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

171–180 of 323 posts

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#171

Post by ci5er »

dhimes wrote: post #122
pc86 wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you could die using your real name on an internet service, you are much better off not using that service at all, especially if they require that you use your real name. Use of a particular service or website is not a human right. If your particular situation is such that it's unsafe or you need to violate TOS/regulations/laws by using a service... don't.

Sure, that's one answer. But it may not be the best. Another possibility is to not allow TOS terms that require real names be used. It's our government. We should write the best rules. If the company doesn't like it they can go to a different country.

> Another possibility is to not allow TOS terms that require real names be used.

The problem with rules is that they are "one-size fits all". Very binary. Instead of telling people what they can and can not do, why don't we simply require full disclosure?

> We should write the best rules. If the company doesn't like it they can go to a different country.

That's easier for companies than citizens. But the determination of "best rules" in a (representative) democracy depends on which mob is in charge this week...

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#172

Post by adevine »

vidarh wrote: post #40
matt4077 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Real names are the difference between Facebook and MySpace. I'm not friends on FB with anybody I haven't met in real life.

Most of the people I would consider friends are people I haven't met in real life. And for many years a majority of my friend circle were people I probably never even knew the "real" name of - people in the demo/cracking scene where it was often common for people to introduce you by handle and group (e.g. say Strider of Fairlight, to take a "well known" example from the scene that I spoke to on the phone but back in…

> Most of the people I would consider friends are people I haven't met in real life.

You are likely in a small minority. This is the difference between a social network meant for the general populace and one specific for tech folk.

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#173

Post by blauditore »

Inconel wrote: post #23
blauditore wrote: post #7

I think it largely depends on the specific community and people in it. While some try to use online anonymity as an outlet to say and do things they wouldn't dare on Facebook or IRL, others seem to want a reality-like reputation around their username/account. A large portion is probably caused simply by community rules; just see /b/ and HN... And to be fair, I've hardly ever seen serious insults on Facebook, but been…

>I've hardly ever seen serious insults on Facebook Every once in a while curiosity and boredom get the better of me and I visit ESPN or some other mainstream news site that uses FB profiles for the comments section and I almost always walk away shocked at the kind of comments people are willing to post while directly linking to their real name and profile, often containing their place of employment. Respectfully, if…

Ok, I was thinking of conversations among people who know each other (i.e. met at least once). Yes, I've seen bad language, heavily racist rants and such, but always from people who would do the same thing in real life, and mainly against third parties (politicians, celebrities, religions, ...).

But I'm not extremely active though and hardly ever see large comment threads, like from ESPN.

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#174

Post by mattnewton »

blauditore wrote: post #168
thanatropism wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Last time I tried to create an alt account they insisted on a phone number, though.

That's more about uniqueness than using your real name. Spam and fraud accounts are a rather big problem, and this is one way of raising the barrier for creating those. And yeah, Facebook surely has other motivation too, like not having your metadata scattered across multiple accounts. But I still don't see how knowing your real name would make a strong difference to them. I have quite a few FB friends that use obvio…

As other people and myself have said elsewhere, they buy information from many personal information brokers, and this data (presumably) wants a real name to be linked. They can't know that fake names are fake in all instances (and have gotten a lot of backlash by trying to do so), but there real name policy would have a real effect on their ability to link offline data to your online profile so they can better sell your eyeballs to advertisers.

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#175

Post by amelius »

We should have better protection of our rights to be anonymous online when we want.

BUT ALSO

We should have better methods to reveal our identity online in a guaranteed way if we wish to do so.

Currently, both options are often non-existent or broken.

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#176

Post by marcosdumay »

NoGravitas wrote: post #106
vog wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But this system would need to be decentralized Back in the times of Usenet, this already existed: The client-side (hence decentral) "Scorefile" and "Killfile".

I so often wish that web fora, social media, etc., all worked on a common protocol like a modernized Usenet so that we could use our choice of clients and have useful features like scorefiles. So much ink has been spilled about how Facebook's algorithm chooses what to show you, but imagine having complete control on the client side over both the algorithm, and the parameters tuning it. We used to have this, the only…

That's RSS.

Too bad it was a mess of half-articles, intro paragraphs, fake submissions, and a very rare full article mixed in there somewhere.

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#177

Post by crystalmeph »

teddyh wrote: post #137

Who is harmed by a "Real Names" policy? http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Who_is_harmed_by_a_%22Rea...

