Online abuse: banning anonymous social media accounts is not the answer • Hacker News Board

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

#211

Post by tomp » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 5:27 PM UTC

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…

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

It's not either/or. It's none/both.

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

#212

Post by colordrops » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 5:29 PM UTC

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…

> I know that this is very unpopular opinion but there are very few cases where anonymity is useful.

This just isn't true. It makes the assumption that what you will be shamed or punished for saying is completely in line with what is right. No way is that the case, whether you are talking about drugs, gender and sexuality issues, unpopular political ideas, or a host of other things.

Your argument is no different from those who claim that only those who have done something wrong care about privacy. It's wrong.

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

#213

Post by theHIDninja » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 5:31 PM UTC

Larrikin wrote: post #88

lionkor wrote: post #23

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 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…

Every imageboard besides 4chan functions just fine and has perfectly good discussions on things. You can blame 4chan's moderation and administration for its failure.

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

#214

Post by burnafter182 » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 5:33 PM UTC

slg wrote: post #203

burnafter182 wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 oppos…

You literally just indicated that anonymity is important. Freelancers could publish under a pseudonym - a form of anonymity to protect themselves from the public.

And I mean, there was that one time that some dude, in person at a press conference threw a shoe at George W. Bush, the President of the United States of America, he wasn't anonymous, and what level of force could've been deployed as recourse ran up to death, evidently not adequate disincentive.

I can make a victim out of myself by a few alterations in my personal narrative. I choose not to.

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

#215

Post by mrtksn » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 5:34 PM UTC

q1w2 wrote: post #208

mrtksn wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 con…

> 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.

That’s the one of the few rare cases where anonymity is important. Add whistlelowers etc. to the mix but these are edge cases that can have specialized mechanisms.

For many cases the default approach could be good enough though. Your identity will be encrypted in the system and when the moderators of a specific platform think that you are a trouble, they lock you and remove your content but they don’t know your identity. It’s up to you to unlock your account by revealing your identity.

So, you can simply post to places that are not hostile to you and you stay anonymous. Russians journalists can post to American forums for example.

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

#216

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 5:38 PM UTC

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.

[deleted]

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

#217

Post by mrtksn » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 5:40 PM UTC

colordrops wrote: post #212

mrtksn wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> I know that this is very unpopular opinion but there are very few cases where anonymity is useful. This just isn't true. It makes the assumption that what you will be shamed or punished for saying is completely in line with what is right. No way is that the case, whether you are talking about drugs, gender and sexuality issues, unpopular political ideas, or a host of other things. Your argument is no different from…

So what if you are ashamed? it’s human nature, you face it and move on. If you think that it’s something that it’s not to be ashamed, you defend your position.

I also suggested a mechanism to stay anonymous as long as you are not causing problems. If you need the anonymity, simply go that route.

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

#218

Post by lemoncookiechip » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 5:40 PM UTC

This just sounds ripe for abuse. Data mining, doxxing, swatting, more and more aggressive ads, identity theft and so on.

Are people toxic on the internet (not just social media)? Yes. Does changing it so people have no protection or privacy change things? It instills fears in them, yes, but does it change human nature? No.

The internet is just a reflection of what we are has a collective. You might not want to admit that we're twisted little things while also being altruistic and creative, but that's what we are, and saying mean things online shouldn't be punishable. Using this privacy to do other less savory things is a whole other issue, but they'll happen regardless and that's why we have people with the authority and tools to persecute those people.

Also, I find it amusing that half the people defending this are also using online usernames with no photo or personal information directly attached to their account (maybe they have it somewhere or they'll give it to you if you ask nicely).

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

#219

Post by fouric » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 5:40 PM UTC

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…

> retribution is an important social construct

I would like to see evidence to back up your claim - evidence that supports the extension of this idea from the real world to the internet, because you don't get that for free.

Moreover, I can think of far more examples of retribution causing harm in the real world than doing good. Bullying in school, being fired for whistleblowing, being jailed or executed for wrongthink in China, getting slammed with jail time for uncovering criminally bad security on some website, losing your job because a mob on Twitter saw a doctored video of you doing something they didn't like...

Are all of these "very few cases where anonymity is useful"?

> What if we remain anonymous to the discussion parties but guaranteed linked identity to the systems that host us?

That still enables every most of the above abuses - which also happen to be the worse ones.

If you don't have even the potential for anonymity on the internet, then you get suppression of speech by tyrannical governments.

> If someone does something very bad, the identity could be revealed, i.e. doxxed

This reads as an ad for mob justice - and even if it weren't, this mechanism would absolutely still be exploited to that effect.

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

#220

Post by vangelis » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 5:47 PM UTC

kbelder wrote: post #206

vangelis wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

that's right (about the sarcasm)