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

201–210 of 297 posts

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

#201

Post by mrtksn »

_0ffh wrote: post #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 disseminat…

But retribution is an important social construct. Sometimes, you speak your mind and get retribution. Sometimes you deserve it however if you are not getting a fair one people side with you.

I know that this is very unpopular opinion but there are very few cases where anonymity is useful. The rest is mostly useful for the abusive ones.

Instead of banning people and removing content, I would prefer losing anonymity.

I actually think that we can have the best of both worlds. What if we remain anonymous to the discussion parties but guaranteed linked identity to the systems that host us? If someone does something very bad, the identity could be revealed, i.e. doxxed. This way, many can self watch their behavior and remain anonymous.

So when the time comes and you post something objectionable or the mods flag you, the system can present you the option to remove your last post and lock your account OR override the mods, keep the content and reveal your identity.

It’s a shame that the current norm of dealing with people on the internet is to remove their content and lock them out. In my opinion, everyone should be guaranteed right to speak. If the the thing they do is illegal, punish them through the legal system but don’t silence them.

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

#202

Post by handrous »

baloki wrote: post #124
ethanbond wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The conversation didn’t start with that. The conversation started with widespread abuse online originating from anonymous accounts. Communities without abuse problems never even float the idea of banning anonymity. One reason being it’s extremely expensive to do that if not effectively impossible.

Wasn’t there evidence that anonymity doesn’t actually play as big a part as people keep saying? Most of the Twitter abuse, you can generally identify who it is behind the account, it’s more the forum than the anonymity?

It's the Internet. One of the things baked into the Internet is the abuse. It's been there from very early on, and it's never been substantially curbed. Some would probably rank it as a defining characteristic of the Internet. Many communities have grown on the Internet, in which part of what defines the in-group is when and how you're abusive, not whether (of course you are). This isn't a one-off, but a part of what communities grow around over and over again. Facebook and Twitter see tons of it, even when anonymity isn't a factor.

The medium is the message. One of the messages of the Internet, as a medium, is abuse.

Now, whether the take-away is "we should try to regulate it to stop that", or "people should stop using it to post details and thoughts, alongside PII and all tied to one traceable identity, that they wouldn't ever post to the public-use notice board at the local grocery store, because it's fucking insane (as Zuck might put it, they're 'dumb fucks') to post like that on the Internet and expect it to go well", or something else, is a matter for consideration.

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

#203

Post by slg »

burnafter182 wrote: post #184
slg wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is troubling logic if we expand it to other areas. For example, what if someone says "Let's ban killing other people"? Is it enough to point out that sometimes killing people saves the lives of other people? Should we outlaw killing in self defense? Should we outlaw killing people who are an imminent threat like active shooters? If you agree that sometimes killing can be justified, does that mean we need to allo…

You're diverting. Being attacked and/or killed is almost never voluntary. Viewing anonymous posts on the internet is almost always voluntary. Whatever damage is caused is emergent from the framework of interpretations of the individual. This is closer kin to victimless crime as opposed to real crime than it is conditional rules of engagement. I'm under the impression you're engaging in sophistry though, "This is trou…

>Viewing anonymous posts on the internet is almost always voluntary.

No it isn't. Social media is a near required part of modern life for a lot of people, especially those in the public sphere. For example, it is near impossible to be a freelance journalist without a social media account. Once you have that account, people are free to push their anonymous posts to you.

>This is closer kin to victimless crime as opposed to real crime than it is conditional rules of engagement.

This is just a baffling comment and shows you are out of touch with the type of abuse we are talking about. I can't imagine you have seen any of this first hand if you think this is "close kin to victimless crime". There are very much victims on the end of this abuse.

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

#204

Post by Sohcahtoa82 »

pixelgeek wrote: post #150
vorpalhex wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of why this works on HN is our small size. I will almost certainly bump into you again on here, and likely have before. Prisoner's dilemma is altered when it's a repeated trust action.

Back in the 'olden days' you almost always knew the people in your groups and knew the trolls. Heck you sometimes knew who the trolls in other groups were. Then AOL came and ruined it for everyone. Millions of new people. No-one read the rules and the quality of content went down precipitously. And that news group apocalypse now seems quaint in comparison to Facebook and Twitter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September

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

#205

Post by Zpalmtree »

HWR_14 wrote: post #183
_0ffh wrote: post #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 disseminat…

You think the push to deanonymize is to censor people? It's to extract more value from them. It's for more ads, more dynamic pricing, etc. Meanwhile, the enlightenment was specifically when a wide variety of viewpoints started getting published.

