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

#241

Post by specialist » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 7:03 PM UTC

hatchnyc wrote: post #69

specialist wrote: post #28

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.

> nerf the outrage machine (algorithmic newsfeeds) Yes, if my feed is composed entire of accounts I follow sorted by date descending, there is little to no opportunity nor incentive for bots to exist at all. Sure, our proverbial crazy uncle is still going to send out conspiracy theories to everyone in his contacts, but this has existed forever and never seemed to cause that much trouble compared to algorithmic newsfe…

Totally agree. If UX of social media was like a RSS newsreader, I'd mosdef use it on the daily.

Yes and:

Nerfing could be as modest as dialing down virality. Like maybe a rate regulator.

IIRC, the velocity of rage posting is way greater than puppies and kittens. So just slow that crap down. Or just don't turbo boost it to big with.

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

#242

Post by specialist » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 7:06 PM UTC

xanaxagoras wrote: post #41

specialist wrote: post #28

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.

Depends on the platform. On Reddit for example, I'd rather hear from the bots, trolls and sockpuppets.

Heh. Examples or recommendations?

I'm fine with bots if they're obviously bots. I think it was US Senator Mark Warner that proposed that reform.

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

#243

Post by lm28469 » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 7:08 PM UTC

mrtksn wrote: post #235

lm28469 wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there are very few cases where anonymity is useful. The rest is mostly useful for the abusive ones. As long as you don't talk about anything not following the official lines and/or the mainstream ideology, sure... there are many topics which are effectively banned and will get you punished one way or another for just mentioning them

Currently, if you say something unpopular you will be downvoted and your speech will be hidden from the rest on most platforms. You can also be silenced completely by getting banned. I am proposing a mechanism to overcome this kind of censorship in exchange of your anonymity in case you had a problem with the management. If you get banned, if your posts are removed and you believe in what you say, you put your reputa…

What if your employer find your messages and decide he doesn't want to associate with you ? Same for landlords &c.

Having everything you say attached to your name forever seems extremely icky (we both know that "banned" and "deleted" don't mean anything on the internet). In an hypothetical perfect world with hypothetical perfectly rational people why not, in the mess we live in it would be a nightmare.

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

#244

Post by specialist » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 7:12 PM UTC

saddlerustle wrote: post #106

colpabar wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's ridiculous that bots, trolls, and sockpuppets are given the same esteem and protections as real people. Agreed. I think any talk of the problems of online anonymity should be focused on bots first and foremost. From my understanding, it's pretty easy to detect like 90% of bot users. Can't we go after those instead? I don't really care that real people online can be mean anonymously, because at the end of the d…

> it's pretty easy to detect like 90% of bot users How to tell someone’s never worked on anti-abuse at scale

Why is it hard? I have some experience with demographic databases.

I take it as a given that Facebook, NSA, whomever, have uniquely identified every person, living and dead. I just don't understand how or why fake accounts are created.

Smaller outfits like metafilter need some kind of gatekeeper. Like require nominal fee or scan of ID or verification photo.

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

#245

Post by nobody9999 » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 7:19 PM UTC

mrtksn wrote: post #237

nobody9999 wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I also suggested a mechanism to stay anonymous as long as you are not causing problems. And who decides what constitutes "causing problems?" While the vast majority of us (at least I hope so) would agree that violence and murder focused on a particular ethnic, religious or other group is a "problem," most other things have much less widespread support. I have some fairly unpopular ideas, as well as some that are mor…

Causing problems constitutes whatever the management of the platform thinks so. I am proposing a right to overide management in exchange of giving up your anonymity when you have problem with the management of the platform if you think that you still want to participate in that platform. I'm proposing a system where platforms lose their ability to censor people if the people in question are ready to bear the personal…

>I'm proposing a system where platforms lose their ability to censor people if the people in question are ready to bear the personal responsibility of their actions.

It is an interesting idea. However, there are some serious issues with that approach:

1. The old adage, "If it's connected to the Internet, eventually it will be hacked/compromised," applies, potentially exposing the links between accounts and the identities of those who operate them en masse;

2. The business models of most of the big platforms rely upon knowing who you are, so they can pretend that they can "target" advertising effectively. As such, those platforms would never go for such a solution;

3. I go back to the question I initially asked you -- Who decides when someone is 'causing problems' that would trigger the requirement that one give up their anonymity? If the management of a platform is controlled or influenced by governments or powerful special interests, important conversations would likely be stifled by such policies.

