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

Online abuse: banning anonymous social media accounts is not the answer

theconversation.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 297 posts

Re: Online abuse: banning anonymous social media accounts is not the answer

#21

Post by brutopia »

user-the-name wrote: post #8
999900000999 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The actual solution is to limit your social media use unless you want to be subject to abuse. I only have my Facebook for friends to contact me via messenger. As well as it's original purpose, commenting on a ( real life )friend's engagement photos with a nice congrats. The moment you get into stuff The Facebook wasn't designed for; like actually meeting new people, arguing with strangers, etc , then you run into pro…

Why should you have to shut yourself away from a large section of modern daily life just to not be the subject of abuse? Why is not even an option to work to fix the abuse?

The technology isn’t the problem, it’s us. Our primitive instincts just aren’t compatible to deal with such big groups of other people anonymous or not.

Re: Online abuse: banning anonymous social media accounts is not the answer

#22

Post by throwaway743 »

saasaccount2 wrote: post #2

totally agree, cyber-bullying is mostly due to anonymity, and technology is well developed, and hackers find their way to do heinous acts and hide behind, this type of abuse cannot simply be prevented by banning social media, the cause is deep within the society's roots.

Soooo your solution is to dox yourself and everyone else, even to those who you are not affiliated with or are not on a platform you're involved with?

Re: Online abuse: banning anonymous social media accounts is not the answer

#23

Post by lionkor »

Anonymity is important because it allows you to have discussions purely based on the arguments and opinions, without the bias of who youre talking to.

I often find myself having a wonderfully deep discussion with someone online, and when I eventually find out what they look like (etc), I often realize that they dont look as friendly, educated, etc as they are.

Humans are really bad at this, and you will put people into groups in your mind no matter how hard you try. Anonymity mostly removes this bias, and leads to real and pure equal exchange of ideas.

Re: Online abuse: banning anonymous social media accounts is not the answer

#24

Post by 999900000999 »

user-the-name wrote: post #8
999900000999 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The actual solution is to limit your social media use unless you want to be subject to abuse. I only have my Facebook for friends to contact me via messenger. As well as it's original purpose, commenting on a ( real life )friend's engagement photos with a nice congrats. The moment you get into stuff The Facebook wasn't designed for; like actually meeting new people, arguing with strangers, etc , then you run into pro…

Why should you have to shut yourself away from a large section of modern daily life just to not be the subject of abuse? Why is not even an option to work to fix the abuse?

Because the platforms themselves make more money when there's rampant abuse. Facebook is largely profitable since super users are enraged and engaged.

If you're scrolling mindlessly consuming content which keeps drawing you in you're more likely to click on an ad for some new toothpaste.

Re: Online abuse: banning anonymous social media accounts is not the answer

#26

Post by [deleted] »

polartx wrote: post #14

The article cites the recent murder of politician David Amess as the purpose for revisiting discussions about banning anonymity on social networks. But Amess was stabbed to death by a Somali migrant with ‘religious and ideological motivations’. What does that have to do with social media anonymity?

[deleted]

Re: Online abuse: banning anonymous social media accounts is not the answer

#28

Post by specialist »

No, there is no silver bullet.

Yes, banning anonymity is dumb idea.

Also, opt-in authenticated identity is necessary.

It's ridiculous that bots, trolls, and sockpuppets are given the same esteem and protections as real people.

To curtail harassment, nerf the outrage machine (algorithmic newsfeeds) and ad revenue biz models.

Re: Online abuse: banning anonymous social media accounts is not the answer

#29

Post by ipaddr »

lexapro wrote: post #17
tlholaday wrote: post #6

moot (Chris Poole) Conjecture: bind anonymity to ephemerality for best results. Consider ten seconds persistence limit. Like short-term memory for the spoken word.

If anything, he has proven that it brings out the absolutely worst.

It allows for taboo topics which could be the worst if you subscribe society norms.

Remember if everyone was anonymous so would personal traits which forces judging on material and people not taking things personally because their real id isn't attach to this idea

Re: Online abuse: banning anonymous social media accounts is not the answer

#30

Post by shaan7 »

user-the-name wrote: post #8
999900000999 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The actual solution is to limit your social media use unless you want to be subject to abuse. I only have my Facebook for friends to contact me via messenger. As well as it's original purpose, commenting on a ( real life )friend's engagement photos with a nice congrats. The moment you get into stuff The Facebook wasn't designed for; like actually meeting new people, arguing with strangers, etc , then you run into pro…

Why should you have to shut yourself away from a large section of modern daily life just to not be the subject of abuse? Why is not even an option to work to fix the abuse?

> Why is not even an option to work to fix the abuse?

It is difficult for even human judges to clearly define what counts as abuse and what doesn't. Automated algorithms (or manual reviews) will be much worse, most likely.

Post reply on HN