It's probably both

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

#206

Post by kbelder »

vangelis wrote: post #176
majormajor wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm upvoting you because I think you make a good argument, using sarcasm, for anonymity. If you were indeed serious, please let me know, and I'll remove the upvote. Thanks.

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

#207

Post by michaelmrose »

burnafter182 wrote: post #184
slg wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is troubling logic if we expand it to other areas. For example, what if someone says "Let's ban killing other people"? Is it enough to point out that sometimes killing people saves the lives of other people? Should we outlaw killing in self defense? Should we outlaw killing people who are an imminent threat like active shooters? If you agree that sometimes killing can be justified, does that mean we need to allo…

You're diverting. Being attacked and/or killed is almost never voluntary. Viewing anonymous posts on the internet is almost always voluntary. Whatever damage is caused is emergent from the framework of interpretations of the individual. This is closer kin to victimless crime as opposed to real crime than it is conditional rules of engagement. I'm under the impression you're engaging in sophistry though, "This is trou…

People spread harmful lies better when they aren't banned from doing so and when the harm they do is attached to a pseudonym not their actual life.

It is vastly harder to exclude people spreading harmful lies when they can do it under 27 trivially created and then discarded identities across 12 platform.

It's trivial to argue that people agree to engage with online communities as they agree to engage in in person communities but what is the realistic alternative? Both huddle in your basement AND don't engage online either?

It is unrealistic when your online life is a large part of people's gateway to communication and culture. People deserve to be able to engage in such without also expecting harm.

Furthermore people's online hate touches people's lives with or without their opting for engagement when the festering hate nurtured online gives birth to real world violence, mass murder, coup, collapse of civil society.

It seems trivially true that anonymity enables hate and I support both people's right to voice unpopular but not harmful ideas and consequences for those who call for hate and violence.

You may note my username is simply a plain old name and it's my real name. I cannot any longer support anonymity save for cases where safety demand it.

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

#208

Post by q1w2 »

mrtksn wrote: post #201
_0ffh wrote: post #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 disseminat…

But retribution is an important social construct. Sometimes, you speak your mind and get retribution. Sometimes you deserve it however if you are not getting a fair one people side with you. I know that this is very unpopular opinion but there are very few cases where anonymity is useful. The rest is mostly useful for the abusive ones. Instead of banning people and removing content, I would prefer losing anonymity. I…

Maybe it would be interesting to have different platforms that have different levels of anonymity so that we can see what sort of conversations would form differently.

We also have to remember that internationally, the standards for what is acceptable speech is wildly different, so de-anonymization can literally cause people to be imprisoned and/or killed.

In my opinion, highly moderated forums tend to have their conversations reduced to low-value self-reinforcing memes/jokes/self-congratulations/hate-for-the-other-party.

But more importantly, there are certain truths that would go unspoken in a completely de-anonymous internet. ...and as forum providers consolidate ever-closer to governments, that class of illegal words gets larger.

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

#209

Post by fouric »

Hokusai wrote: post #190
_0ffh wrote: post #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 disseminat…

> The democratisation of the public discourse haunts and frightens the ruling classes to their bones. "democratization" does not exist in social media. Algorithms designed to maximize profit rule what people read and watch. It's not a meritocracy, and you even can buy credibility of you want. ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dum0bqWfiGw ) So, be careful on thinking that no rules means that everybody has the same opp…

Social media is indeed not "democratic" - but the reasons that you gave are completely wrong. "Algorithms designed to maximize profit" are a feature of specific social networks - Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, TikTok - not the concept of social networks. For instance: Mastodon/Fediverse. Sure, it's not popular at all - but it's still social media without manipulative profit-maximizing algorithms.

So, if anything, the issue is with those algorithms, or specific platforms.

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

#210

Post by Steltek »

Sohcahtoa82 wrote: post #193
echelon wrote: post #92

Earlier 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.

What's the difference between doing this versus just using nicknames like everyone does already?

The reputation graph prevents Sybil attacks (mobs of sock puppets, etc).

The crypto aspect can obscure a series of posts by the same author although I don't think it would protect you from the site owner themselves.

Post reply on HN