Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The anonymity I know

chrishateswriting.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 126 posts

Re: The anonymity I know

#71

Post by potatolicious »

ben0x539 wrote: post #57
bguthrie wrote: post #31

I think what both pieces miss is the behavior that asymmetric anonymity seems to encourage. The ability to lambast public figures from behind a screen of anonymity seems to bring out the abusive worst in people, and the target has nowhere to run. Conversely, communities in which everyone is anonymous seem to foster a degree of creativity and respect rarely found elsewhere. I think Altman was thinking about the former…

> The ability to lambast public figures from behind a screen of anonymity seems to bring out the abusive worst in people, I feel like this point is really overstated. I'm much more worried about people in disadvantaged positions suffering abuse from people who do not even feel the need to be anonymous, because society tolerates their abusive behavior. Comparatively, some anonymous screeching on a message board doesn'…

> "Comparatively, some anonymous screeching on a message board doesn't seem all that worrying."

If only it was limited to "anonymous screeching".

Bear in mind that 4chan invented the term doxxing. We're talking about the anonymous mob inflicting real harm at many levels - from the mildly damaging (review bombs), to the extremely harmful (threats of rape, death, threats against family, home).

All of the above has happened, not just on 4chan, but in many other communities that are anonymous. It happens so much we have a term for it. It happens so much that Reddit had to make a site-wide decree to get rid of it (to varying degrees of success).

It's a level of abuse that only the deranged would engaged in, or a sufficient combination of sociopathy and anonymity.

We're not talking about "John Doe sucks and is a giant asshole!", we're talking about "Hey everyone troll John Doe by calling in bomb threats lolz!".

Symmetric anonymity is great. It guarantees that nothing exceeds the bounds of "anonymous screeching" as you put it. Asymmetric anonymity allows one side to attack a target that has no recourse whatsoever.

Re: The anonymity I know

#72

Post by carbocation »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #70
bglazer wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean by "this allows for sock puppetry, for whom Scott Adams will forever be the patron saint"

What part of Scott Adams participation in anonymous forums with sock puppets was unclear to you?

I suspect he just didn't know that Scott Adams, back in 2011, was found to be using sock puppets to defend himself on social media sites.

Re: The anonymity I know

#73

Post by wpietri »

DanBC wrote: post #41
wpietri wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People have everything within them: we contain multitudes. But we also become what we do, and what we surround ourselves with. Setting aside 4chan, which I don't know well, look at newspaper comments. People positively compete to be giant assholes. They practice being mean. I think there's a big difference between people having the potential for meanness within them and indulging that in a way that magnifies and shar…

Well this is confusing. You start by saying that 4chan isn't a good example of anonymity being a good example of not-meaness. Then you say you don't know 4chan very well. Then you give the example of commentors on newspaper articles competing to be giant arseholes. But often newspaper comments are not anonymous. I feel like the sands are shifting. Meanness in online comments is important because some people think rea…

Let me see if I can aid you in your confusion.

4chan has produced some startling examples of meanness and is widely know for it. It is also widely know for its anonymity. So when somebody denies that anonymity breeds meanness and uses 4chan as an example, I think they have to clearly address that conflict. To point out that conflict, I don't think I have to be an expert on 4chan.

When I gave the example of newspaper comments, I should have been more specific: the sites I had in mind were ones that were pseudonymous. Since we were talking about anonymity and behavior, I thought that was obvious from context, but rereading it now I could see that getting missed. Sorry for the confusion.

Re: The anonymity I know

#74

Post by bentcorner »

falcolas wrote: post #55
bentcorner wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not anonymous, but to the user it's ephemeral. You can make a pic, send it through snapchat, and be confident that regardless of the outcome (people loved it or hated it) they would never be able to see it again. Traditional internet forums are anonymous and static. Snapchat flips that around.

> You can make a pic, send it through snapchat, and be confident that regardless of the outcome (people loved it or hated it) they would never be able to see it again. Yeah, not so much. If there weren't things like screenshots, perhaps. A browse through Reddit's seedier parts proves this ephemerality a lie.

