For anyone wanting a more complete list:
https://geekfeminism.wikia.org/wiki/Who_is_harmed_by_a_%22Re...
Online abuse: banning anonymous social media accounts is not the answer
171–180 of 297 posts
Re: Online abuse: banning anonymous social media accounts is not the answer
#172Earlier quoted context omitted.
>4chan is sharp and smart. Well, it can be. But the main boards usually aren't. A lot of smart people have left the platform. What's left is mostly "bad" people who have nowhere else to go: nazis, child molesters, edgy teenagers and so on.
Sounds like you got offended there. It's a short hop with eyes-closed from "offended" to "moral condemnation". Our greatest artists and thinkers have been condemned throughout history. Censored too. Consider that.
yeah, our greatest artists and thinkers aren't coming from /pol/. containment was a mistake. rest of the site is fine, if boorish.
Re: Online abuse: banning anonymous social media accounts is not the answer
#173>Banning anonymous social media accounts is not the answer to online abuse
Entirely true, but it is also not the reason for the push to de-anonymise (and de-pseudonymise) the internet. It is merely the pretext. The true reason is to make it impossible to speak your mind without fear of retribution. The democratisation of the public discourse haunts and frightens the ruling classes to their bones. The broad dissemination of information and opinions was firmly in the hands of a feudalistic elite until just a few decades ago. The fact that the masses are no more just bonded serfs in the information ecology has finally firmly arrived in the minds of the feudal lords and they are pushing back to preserve their powers to guide public opinion by interpretation ex cathedra. Strap in firmly everybody, we are about to enter stormy waters - the enlightenment 2.0 is afoot, methinks!
Re: Online abuse: banning anonymous social media accounts is not the answer
#174Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
You mean like sharing child sexual abuse material and discussing how to start a race war? Yes, I subscribe to the norm that this is bad.
that doesn't require an end to anonymity, just decent moderation.
Re: Online abuse: banning anonymous social media accounts is not the answer
#175Anonymity 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 in…
As someone who was a long time user of 4chan and that believed this once before, I now adamantly disagree that total anonymity leads to better discussion and believe that 4chan and the like are ultimately failed experiments. With total anonymity you end up with trolls or people who are just seriously misinformed arguing vigorously. You can spend the time and present arguments to possibly convince an actual reasonable…
4chan is also a poor demonstration because you can't be persistently pseudonymous. It's an imageboard.
Compare that to forums which are based on usernames, where there is usually higher quality discussion because you have a post history and this weeds out the bots and trolls.
Re: Online abuse: banning anonymous social media accounts is not the answer
#176Anonymity 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 in…
Anonymity can enable that but it also enables far nastier things. There are pros and cons. Simply pointing out pros is not enough to win the day.
my favorite part about non-anonymous accounts is being able to find their employer if they say something that's annoying.
Re: Online abuse: banning anonymous social media accounts is not the answer
#177Could there be a way to guarantee that each account is "verified" ie: a real person, but still have the platform allow you to hide your identity to others
If someone can figure it out I'd love to see it. Having some way of preventing someone from making more than one account would be a tremendous help in my eyes. Whether you use your name or not, that account is you. If it gets removed, you're off the site.
What I can't figure out is how you would do this while staying anonymous. If the users had some private key they could sign the account in some way to claim ownership without saying who they are, but then who issues and maintains the private keys? You'd need some large body to issue them, and that means storing personal data to know who has and hasn't been issued a key.
Re: Online abuse: banning anonymous social media accounts is not the answer
#178Earlier quoted context omitted.
You need anonymity with reputational score. Satoshi Nakamoto. Associate anonymous posts with an optional pubkey signing. Have tooling that can filter out bad actor signatures and highlight the ones you care about. Have your interest graph and peer graph suggest new public keys to follow. Identities can remain private.
I'm not aware of any platforms, blogs or other internet entities (accepting public comments) that chose this system. I'm thinking there are reasons for that choice.
Secure Scuttlebutt does exactly this. It is supper effective, and the only social network that I participate in, except for HN.
It's effective because you follow the profiles that you find interesting, when a profile becomes abusive you simply block them from being replicated by your machine. Folks can have as many profiles/feeds as they like, so you can separate out portions of your life that others might find distasteful, or boring.
Re: Online abuse: banning anonymous social media accounts is not the answer
#179Earlier quoted context omitted.
This seems to say a lot about you but not so much about others. You're saying your default opinion is that women wouldn't be good at a technical topic. And that you believe that white people only have two possible opinions coming in to an encounter with a black person: your opinion could be low, or you could be racist. That's a very limited perspective.
Not all people that use this site will have undergone the same sort of intellectual journey into race as those of us in more diverse areas. True tolerance would be to understand that not all people in the HN demographic come from places like the US that are true melting pots. There was no evidence of racist thinking in the OP's remarks, and you don't have to go about suggesting there was to make the point you're atte…
Being rebuked for saying something ignorant and harmful will just be part of their "intellectual journey".
Re: Online abuse: banning anonymous social media accounts is not the answer
#180Anonymity 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 in…
I just discussed this with a bunch of my friends. If you're having a high level technical exchange with somebody that you don't know, then you find out that that other person is a female, you're really impressed, that a girl will be that good at this very technical topic. If, OTOH, you find out that that other person is a black guy (assuming you're white), you go through one of two reactions: If you're opinion of bla…
I have no idea what you are talking about. I think I feel offended even.