The anonymity I know • Hacker News Board

Re: The anonymity I know

#121

Post by josefresco » Thu, Feb 13, 2014, 5:16 PM UTC

bentcorner wrote: post #23

josefresco wrote: post #18

I may be completely ignorant here but how is Snapchat anonymous? I thought you shared content with your contact list... but maybe I'm missing something. Is it because Snapchat has no "profile" page a la Facebook?

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.

"Snapchat has changed the game. Its success has demonstrated that given the right offering, there is in fact mainstream demand for products that incorporate anonymity and ephemerality"

The author (moot) should revise the text as Snapchat is clearly ephemeral but not anonymous.

Re: The anonymity I know

#122

Post by wpietri » Thu, Feb 13, 2014, 6:11 PM UTC

crassus wrote: post #96

wpietri wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have some examples of him banning people who were behaving well and discussing topics respectfully but were still banned? I actually don't see him banning many people; I think he's just frank about being willing to ban. In particular, I think a lot of my fellow white males who charge into topics of sexism and racism do so without significant respect for the lived experience of participants or the large amount…

I'm adding "disrespectful" to the list of euphemism that progressives use to silence dissent.

Well next I see a progressive, I'll let them know that some anonymous internet guy is keeping a list. I'm sure they'll be impressed.

In the meantime, you might think upon respect a little. It turns out it's not just a far-left thing. If a liberal walks into the middle of a conservative talk and starts shouting slogans, people in the audience aren't just going to say, "Hey, tell us more, stranger, about your novel views." They're going to shout him down and throw him out, because his behavior is disrespectful to the existing audience and dialog.

The difference between you and that liberal is that the liberal will know that he's protesting, not trying to participate in a discussion.

I understand you want it to be magically different for you online. Which, hey, it's nice to have unrealistic dreams sometimes: it adds some spice to life. But if you actually want to start influencing other people's views, rather than just have the satisfaction of vomiting your notions and upsetting people you didn't really like anyhow, then you're going to have to work on on demonstrating respect for the people and the existing discussion, something they were building before you turned up.

Re: The anonymity I know

#123

Post by bglazer » Thu, Feb 13, 2014, 9:52 PM UTC

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 have never heard the term sock puppet used like this, nor have I heard that Scott Adams was doing such a thing.

Re: The anonymity I know

#124

Post by jmillikin » Fri, Feb 14, 2014, 3:43 AM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #111

Ardren wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I was the subject of a thread on /d/ Are you sure that was /d/ and not /prog/? They are a little different in content.

Please tell me how context makes a difference to vitriolic abuse of an outsider.

/prog/ is for discussions of programming and technology. /d/ is for pornography so abhorrent that the rest of 4chan doesn't want to encounter it.

Re: The anonymity I know

#125

Post by thanatropism » Fri, Feb 14, 2014, 11:00 AM UTC

I just discovered that 4chan works great on mobile phones.

The great barrier to entry, for me, was the high risk of not only NSFW, but very weird NSFW stuff randomly popping up (even if I stay in /mu/ and /pol/) at work. Now I have a tiny screen for it.

Re: The anonymity I know

#126

Post by thanatropism » Fri, Feb 14, 2014, 12:48 PM UTC

zyx321 wrote: post #117

ChuckMcM wrote: post #65

Great article moot, and well said. What is particularly intriguing to me on this (hackernews) and 4chan has been how so many people conflate anonymity with "non-identity", which is absolutely not the same. Karma systems attach value to a 'handle' which is its own form of identity. So I can create an account on a forum as xyz123 and say what ever I want, but if the speech is of low value to the community I'll get "dow…

Well, I'd call that pseudonymity. Anonymity to me is having no name at all. As long as there are persistent identifiers and/or karma, you are discouraged from speaking freely. Take for example the 2010/2011 My Little Pony craze. Could you imagine young men in their mid-teens to early twenties generating hype among their peers for a show targeted primarily at little girls with literally nothing to go on except the nam…

Not if you delete your reddit account once a year like me.

Hell, I have two different news.yc accounts, one at work, one at home. I don't "shitpost" on either, so it might just be an interesting machine learning task to match the two, given that I don't post all that much :)