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

191–200 of 323 posts

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#191

Post by eli_gottlieb »

_fh5n wrote: post #36

I think that this overall push towards eliminating anonimity and trolls from the internet can only have negative outcomes. Sure, nobody will ever be offended again, but at what cost? And who are these easily offended people for whom we're sacrificing freedom of speech? It baffles me how nobody sees a parallel with 1984, here, and it's not the usual cliche claim. From: >do not say anything against someone To: >do not…

>I think that this overall push towards eliminating anonimity and trolls from the internet can only have negative outcomes. Sure, nobody will ever be offended again, but at what cost? And who are these easily offended people for whom we're sacrificing freedom of speech?

The problem here is that "freedom of speech" has come to somehow include, "freedom to incite violence or threaten murder." Just this New Year's weekend, I had to connect two IRL friends over Facebook, because Friend X knew someone in Friend Y's region of the state who had been doxxed and was being threatened with guns. I tried to put them in contact so Friend X's harassment and threat victim could stay on Friend Y's couch, since their own home wasn't safe anymore.

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#192

Post by jlarocco »

Tharre wrote: post #187

If you're claiming that women, in general, today on the internet face worse than death threats, you're going to need to provide proof for that. And anecdotal evidence is not going to cut it, most people with an online presence get their fair share of death threats at some point.

I don't know what sites you visit, but I've been online since 1996 and have never received a death threat. It's not a normal thing.

Second, I don't think the OP's point was that women face "worse than death threats", but that they receive a lot of harassment online. That should be obvious to anybody who's used the internet for any appreciable amount of time. If that's really news to you, then google it.

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#193

Post by [deleted] »

stupidcar wrote: post #68
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)…

Yes. People using real names on Usenet did not usually face a serious risk of being harassed and endangered in real life by an army of trolls: E.g. having their address, phone number and other private details stolen and publicly disseminated. Having armed police raid their house because someone has made a bogus 911 call. Having their utilities and back accounts cancelled because someone rang up using their details. H…

[deleted]

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#194

Post by Tharre »

jlarocco wrote: post #192
Tharre wrote: post #187

If you're claiming that women, in general, today on the internet face worse than death threats, you're going to need to provide proof for that. And anecdotal evidence is not going to cut it, most people with an online presence get their fair share of death threats at some point.

I don't know what sites you visit, but I've been online since 1996 and have never received a death threat. It's not a normal thing. Second, I don't think the OP's point was that women face "worse than death threats", but that they receive a lot of harassment online. That should be obvious to anybody who's used the internet for any appreciable amount of time. If that's really news to you, then google it.

I didn't claim it's 'normal' nor did I claim that everyone on the internet gets death threats. But if you have an online presence with an audience of tens of thousands you will get them. So pointing to popular female youtubers for example, who get death threats is not valid evidence.

I don't know what his point was, thus I wrote 'if you're claiming that ...'

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#195

Post by lostphilosopher »

pc86 wrote: post #166
virgil_disgr4ce wrote: post #155

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 Classic. "I'm not at risk, so we need not change anything. Your behavior is therefore at fault." > Use of a particular service or website is not a human right. Of course not. Would you say that being able to freely live your life without threat of death (as you most likely already do) should be? Allow…

> Classic. "I'm not at risk, so we need not change anything. Your behavior is therefore at fault." I'm sure you meant to say "Classic strawman:" because that's not at all what I said, or meant. Please actually respond to what I said and not whatever argument you heard other people make. I think it's demonstrably true that if using Facebook is an acute risk to your life, you are better off not using. That doesn't mean…

You've dug into the meaning of "rights" and I'm with you. No one has the "right" to use Facebook. But, you lose me when you don't draw the connection to "privilege." While I don't have the "right" to use Facebook I have the "privilege" of using it, and at no point feeling unwelcome or un-catered to. That feeling comes not because of my merit or choices, but because I'm a "check all the boxes" white dude.

