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

201–210 of 323 posts

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#201

Post by sandworm101 »

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.

It isnt normal, but once a women is targeted it becomes very bad very fast. So while it isn't normal for any paticular women to be harrassed, it is very normal for those wwho are to be so shockingly harrassed that it paints a false picture of the online community as a whole.

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#202

Post by pc86 »

SolaceQuantum wrote: post #184
pc86 wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Actually I think Facebook's real name policy is a good example of a kind of subtle privilege. Specifically, if you don't have a western or "white" naming scheme than you are literally not considered to have a "real name" according to Facebook's algorithm. This has stirred up controversy before with Native American groups, LGBTQ people(the person who helped implement the Facebook genders had their own account suspende…

Does FB allow Arabic text in names? I have several middle eastern friends (people born there and some who still live there, not middle eastern Americans) so see it in comments a fairly often but it comes to mind that I've never seen an Arabic name.

How does one's LGBTQ status affect their legal name?

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#203

Post by Chris2048 »

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…

A troll can still troll after a ban, if they have a real-name. Even national law enforcement have limited powers across borders.

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#204

Post by Chris2048 »

DanBC wrote: post #141
marknutter wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There are plenty of people on HN who are horrified by the UK definition of harassment. See, for example, how people react when they read the sentencing remarks or Mr Justice Spencer in Regina vs Joshua Bonehill-Paine https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/sentencing-remarks-of... There are people who'll try to deny that this was antisemitism; that it was actually harassment; that she wasn't harmed by it etc.

> See, for example, how people react

Where? How do they react?

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#205

Post by Frondo »

Tharre wrote: post #196
macintux wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't think you're arguing in good faith right now. This sounds an awful lot like sealioning.

(For those who aren't familiar with it, http://wondermark.com/1k62/ is the origin of the term.)

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#206

Post by Chris2048 »

DanBC wrote: post #154
CM30 wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well not really. Freedom of speech is meant to protect all views, including those other people might find wrong, abhorrent or against social norms. This can easily be both a 'good' (in the case of say, a pro gays right campaigner in a conservative theocracy) or 'bad' (in the case of a Neo Nazi in Germany) thing. But your view kind of sums up in a nutshell why freedom of speech is a hard battle. Because it's all too e…

> Freedom of speech is meant to protect all views, Too often one person's freedom of speech is a megaphone used to drown out some marginalised group. http://imgur.com/a/LKiRU

Freedom of speech concerns censorship, it doesn't guarantee an audience, and doesn't mean anyone can be forced to listen.

Do you have examples of freedom of speech used to disproportionately drown out opposing views, i.e. "marginalis[ation]"?

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#207

Post by Chris2048 »

draugadrotten wrote: post #76
janwillemb wrote: post #56

My real name doesn't uniquely identify me, because there are more people in the world with the same name. According to some web searching, I have already died a long time ago, I am a technical illustrator, I collect model trains, etc. So a "real name" could be compromising even if totally unjust

I am in the opposite situation. My real name is so rare that it uniquely identifies me globally, as far as I know. I have angered a religious group which is known for intimidation and even physical threats to critics. This makes me very uncomfortable in using sites that demands "real names". I would never sign up for Facebook, for example.

My girlfriend has a name so unique that I put it into google images along with my town name (a capital city), and her picture shows up...

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#208

Post by kemayo »

pc86 wrote: post #202
SolaceQuantum wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually I think Facebook's real name policy is a good example of a kind of subtle privilege. Specifically, if you don't have a western or "white" naming scheme than you are literally not considered to have a "real name" according to Facebook's algorithm. This has stirred up controversy before with Native American groups, LGBTQ people(the person who helped implement the Facebook genders had their own account suspende…

Does FB allow Arabic text in names? I have several middle eastern friends (people born there and some who still live there, not middle eastern Americans) so see it in comments a fairly often but it comes to mind that I've never seen an Arabic name. How does one's LGBTQ status affect their legal name?

I assume that the parent was referring to the odds of someone LGBTQ being "in the closet", and hiding their status to avoid social penalties (in repressive areas / with family / etc), while still wanting to have a pseudonym-account which in a fairly valid way represents the "real them".

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#209

Post by dagenleg »

lostphilosopher wrote: post #195
pc86 wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Oh dear. Is there any corner of the world safe from you privilege hunting types? It's funny how all your activism starts and ends with feelings and what you feel.

The sad thing about your self-flagellation is that you forget that people outside of the West (the majority of the world population, by the way) do no really care about the "privileges" that you so righteously seek out behind every corner. They care about very tangible things, like having shelter, food, access to healthcare and proper education.

What you are doing is catering to a very small although quite vocal section of population that likes to get offended and talk about feeling. There are other, more rewarding ways to do good.

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#210

Post by Chris2048 »

grzm wrote: post #71
mjolk wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think I was committing a logical fallacy -- I took exception to the article author's attempt at establishing alleged certainty, especially using relativistic terms. In any case, based on your mention of learning new fallacy names, you'll probably like this site: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

I vouched for this comment as I didn't see anything particularly egregious: looks like the included URI triggers some automatic down-voting behavior (perhaps to encourage better discourse rather than calling out fallacies?) Regardless, it's probably not worth including that link in the future :)

> encourage better discourse rather than calling out fallacies?

How is calling out fallacies not the best kind of discourse??

Post reply on HN