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

The Real Name Fallacy

blog.coralproject.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 323 posts

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#131

Post by vog »

owly wrote: post #130
vog wrote: post #39

The real name discussion is as old as the Usenet, maybe even older. I find it strange to see it re-appearing again and again every few years for almost decades. Back then, the consensus was roughly: 1. If a community accepts pseudonyms, it is polite to use either your realname or an obvious pseudonym. 2. If a community places high value on realnames, either use your realname or a realname-sounding (i.e. non-obvious)…

One thing that has really changed is the ability to search for someone by their real name in public records online. There were public before but they were WAY more difficult to search, as anyone who's scoured a city hall or county records archive 20 years ago can attest.

That was before Usenet, wasn't it? In the time of Usenet it was already possible to either search within your local Usenet archive, or, slightly later, to type in someone's name into a search engine.

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#132

Post by nommm-nommm »

danmoz wrote: post #6

Real names is one thing, but I'd really like to see a "real age" system on the internet. That would make ignoring trolls -- who I suspect are frequently not old enough to drive -- a much easier task. It would be more akin to real life, if a 14 y/o tried to bully us in the street we'd laugh them off, but when they're anonymous on the internet it doesn't seem to occur to us that we may be dealing with a child.

The older I get the more mean shit appears on my Facebook feed from my peers.

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#133

Post by 234dd57d2c8db »

hashmal wrote: post #99
Cthulhu_ wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And being anti-immigrant or anti-LGBT is their right; it's freedom of speech, which extends to freedom to hate. Lots of people hate Trump, that's their right to have. There's a line drawn when it becomes harassment or incitement to violence (then they veer towards becoming a terrorist organization).

I feel like today this freedom profits more to awful people than to the good of society.

Well I'm glad laws are not created based on your feelings, but logic and reason.

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#134

Post by nommm-nommm »

DanBC wrote: post #60
mjolk wrote: post #9

While I agree that expecting users to use real names is a bad thing, this knocked the air out of me: > In societies including the US where violence and mistreatment of women, people of color, and marginalized people is common, we can expect similar problems in people’s digital interactions [1] > [1] Sarah Banet-Weiser and Kate M. Miltner. #MasculinitySoFragile: culture, structure, and networked misogyny. Feminist Med…

> A post by ESR was even flagged off HN because its message was that he expected evidence to back claims of harassment, No. People flag ESR posts because he's a pathological arsehole and his threads contain some deeply unpleasant posts. >I reject the assertion that these issues are "common" in the US Interesting that you complained about people not bothering to support their claims, and then immediately make a claim…

Who is ESR?

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#135

Post by dagenleg »

mirimir wrote: post #127
dagenleg wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or just have a mostly unused real-name account that you use for contacting your friends, when you can't reach them otherwise. Why even have a fake facebook account? Facebook will know it's you. The government will too. If you don't want the whole world to be privy to what you post, then why even use Facebook? Just post your green frogs and political opinions on forums and websites that do not base their revenue aroun…

Yes. Unless you have a reason to need other Facebook accounts. To get anonymous logins on other sites. Or whatever.

I think anonymous logins and Facebook accounts just do not combine very well.

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#136

Post by DanBC »

vog wrote: post #131
owly wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing that has really changed is the ability to search for someone by their real name in public records online. There were public before but they were WAY more difficult to search, as anyone who's scoured a city hall or county records archive 20 years ago can attest.

That was before Usenet, wasn't it? In the time of Usenet it was already possible to either search within your local Usenet archive, or, slightly later, to type in someone's name into a search engine.

> In the time of Usenet it was already possible to either search within your local Usenet archive

The reactions to Kibo suggest that was unusual at first.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Parry

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#138

Post by marknutter »

DanBC wrote: post #113
syshum wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>To expand on that: "I disagree" is not and should not be a valid defense when someone is accusing you of harassment. Harassment is a violation of personal space and only one person gets to define the limits of that personal space; it is not the aggressor that sets the limits. I disagree completely on this. Using this definition of harassment, in combination with a prohibition on said harassment is ripe for abuse. I…

> Further under this definition of Harassment no one can be harassed online, since you can not violate a persons PERSONAL space if you have no physical proximity to the person If I falsely and maliciously accuse you of being a paedophile that can cause you to undergo intrusive investigation, possibly leading to you losing work; it can cause people to physically assault you, perhaps even kill you. I have no physical p…

You've just identified a form of harassment that is objective, and probably would be agreed upon by the wider community. That's ok because it doesn't rely on a single person's definition of harassment.

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#139

Post by syshum »

DanBC wrote: post #113
syshum wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>To expand on that: "I disagree" is not and should not be a valid defense when someone is accusing you of harassment. Harassment is a violation of personal space and only one person gets to define the limits of that personal space; it is not the aggressor that sets the limits. I disagree completely on this. Using this definition of harassment, in combination with a prohibition on said harassment is ripe for abuse. I…

> Further under this definition of Harassment no one can be harassed online, since you can not violate a persons PERSONAL space if you have no physical proximity to the person If I falsely and maliciously accuse you of being a paedophile that can cause you to undergo intrusive investigation, possibly leading to you losing work; it can cause people to physically assault you, perhaps even kill you. I have no physical p…

>>I have no physical proximity to you, but I have intruded on your personal space.

I disagree, you have caused other people to violate my personal space, but you did not.

>But even if none of that happens: it will affect you. These types of actions cause actual, measurable, harm.

This is true, that does not make it a violation of "personal space" nor does it have to be a violation of person space to have liability for actions attached to it

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#140

Post by CM30 »

syshum wrote: post #86
CM30 wrote: post #62

I think this is probably the key takeaway from the article here: > Designers need to acknowledge that design cannot solve harassment and other social problems on its own. Trying to remove anonymity will not 'fix' trolling and harassment. After all, a lot of people simply don't care what others think of them, know they're too far away to be affected (in most cases) or just have nothing to lose to begin with. What can…

>Trying to remove anonymity will not 'fix' trolling and harassment. After all, a lot of people simply don't care what others think of them, know they're too far away to be affected (in most cases) or just have nothing to lose to begin with. While that is true, many times what person A considers to be harassment, the person that is harassing them does not consider it to be harassment at all. This is not to say the per…

Reddit definitely suffers from the free speech and social acceptableness clash. That's in part because the site was founded specifically on the assumption that it would allow freedom of speech, without realising that 'true' freedom of speech is basically 'anything goes if it's legal, social norms and rules be damned'.

It's why they're struggling with communities like The Donald and had a lot of previous issues with the likes of Fat People Hate. Because they realised that their original philosophy doesn't really scale well and puts off more 'moderate' users, yet also realise a large portion of their audience joined on the promise of freedom of speech and go ballistic if things get censored.

Post reply on HN