41–50 of 168 posts
For people who want to have a professional social presence (FB/linkedin) as well as an anonymous one (Reddit etc), it’ll be super useful to see if the accounts are truly unlinkable. Moreover if you are opening a new anonymous account, maybe a good idea to search the new username using this tool to make sure it’s not “taken”
Staying anonymous is very difficult
I dont plan to run for president or anything, but find myself increasingly censoring my online speech. I think the biggest risk is some out of context post being pulled into a civil suit, or professional cancellation following that. Things like advice in an alcohol recovery forum would be prime evidence for a liability suit. There are also groups that vacuum the internet for offensive posts, and use them to try to ge…
Being authentic is the ticket to public office now I’m kind of glad that the value of blackmail futures has plummeted to zero I always thought millenials would be the culprit because millennials have so much online, but nope, it was just old fashioned baby boomers that have spearheaded it and double down on their indiscretions to be the role models for the country’s top offices
I dont plan to run for president or anything, but find myself increasingly censoring my online speech. I think the biggest risk is some out of context post being pulled into a civil suit, or professional cancellation following that. Things like advice in an alcohol recovery forum would be prime evidence for a liability suit. There are also groups that vacuum the internet for offensive posts, and use them to try to ge…
> for things they said 10 years ago. I don't think this is an automatic negative as you are implying. There's definitely lots of qualifiers involved though. There would have to be significant evidence to show that the sentiment expressed is still no longer held which could be more than problematic to prove. If it was someone up for supreme court justice that posted pics showing how much they liked beer and their anti…
Don't post something harmless today that will be deemed a "dog whistle" in 2035 so that you don't have to prove a negative?
I don't mean to be critical here, it's a genuine ask.
And to add to the above, my post is the kind of post that would be gone. If I was taking a similar stance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Only for this cycle. The pendulum will swing back to cancelling and pitchforks after this era of cult of personality.
I thought canceling never stopped. It was just politically motivated. (Ironically, Dems eat their own for that stuff, so maybe "politically motivated" doesn't quite capture it... compare e.g. Al Franken and Katie Hill vs Roy Moore or Matt Gaetz)
And this makes it obvious why you should use a unique username everywhere! It makes pervasive tracking a lot harder. Also when you do any research on health related topics, be extra privacy conscious.
so don't re-use email accounts across sites. SecOps matter
For people who want to have a professional social presence (FB/linkedin) as well as an anonymous one (Reddit etc), it’ll be super useful to see if the accounts are truly unlinkable. Moreover if you are opening a new anonymous account, maybe a good idea to search the new username using this tool to make sure it’s not “taken”
Until some ML process is learned to give a probability that accounts are the same based on writing styles Staying anonymous is very difficult
I dont plan to run for president or anything, but find myself increasingly censoring my online speech. I think the biggest risk is some out of context post being pulled into a civil suit, or professional cancellation following that. Things like advice in an alcohol recovery forum would be prime evidence for a liability suit. There are also groups that vacuum the internet for offensive posts, and use them to try to ge…
One of the parents saw the post, and raised a stink.
Now that I'm retired, it doesn't really matter that much, but I do my best to behave well (this joint is pretty much the only place I post much). In the past, I was not so circumspect. In fact, I was a troll.
I remember once, signing up for Disqus, and they came back, and said something to the effect of "We found all these posts from around the Internet. Would you like to claim any as yours?"
Included, were some of the worst troll posts I'd made, many years ago, under the [obviously mistaken] assumption that they were anonymous.
I nuked the signup, and went and had a lie-down.
Since then, I have never bothered to try being anonymous. I probably could, if I wanted to, but I'd rather just stay public, and not say stuff that I'd regret.
And this makes it obvious why you should use a unique username everywhere! It makes pervasive tracking a lot harder. Also when you do any research on health related topics, be extra privacy conscious.
just to be slightly pedantic as there are still sites that have screen names vs account names where the screen name the public sees has no correlation with the account name (typically an email account). so don't re-use email accounts across sites. SecOps matter
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> for things they said 10 years ago. I don't think this is an automatic negative as you are implying. There's definitely lots of qualifiers involved though. There would have to be significant evidence to show that the sentiment expressed is still no longer held which could be more than problematic to prove. If it was someone up for supreme court justice that posted pics showing how much they liked beer and their anti…
I'm at a loss for how your example doesn't lead to automatically negative. Don't post something harmless today that will be deemed a "dog whistle" in 2035 so that you don't have to prove a negative? I don't mean to be critical here, it's a genuine ask. And to add to the above, my post is the kind of post that would be gone. If I was taking a similar stance.
Age of post should just not be an automatic "but it was 10 years ago" get out of jail free card. If there's compelling evidence it was just a stupid thing someone did as a teen, then we can have that conversation. If it is a post from someone in some position of leadership that is 10 years old but was made in their 40s is not the same "I was an immature teen" situation.