Expanding on the entry for those who have an unpopular political opinion - Take for example the current narrative that anyone who voted for Trump is a bigoted sexist homophobe.

I know many people that did vote for Trump, and while I personally didn't vote for him (and it's telling that I feel I need to get that out of the way), I believe that many, if not the vast majority of people who voted for him did so either:

- Because they genuinely thought he was the lesser of two evils;

- Or because they genuinely feel that he will at least try to do something to help people in their economic situation.

However, the narrative pushed by almost the entirety of cultural institutions such as popular entertainers, high-profile tech leaders, etc. makes people who voted for Trump legitimately feel like they are the target of a witch hunt.

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#178

Post by tremon »

syshum wrote: post #105
tremon wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

many times what person A considers to be harassment, the person that is harassing them does not consider it to be harassment at all. 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. In a way,…

>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…

Using this definition of harassment, in combination with a prohibition on said harassment

Hence why I said that the discussion is needlessly complicated. But a single bad implementation does not prove a bad design.

I have seen many many many people claim others are "harassing" them simply because the other person expressed a dissenting opinion from their own.

So? The only problem with that claim is that it automically converts into a legal threat. Otherwise: stop asssociating with them. People who cry harassment are not interested in your argument anyway, whether their claim is justified or not.

I am a little puzzled though how my definition can be both "ripe for abuse" and cause that "no one can be harassed online"?

What is your definition of freedom then

My view on life is that every person is an amalgamation of the role they play in a multitude of social circles. Each circle may have its own norms and customs, and each person assumes those norms and customs to a degree each is comfortable with. For my definition of freedom it therefore follows that I don't think it is useful to consider a person in the singular, as everything we are is informed by the context of the roles we choose. A person in the singular is just that: a person, and a pretty uninteresting one at that.

The agency we have is to choose the circles we move in, and the degree to which we let each role subsume us. Interaction within a chosen circle is not always optional though: we can choose the circles but not directly its members. Freedom then, to me, is the ability to choose our roles and circles without fear of reprisal from other circles.

both parties should voluntary agree to interact and at any time for any reason either party can choose to end the interaction

Either party can choose? Yes, that surely matches all documented cases of harassment, both online and offline. It also perfectly matches the online model, where my browser is happily associating with tens of tracking networks for each single page I visit, and where my interaction with those trackers ends as soon as I close the page :/

To be more clear: I think it is myopic is because a) it assumes that all interactions are voluntary, and b) it assumes that all interactees have equal footing for negotiation.

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#179

Post by teddyh »

crystalmeph wrote: post #177
teddyh wrote: post #137

Who is harmed by a "Real Names" policy? http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Who_is_harmed_by_a_%22Rea...

Expanding on the entry for those who have an unpopular political opinion - Take for example the current narrative that anyone who voted for Trump is a bigoted sexist homophobe. I know many people that did vote for Trump, and while I personally didn't vote for him (and it's telling that I feel I need to get that out of the way), I believe that many, if not the vast majority of people who voted for him did so either: -…

The list does include it: “Anyone with political views (however mild) that may be unpopular or discriminated against”.

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#180

Post by squeaky-clean »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #96
dirkt wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've shared by real name on Usenet for decades, nobody got crazy ideas (though I've encountered quite a few crazy people). "Calling my bank and doing something silly" doesn't work in the country in live in. There's not a lot people can do with just my name.

I wonder about treating home address as such a secret. If someone wants to kill/kidnap me, they could always find me at my workplace or on a conference or sth. So what else are people going to do with my home address? Send me a postcard? In the good ol' days, we had this thing called "a phonebook", which was basically a big printed book of alphabetically sorted mappings of surname to phone number and home address...

> So what else are people going to do with my home address? Send me a postcard?

I had a friend who got brigaded by 4chan in high school (I think she posted nudes and got doxxed, don't entirely remember, and I didn't ask for too many details).

Long story short: hundreds of letters over about a year addressed to her house, her parents' workplaces, our school, all with really fucked up messages. Telling her to kill herself and other terrible things about her or her family. Letters listing everyone in her family or including pictures of her family from myspace (this was just before everyone was on Facebook) with names, phone numbers, and other details. Phone calls to her parents insulting their daughter.

No "real harm" ever came from it aside from the threats, and her parents handled it very well, but still...

It's not so much one person knowing "your" address. It's an unknown number of people knowing you and your family's address.

Post reply on HN