Randi Zuckerberg Runs in the Wrong Direction on Pseudonymity Online • Hacker News Board

Re: Randi Zuckerberg Runs in the Wrong Direction on Pseudonymity Online

#61

Post by true_religion » Thu, Aug 04, 2011, 11:48 AM UTC

quanticle wrote: post #54

true_religion wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intriguingly, without anonymity there is no real reason to prevent predators from living next to elementary schools nor interacting publicly with children. Everyone around them would know their history, and name then therefore watch them to a close degree. As it is now, we simply try to prevent convicted pedophiles from being near unsuspecting children and parents. --- With a terrorist, the argument is the same. If o…

>With a terrorist, the argument is the same. I submit that it is not. How would your non-anonymous world stop a madman like Anders Breivik? He did not hide his views. He was a known user of white supremacist sites, and a known affiliate of white supremacist groups. However, no one, not even the fringe groups that he affiliated with could predict that he would carry out his horrible actions. Breivik was not anonymous.…

The argument I'm responding to states that if you know someone is a terrorist, then you simply prevent them from boarding planes.

That anonymity is the source of crime isn't my argument, it's his.

Clearly, you can be identified as an 'enemy' and still be dangerous. A good example is during time of war, soldiers are often uniformed and standing in ranks. There is no doubt about which 'side' someone facing you is on, and yet they are no less dangerous because of it.

Anonymity doesn't remove danger, but merely identifies that danger exists.

Wouldn't it be interesting if you could flag something to notify you if you're walking by a white supremacist?

Re: Randi Zuckerberg Runs in the Wrong Direction on Pseudonymity Online

#62

Post by ameasure » Thu, Aug 04, 2011, 12:47 PM UTC

quanticle wrote: post #54

true_religion wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intriguingly, without anonymity there is no real reason to prevent predators from living next to elementary schools nor interacting publicly with children. Everyone around them would know their history, and name then therefore watch them to a close degree. As it is now, we simply try to prevent convicted pedophiles from being near unsuspecting children and parents. --- With a terrorist, the argument is the same. If o…

>With a terrorist, the argument is the same. I submit that it is not. How would your non-anonymous world stop a madman like Anders Breivik? He did not hide his views. He was a known user of white supremacist sites, and a known affiliate of white supremacist groups. However, no one, not even the fringe groups that he affiliated with could predict that he would carry out his horrible actions. Breivik was not anonymous.…

I am not claiming that anonymity is the source of all crime.

Perhaps some of the misunderstanding is due to the broad definition of anonymity I'm using. Anonymity as I use it is the inability to link a person's actions to their identity. This type of anonymity breaks a lot of our social institutions. For example, if you don't know that a person committed a crime it's hard to arrest them.

If Anders Breivik was anonymous he would still be wandering Norway because no one would know that he was responsible for the murders. Some of the information I've read suggests that he wanted (or at least expected) to be caught. In such situations anonymity may actually discourage crime. I would guess, however, that most criminals would rather not be caught.

Re: Randi Zuckerberg Runs in the Wrong Direction on Pseudonymity Online

#63

Post by neutronicus » Thu, Aug 04, 2011, 2:35 PM UTC

reso wrote: post #7

bdhe wrote: post #5

In these sort of arguments I don't really understand why civility in and of itself is valued. It only makes sense in a social situation that affords civility. For that you can make "giving up anonymity" opt-in , rather than opt-out (which is mostly what is being done a lot, from forums that force you to use FB accounts to tor users in various countries who have no easy way to opt-out of foregoing anonymity). It is ra…

The argument is that online anonymity itself also creates real-world consequences, such as character assassinations, harassment, and downright internet crime. If "Civility" means "being nice to each other", why shouldn't we value it, in and of itself?

I think, for a lot of people, "civility" means "ritualized groveling before people more powerful than themselves", and they're unwilling to make it anything more than completely optional.

Re: Randi Zuckerberg Runs in the Wrong Direction on Pseudonymity Online

#64

Post by slowpoke » Thu, Aug 04, 2011, 3:11 PM UTC

william42 wrote: post #53

kapitalx wrote: post #19

Having 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.

One word. /b/.

I've met some of my best (online) buddies on /b/ or in /b/-related activities (though I don't go there anymore).

Yes, it's a raging shithole of trolls, mouth-frothing idiots and general retardation, but there're probably just as many decent people there. They're just not as vocal. This applies to many places, by the way, not just /b/.

Also, generally speaking, /b/ is the worst kind of example that you can probably think of. This makes for an interesting argument though: it can hardly get worse than /b/ - it's the absolute superlative of anonymity induced uncivility.