Live data from Hacker News

Want anonymity? Make a persona not a mystery

sive.rs

321–329 of 329 posts

Re: Want anonymity? Make a persona not a mystery

#321
post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That said, as someone who prizes ethical behavior, it's not possible to practice this and remain wholly honest without some sort of ethical loophole like "character work for entertainment only". A persona requires misrepresentation, which is not the same as de facto anonymity. I don't think the persona needs to be completely falsified. Rather, you consider which topics you engage in on a given account. For example…

Do you try to keep them separate in the sense of not being connectable? That could be hard, as writing style is a pretty strong give-away (as recently demonstrated just here on HN where somebody wrote a very simple tool to detect alt accounts). It's ok if you don't. I'm just wondering if it's even worth trying. The persona strategy could be worthwhile for simple tracking purposes, but for somebody actually trying, it…

> Do you try to keep them separate in the sense of not being connectable?

I think part of the persona creates different writing styles - my other account(s) have never been rated close to each other. For Reddit, my other account is just my default. I only switch over to tsumnia for /r/professors, or other coding-related subreddits these days. Reddit Enhancement Suite helps out nicely for that. My other account(s) never really write enough to generate enough substance for comparison I think and never interact with each other (not replying to myself or something silly like that). Sure its possible, its just... not something I've had to worry about. tsumnia writes long winded responses and my other accounts... don't. If anything I'd be impressed and nerd out on the math if someone could connect the accounts.

> it shouldn't be hard to link all your personas, given enough data

I'm not some big name that I'd really need to worry about that. Even if I became one, like I mentioned I'm not trolling, flaming, or being obscene in the other accounts, just writing about my hobbies. Things I openly admit to in real life, just don't write about. It may be harder if an account is some super personal stuff like sexual orientation / gender identity, but I don't do any of that. Even if they did impact me, those fall into things I just don't bring up on the internet. Likewise, I imagine it may be harder for women that are dealing with online stalkers, but again, that hasn't been something I've had to deal with.

Plus, any organization that REALLY wanted to find me can simply reverse lookup the account IP addresses anyway. If I think an account that I want to remain private has gonna a bit too personal, I simply retire the account name. It can be annoying if account karma/points/whatever is "important", but... eh... I made plenty of DnD characters over the years, I can start using another character's name or something with a pun. Internet points only limit what I can and can't do on a site, nothing else.

> maybe one should avoid posting with real name altogether, anywhere.

That's always an option. Since I used tsumnia for so long, I sort of just DECIDED to let it be public. I had more or less doxxed myself (or narrowed down who tsumnia could be) before I openly said it was me. No different than a YouTuber doing a face reveal, except I don't have millions of fans. Instead of retiring tsumnia, I acknowledged it and created a new one that doesn't connect to me. I imagine that's how lots of usernames start - being anonymous but occasionally they drop a nugget of personal information. Those accrue over time and boom, its an alias. I'm a little more cautious to drop personal information on the other accounts, but I think its because I can always use tsumnia for those situations.

Re: Want anonymity? Make a persona not a mystery

#322
One more use case for personas:

As someone who owns a popular website, I often receive guest writing inquiries (probably for links and SEO).

Most of the time it's either Indians or Eastern European guys. But for some reason they always use fake personas and names to sound/look more "western".

When I asked why do they do that, the answer was "it increases the conversion rates" among "western" publishers. Who also happen to be the most valuable prospects.

So, basically they exploit the conscious or subconscious xenophobic biases in people of western cultures towards people from other "foreign" cultures by creating fake personas. And it works! People are more likely to accept guest articles from someone who looks like them.

PS. You would be surprised to know how many contributors at Forbes, Inc, Entrepreneur, Tech Crunch, Mashable, etc are completely fake personas.

Re: Want anonymity? Make a persona not a mystery

#323
post #93
post #31

Satoshi is the only very high profile person I’m aware of to remain completely (pseud)onymous. Many others have tried and failed (though they often broke the law, so that might be the main distinguishing factor)

Banksy Daft Punk Deadmau5 Members of KISS (for a while) Blue Man Group But if you're following the advice in this article...nobody should ever know that you're not actually a real person. So you might "know" lots of folks online who are not who they say they are.

Deadmau5 isn't anonymous.

Re: Want anonymity? Make a persona not a mystery

#324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> > If you defiantly refuse to say who you are, it can make people angry that you’re upsetting social reciprocity. > Citation needed. Look around. In this thread there are people who are upset. > This entire post/idea seems to be based on "you can't just make up an obviously anonymous avatar/username anymore (like BakedPotato138)" and I frankly don't see why not. It's been working fine for decades. I have had a few o…

> Authorities and corporations aren't people (which is important because people have rights). Depends on the jurisdiction; for example, in the US, see “How the 14th Amendment Made Corporations Into People” for a brief explanation: https://www.history.com/.amp/news/14th-amendment-corporate-p...

Authorities and corporations aren't people and don't have rights. In places where the law says that authorities and corporations are people with rights, the law is wrong.

I do understand that it's worth knowing the law because authorities have the power to enforce it. But I think it's important to be clear that corporations and governments are not people and do not have rights, no matter what the law says.

In context, this conversation is about ethics, and corporate personhood is a prime example of where laws and ethics diverge drastically.