I'm all for cryptographic mechanisms (providing data integrity/non-repudiation) to identify individual actors (cf. stuff like this: https://pgp.key-server.io/ ) and validate that they are who they say they are.

However, forcing folks to use their "legal" identities to do so is a big mistake, given the propensity of others to harass and verbally/physically attack those with whom they disagree.

Giving centralized platforms the ability to force doxxing if they don't like the content of a particular post is problematic at best, and life-threatening at worst.

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

#246

Post by neartheplain » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 7:19 PM UTC

CapitalistCartr wrote: post #53

chomp wrote: post #7

I don’t know… my Nextdoor group is pretty abusive to certain groups at times, and people post happily with their real life name and the rough area of where they live attached. Hate towards an individual person isn’t super common, but it happens. If this extrapolates, I can’t see removing anonymity doing much other than e.g. hurting LGBT groups online (imagine asking questions as a member of that group in a conservati…

Nextdoor has had enormous racism/bigotry problems. They have had to revamp a variety of their interfaces to minimize this problem. It's like they have to do A/B testing to minimize it. Real identity doesn't do anything to slow down the oblivious.

>Nextdoor has had enormous racism/bigotry problems.

Could you provide some concrete examples? I've used Nextdoor regularly in three major US metropolitan areas, and I have yet to see anything like an "enormous racism/bigotry problem." If anything, I see sanctimonious neighbors calling each other racist at the drop of a hat.

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

#247

Post by Schiendelman » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 7:23 PM UTC

chomp wrote: post #7

I don’t know… my Nextdoor group is pretty abusive to certain groups at times, and people post happily with their real life name and the rough area of where they live attached. Hate towards an individual person isn’t super common, but it happens. If this extrapolates, I can’t see removing anonymity doing much other than e.g. hurting LGBT groups online (imagine asking questions as a member of that group in a conservati…

Nextdoor is a really interesting case because it limits the conversation to people in your immediate neighborhood.

Because of that, it creates an inherent ingroup/outgroup dynamic that doesn’t exist on most social media. In other systems, you have to create that through some kind of signaling.

As a result, that dynamic overwhelms other topics.

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

#248

Post by worrycue » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 7:32 PM UTC

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…

> 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.

Unfortunately often we do rely on the other person’s reputation, giving us information as to their possible biases and an initial estimate of their level of competence on the subject matter, in order to assign the appropriate weight to their opinions - especially when it comes to topics outside our scope of expertise.

With anonymity we often put everyone on the same level thus won’t be able to properly weigh varying opinions and filter out opinions that are the least likely to be of value.

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

#249

Post by mrtksn » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 7:35 PM UTC

nobody9999 wrote: post #245

mrtksn wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Causing problems constitutes whatever the management of the platform thinks so. I am proposing a right to overide management in exchange of giving up your anonymity when you have problem with the management of the platform if you think that you still want to participate in that platform. I'm proposing a system where platforms lose their ability to censor people if the people in question are ready to bear the personal…

>I'm proposing a system where platforms lose their ability to censor people if the people in question are ready to bear the personal responsibility of their actions. It is an interesting idea. However, there are some serious issues with that approach: 1. The old adage, "If it's connected to the Internet, eventually it will be hacked/compromised," applies, potentially exposing the links between accounts and the identi…

I haven't worked out the cryptographic mechanisms but my ballpark assessment is that it should be possible to work out a mechanism that protects your identity up until you accept to exchange exposure for ability. The business model is probably more of an issue, as you pointed out.

Oh BTW, it doesn't have to be a legal identity, I think. It could be some kind of identity that you build, it costs something and can be identical across platforms. The "costs something" doesn't have to be money, something that forces you to have just one practically. The NFT folks advocate for something like that. It could be a Instagram account with substantial number of followers(this one is problematic). Basically, something hard spawn without effort and consequences, something that you built on over time and you don't want to risk it by being a dick to someone.

The government ID is a good one as the govt. acts as reliable identity provider with significant identification infrastructure but I don't like that much because a government can abuse it as they can generate ID's without significant effort.

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

#250

Post by TurkishPoptart » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 7:35 PM UTC

Anonymity is more important that ever. I'm glad most of the things I've written online and on message boards were under total pseudonyms, because if those messages were retrieved 20-30 years later, I could be "canceled" for anything, depending the social mores of the time of retrieval.