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

281–290 of 297 posts

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

#281

Post by Theory5 »

croutonwagon wrote: post #274
_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…

I will say. Over the last year I have more and more just pulled back. I have regularly wiped my Reddit account, come back for a bit, notes the toxicity and blatant bias and wiped it again. Within my circle of friends I no longer really discuss current events or politics. Once a pastime of challenging our beliefs and opinions has kinda just….stopped. And most are pretty moderate and more just burned out from the toxic…

I mean, that's should be a reasonable understanding for most people. Sure, there are companies out there I don't support because I don't like what they do. But there are others with opinions I disagree with, but I still patronize them.

And its important to recognize that the stores I refuse to patronize, and those I do that hold views I dislike, are probably not given the same distinctions by others, even those with ideals like mine.

But the core point should be we can have a calm, rational discussion on it, and leave with the understanding that your thoughts and views are not 100% my thoughts and views, and that's ok as long as neither of us hold views promoting violence or hatred.

I've never met a person in my life I 100% agreed with about everything. Not my mom, not my dad, not my sister, or my wife .

Talking and finding commonality is more important and necessary than finding reasons to dislike each other.

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

#282

Post by StanislavPetrov »

bigjimmyjohnson wrote: post #72

Why does there need to be one uniform solution? Some sites can be entirely anonymous, some can be pseudononymous, some with real names... some heavily moderated, some lightly moderated... some facilitating one on one conversation, some for small groups, some for the wider public... and so on. The web need not be homogenous. Omegle, Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, hacker news... They can all exist differently and that's fi…

>Why does there need to be one uniform solution?

Because free discourse cannot be completely stifled by the powers that be if there exists anywhere where people are allowed to express their honest opinions without fear of retribution.

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

#284

Post by dang »

mlac wrote: post #279
croutonwagon wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I will say. Over the last year I have more and more just pulled back. I have regularly wiped my Reddit account, come back for a bit, notes the toxicity and blatant bias and wiped it again. Within my circle of friends I no longer really discuss current events or politics. Once a pastime of challenging our beliefs and opinions has kinda just….stopped. And most are pretty moderate and more just burned out from the toxic…

Yeah. I’d like to run for office one day, but I would need the wife fully on board and I don’t want it to impact the kid(s). I don’t post really anything on social media, but I do have this account. I believe that if I do run for office that the things I’ve written here, in the context of today, will be dug up and taken out of context then. But I need to develop my thinking somewhere, and oddly enough this site has t…

> the things I’ve written here, in the context of today, will be dug up and taken out of context

People who are worried about this kind of thing can always email us to rename their account and/or to redact identifying information. We don't want anyone to get in trouble from anything they posted to HN. While we don't delete entire account histories (and take some heat for this), we do care about protecting users, handle these requests every day, and there's nearly always something we can do.

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

#285

Post by tickettohide »

croutonwagon wrote: post #274
_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…

I will say. Over the last year I have more and more just pulled back. I have regularly wiped my Reddit account, come back for a bit, notes the toxicity and blatant bias and wiped it again. Within my circle of friends I no longer really discuss current events or politics. Once a pastime of challenging our beliefs and opinions has kinda just….stopped. And most are pretty moderate and more just burned out from the toxic…

+1 to all this.

I raise fewer issues in work, am less willing to engage in debate with everyone, and am transitioning to treating the Internet with ephemerality (throwaway...), mostly read-only.

Perhaps this is a win for those that seek to control speech.

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

#286

Post by imtringued »

naravara wrote: post #230
fouric wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 anyth…

The profit-maximizing algorithms are ad-supported, which means they maximize profit by maximizing engagement time and attention. This means things that don't maximize around those things will inherently be disadvantaged against the manipulative ones (barring regulation against the manipulation or some sort of very unlikely social movement to consciously eschew the manipulative ones). As long as this particular set of…

You know there is this one odd argument behind the "deflation is good" narrative.

The problem with the argument is that the assumption is that the economy will just happily stand still and you only buy the things you truly want. We keep our money because there isn't anything we want to buy. The irony behind that is that businesses would become increasingly desperate to sell products to you which means they will increasingly attempt to manipulate you and convince you that you really want these products. After all, the business takes away your valuable appreciating "money" while only giving you a non appreciating consumer good. It is inherently a coercive relationship.

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

#287

Post by imtringued »

mrtksn wrote: post #221
fouric wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 wrongthi…

The real life interactions are much more civil because of the fact that being an a*hole gets retribution from the person you are being an a*hole to or from the society. Perfectly nice people turn into psychos when they interact with people online. Observe kids playing games in real life, they are very rarely as vulgar or sadistic as on online games. A walk even in the most crowded places is much nicer experience that…

>The real life interactions are much more civil because of the fact that being an ahole gets retribution from the person you are being an ahole to or from the society.

When people are assholes on the road I just want them to get away from me and leave me alone.

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

#288

Post by imtringued »

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.

Maybe we should highlight sarcasm with a special color? Of course there should be the option to hide/unhide the color.

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

#290

Post by lexapro »

swayvil wrote: post #164
lexapro wrote: post #100

Earlier 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.

Offended no, it's hard to take it that serious. But yes, I do disagree with blatant racism and child sexual abuse. And I don't think it's particularly witty or edgy even.

>Our greatest artists and thinkers have been condemned throughout history.

Our greatest artists and thinkers were typically not nazis or child molesters.

Post reply on HN