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#196

Post by Tharre »

macintux wrote: post #189
Tharre wrote: post #187

If you're claiming that women, in general, today on the internet face worse than death threats, you're going to need to provide proof for that. And anecdotal evidence is not going to cut it, most people with an online presence get their fair share of death threats at some point.

It seems indisputable that sustained harassment is a problem for some significant number of women online. I'm asserting that such harassment is worse than what I faced back then, and that what I faced then was pretty unusual.

That's a significantly weaker claim then.

Depending on how many women are needed for a 'significant number' I might even agree with it.

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#197

Post by rudolf0 »

(This was a reply to a now-deleted comment.)

>Is there actually a widespread "life and death" issues here? There have some very publicized cases, but I have yet to see any data that there this is a significant problem beyond having the police called to your house or getting bunch of pizzas delivered that you didn't order. That said, there are definitely dangers with governments who deny basic human rights.

>The bank account issue is really more just about normal identity theft and isn't really part of the topic either.

>I should add that things like "harassment" do not qualify here as those are normal parts of everyday life anyway regardless if your personal information gets revealed online.

>Are we sure we're not just participating in the typical online habit of blowing regular issues into 10 alarm fires?

>beyond having the police called to your house

That's understating the danger of the situation due to the militarization of US police (and also their duty to respond to what they think is a real threat).

These "SWATing" attempts usually go like this:

"Help, someone's being held hostage at [X] address, they have rifles"

SWAT team arrives and kicks in the door, guns blazing, kills all your pets [1], and might shoot you too [2]. So far there hasn't been a human death from SWAT hoaxes, just animals and injuries, but it'll probably happen at some point.

Is this a "widespread" problem? I don't know. In the communities I've been in, it is, though it probably isn't for the Internet at large.

Even ignoring the risks of SWATing, though, there are so many people out there who will try to find your personal information and make your life a living hell on a daily basis due to online disagreements. I deal with such people on a daily basis. Anonymity is absolutely critical and me to others who might cross paths with sociopaths and "e-road rage" types.

[1] https://archive.is/nu4Lv

[2] http://www.theblaze.com/news/2015/07/16/swatting-prank-ends-...

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#198

Post by marmot1101 »

syshum wrote: post #157
CM30 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

Reddit suffers because people in general do not believe freedom of speech is a right. I disliked the Fat People Hate subreddit, you know what I did... I did not visit the Fat People Hate subreddit. The communities I join and participate in on Reddit are moderated well and do not suffer from the problem, if you do not like what is talked about on The Donald, don't go there, not that hard. The problem is people do go,…

That's all well and good when it was subs like FPH that were easily ignored. The thing that threatened to chase me off of reddit was the_donald. Not because I was "offended"(the new code word for calling someone a pussy), but because it was shitty content that pissed me off. And they figured out how to jack the algorithm to make their sub the most prominent content. I joined reddit for the science and tech, not to be a hit count on some shill's advert campaign.

Losing your target audience is a problem for any company. Free speech is a right insofar as the government cannot ban speech. Private property is a right. Reddit cannot ban me from saying what I want in real life, but they totally have the right to not allow me to say it on their property.

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#199

Post by st3v3r »

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…

There is always censorship on every platform. Always. If the platform itself is not moderating, then the abuse and harassment that naturally evolves will. People from marginalized communities will stay silent or avoid the platform out of fear of being harassed. That too, is a form of censorship.

So when debating whether these platforms should have moderation policies, and how far they should go, one needs to ask if they value diverse points of view more, or harassment and hate speech more.

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#200

Post by rocky1138 »

The internet was better when we were all anonymous. It felt like we could do anything, be anyone. The world was ours.

Then social media came and destroyed that dream.

Consider the difference in mood between the idea of creating a metaverse in the 90s/00s to creating one now.

One is the freeing experience of Second Life or Active Worlds and the other is that widely circulated image of a large crowd, all wearing GearVR headsets while Mark Zuckerberg strolls past[1].

[1] http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/02/22/16/3173A1BA0000057...

Post reply on HN