Re: Want anonymity? Make a persona not a mystery

#325
post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are simple ethical alternatives, just not disclose that information, or just avoid that questions. That's not always possible. > Lying in this case is clearly unacceptable. In what case? If you're really taking the stance that anonymity is never ethically more important than honesty, that's a pretty extreme stance. Are women being stalked by an ex who is a cop required to be honest about their identities? Are…

> > Lying in this case is clearly unacceptable. > In what case? > If you're really taking the stance that anonymity is never ethically more important than honesty, that's a pretty extreme stance. Are women being stalked by [...] You are building a strawman argument right in front of our eyes. GP literally writes _in this case_ and you insinuate they argue for _always_ and then you are going on and on why that's extre…

> You are building a strawman argument right in front of our eyes. GP literally writes _in this case_ and you insinuate they argue for _always_ and then you are going on and on why that's extreme. Of course it is, but that's not what they wrote nor what this topic is about.

I'm insinuating that they argue for _always_ because they are being extremely vague about what "this case" is. If they aren't arguing for _always_, they can answer the question.

Notably, they responded to my post with an explanation of what they think "this case" is, and it's... a straw man that the original article wasn't talking about.

> I'm quite enjoying the good faith portions of this discussion tree as I'm intruiged by the ethical dilemma of what can be considered lying in such cases.

I'd be happy to have such a discussion with you if you can illuminate what "such cases" are.

To be clear, the original article wasn't discussing lying "just to avoid awkward social interactions". That's a straw man.

> But when strawmen are built then that's arguing in bad faith. Then the goal is not to reach new insights and understanding, but only to be right. That's pretty sad.

Agreed!

Re: Want anonymity? Make a persona not a mystery

#326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are simple ethical alternatives, just not disclose that information, or just avoid that questions. That's not always possible. > Lying in this case is clearly unacceptable. In what case? If you're really taking the stance that anonymity is never ethically more important than honesty, that's a pretty extreme stance. Are women being stalked by an ex who is a cop required to be honest about their identities? Are…

> That's not always possible. In most cases it is. And the article suggested preemptive approach, which implies lying in all cases while being in persona. > In what case? In situations described in the discussed article: "If you defiantly refuse to say who you are, it can make people angry that you’re upsetting social reciprocity". I.e. to lie just to avoid awkward social interactions instead of explicitly or implici…

> In most cases it is.

If you protect your anonymity in 999,999 cases out of 1,000,000, your anonymity is blown. "Most cases" isn't enough.

> And the article suggested preemptive approach, which implies lying in all cases while being in persona.

Yes. Because lying ex-post-facto after people have already started trying to figure out who you are doesn't work.

> In situations described in the discussed article: "If you defiantly refuse to say who you are, it can make people angry that you’re upsetting social reciprocity". I.e. to lie just to avoid awkward social interactions instead of explicitly or implicitly refuse. People being too agreeable in their social interactions so that they would rather lie than cause discomfort. This kind of casual lying.

The article doesn't say anything about it being "to avoid awkward social interactions". On the contrary, the reason given for doing so is as a further protection of one's anonymity.

And to be clear, there are many cases where any reasonable person would agree it's ethical to lie to protect one's anonymity, some of which I've described in my previous post.

Re: Want anonymity? Make a persona not a mystery

#327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is lying in-of-itself unethical? I'd be curious to probe a framework that thinks it is, while not holding that axiomatically. As someone who leans heavily into consequentialism, I can think of plenty of times lying can lead to a net positive for everyone. Likewise, there are harmful truths that should be suppressed. That suggests to me that lying is, in-of-itself, amoral. The effect of the lie (or the intent, if you…

You seem pretty confident in a subjective opinion.

It would make little sense not to be confident in a subjective opinion. As the sole arbiter of truth concerning my subjective experience, it would be absurd to waffle about it.

Re: Want anonymity? Make a persona not a mystery

#328

Pfff... people have been doing this online forever, especially furries. Most people don't know who Kayodé Lycaon is. I'm quite literally a (painted) dog on the internet.

> Most people don't know who Kayodé Lycaon is.

I do: A good boy uwu

Re: Want anonymity? Make a persona not a mystery

#329
post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That said, as someone who prizes ethical behavior, it's not possible to practice this and remain wholly honest without some sort of ethical loophole The primary "ethical loophole" here is that there is no viable ethical alternative. Something can not be immoral if it is the best of a series of bad options, and if you want to exsist in the world and protect your privacy, the only real option is to create a persona.…

By the way, and this is abnormal: My name is Matt Chaboud. My username is my last name, and I'm easy to find. I try to behave online in a way that doesn't rely on anonymity (though I recognize that that carries some risk). But I think your point is understood. However, a handle, to me, by virtue of convention, leaves little room for confusion as to whether it is a real or artificial/partial identity (generally).

Thats fair enough. Googling for my username takes you pretty quickly to my name as well.

I don't think I did a good enough job in my initial reply emphasizing that from my perspective a nickname that you only used in certian social contexts is functionally a persona. If your wife calls you Jason but all your drinking buddies call you Jack because of a hilarious collage hijink (or something), a random passer by at the bar would have no clue that the name on your birth certificate (the one that can be used to impersonate you) is actually Jason.

Thats really what I am talking about. As long as you dont lie about the fact that "Jack" is a nickname when asked, your not being unethical, in my view.

Post reply on HN