" are not it. I think people have organized protests on Facebook before.
I agree, it wasn't very in-depth.
More relevant quotes from 'moot' here:
http://venturebeat.com/2011/03/13/4chan-moot-christopher-poo...
Re: Randi Zuckerberg Runs in the Wrong Direction on Pseudonymity Online
#17I wonder how this relates to exponential growth in "Persona Management Software". I heard for some companies having thousands of Facebook accounts under control. And apparently they are "real" and non-anonymous as it gets. My question is: how are they going to distinguish puppets from real people?
> My question is: how are they going to distinguish puppets from real people?
As long as it benefits their bottom line, I'd say: never.
If you follow the money, it rarely fails... especially when we're talking about the amoral concepts that corporations are designed to be.
Re: Randi Zuckerberg Runs in the Wrong Direction on Pseudonymity Online
#18>People behave a lot better when they have their real names down.
right from the KGB and Stasi manuals.
Re: Randi Zuckerberg Runs in the Wrong Direction on Pseudonymity Online
#19Having the ability to speak anonymously allows for people to speak their true mind and show their true personality rather than hiding behind the fear of lash back.
Re: Randi Zuckerberg Runs in the Wrong Direction on Pseudonymity Online
#20I was talking about something similar earlier today with a friend from high school. We were talking about how it was totally un-cool to disagree with the "consensus" about which girls were hot and which were not. We were imagining what it might have been like if we'd felt able to speak our minds.
I'm not a huge believer in the whole "social media toppled authoritarian regimes" stories that have been going around after Tunisia/Egypt but I do think that to the extent real anonymity is possible it has the potential to help people living in places where dissent is both stigmatised and punished by allowing them to realise that others feel the same way.
This Steven Pinker talk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-son3EJTrU (I think; I don't have Flash so can't check it's the right one) talks about why this type of communication is essential to free societies and why freedom of assembly is protected in all free societies.
On the same general topic researchers in public health give people some wiggle room on truth telling by introducing random noise into their responses in order to improve the aggregate quality of information you get from asking them questions about controversial topics (drug use, sexuality): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomized_response
tl;dr: anything that helps people tell the truth rather than timidly conforming to social norms is a good thing