True, and the app itself doesn't actually delete the pictures off your device either. Still, the intention of the app is to share impermanent pictures, which is an interesting twist on things.

Re: The anonymity I know

#75

Post by waterlesscloud »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #70
bglazer wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean by "this allows for sock puppetry, for whom Scott Adams will forever be the patron saint"

What part of Scott Adams participation in anonymous forums with sock puppets was unclear to you?

Was that intended to be an example of a low value comment?

The high value response would have been to infer he didn't know the incident you were referring to, and then to explain it to him.

Re: The anonymity I know

#77

Post by wpietri »

ben0x539 wrote: post #57
bguthrie wrote: post #31

I think what both pieces miss is the behavior that asymmetric anonymity seems to encourage. The ability to lambast public figures from behind a screen of anonymity seems to bring out the abusive worst in people, and the target has nowhere to run. Conversely, communities in which everyone is anonymous seem to foster a degree of creativity and respect rarely found elsewhere. I think Altman was thinking about the former…

> The ability to lambast public figures from behind a screen of anonymity seems to bring out the abusive worst in people, I feel like this point is really overstated. I'm much more worried about people in disadvantaged positions suffering abuse from people who do not even feel the need to be anonymous, because society tolerates their abusive behavior. Comparatively, some anonymous screeching on a message board doesn'…

I would rather you let the people in the disadvantaged positions judge that for themselves.

I personally don't worry much about anonymous screeching. But then, I'm a white male with 14 years in SF and a long background in tech. I've got sufficient social and financial capital that some anonymous people being dicks to me is unlikely to make much difference.

But that indifference also means I'm unlikely to be a target. Watch any nature channel: predators are careful to select the targets they can most easily hurt. Having talked with people who have been the targets of sufficient internet abuse, I promise: it, as intended, causes real trauma.

Re: The anonymity I know

#78

Post by wpietri »

crassus wrote: post #35
wpietri wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Healthy communities, real or virtual, self-regulate through social feedback loops. Requiring real names activates those social feedback loops in a way that is very handy from the perspective of people designing communities. If you're going to have anonymity, you need to find a workable substitute. Early BBSes were often pseudonymous, but they were also gardens carefully tended by their operators. HN's self-moder…

Scalzi considers "ugly" anyone that is outside a very small neighborhood of idea space. It's fine for his own professional blog, but it's incredibly narrow as a general principle for discussions.

I don't think that's the case. He's pretty strict in enforcing behavior, including the behavior of staying on topic.

Another good example in this regard is Quora. They cover an incredibly wide range of topics and viewpoints. But they're pretty insistent on respectful behavior.

I think that focus, respectful behavior, is exactly what makes for good real-world discussions. Because on-line fora break the sort of continuous, subtle social signals that help guide real-world discussions, I think we need to be especially disciplined in pursuing that respect.

Re: The anonymity I know

#79

Post by wpietri »

moot wrote: post #21
Zikes wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

/b/ seems to be a "honey pot" for the more negative behaviors on 4chan. By providing that outlet, the rest of the site's communities are that much more civil as a result.

> There's a _huge_ discrepancy between people's interpretation of what 4chan is like, and what it really is. > /b/ seems to be a "honey pot" for the more negative behaviors on 4chan. Double bingo!

Ah. Thanks, that's helpful. Where should I look to see a sample of 4chan that you consider more representative?

Re: The anonymity I know

#80

Post by wpietri »

aestra wrote: post #39
wpietri wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People have everything within them: we contain multitudes. But we also become what we do, and what we surround ourselves with. Setting aside 4chan, which I don't know well, look at newspaper comments. People positively compete to be giant assholes. They practice being mean. I think there's a big difference between people having the potential for meanness within them and indulging that in a way that magnifies and shar…

> People positively compete to be giant assholes. People compete to be giant assholes under their own names. Facebook logins with picture and all.

I see much less of that on Facebook than elsewhere.

Nobody is suggesting that meanness first entered the world with computer-mediated anonymity. They're just asking whether it increases the frequency, depth, and persistence of it.

Post reply on HN