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

231–240 of 323 posts

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#231

Post by EekSnakePond »

Thought experiment from 2,000 years ago.

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

Until the Internet can guarantee that I will not be targeted by petulant ideological zealots obsessed with doxxing people to win online arguments, Goons who infiltrate the State Department to steer it's considerable resources against it's political enemies, social justice warriors who try to get people fired because someone doesn't agree with Rachel Maddow, or state agencies who scour my tax records to Al Capone me, I'll keep whatever anonymity I can preserve, thank you very much.

EDIT: I'll happily deal with an endless torrent of honest deplorables who occasionally troll every so often over politically-motivated psychopaths any day of the week.

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#232

Post by crystalmeph »

cr0sh wrote: post #214
crystalmeph wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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: -…

> 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 don't think I could go so far as to label someone a "bigoted sexist homophobe" simply because they voted for someone who I didn't agree with or vote for, but that isn't really the case with Trump. This was a man who we have documented vide…

Fair enough, the man says some things that make polite society cringe, and its fair to at least ask the question of what motivates his supporters. But that wasn't the entirety of his message:

His position on illegal immigration, while couched often in racist terms, resonates with people who actually see a lot of jobs they or their families used to get paid for going to much-lower paid immigrants.

His tough talk on China resonates similarly with people who have seen the factories they worked at close and go overseas.

I agree, he hasn't given much in the way of concrete policies other than "build a wall." But he's at least talking about things that are important to a very large part of the population, which is largely invisible to those of us in media-savvy urban settings. And those things are important enough to people that they are willing to look past some of the vile things he's said and done.

Regarding the "lesser of two evils" argument: Hillary Clinton was the definition of establishment status quo; the Clinton Foundation's dealings with foreign governments created at the very least the appearance of impropriety; and while her husband's foibles are not her own, Bill Clinton's past behavior can be seen in a modern context as sexual assault, and the fact that she remained with him was a matter of genuine concern even to some feminists. Trump can legitimately say he has enough money that no-one can bribe him to do something he doesn't already want to do, and while there were allegations of assault, they do not seem to have been very convincing, as the conversation around them quieted down fairly quickly.

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#233

Post by LordKano »

I have been using this pseudonym online for over 20 years. I have been using it for so long that I have since found others who have started using it too but there are far fewer of them than there are of people who share my actual first and last name.

I am a member of a Facebook group that has over 60 members who share the same first and last name.

So, it's more descriptive when I use this pseudonym than it is when I use my real name. I'm only aware of about 3-4 people using this pseudonym but more than 60 who use my real name.

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#234

Post by sedachv »

pc86 wrote: post #120
stupidcar wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

You should read this article about Internet use in Saudi Arabia: http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/your-app-isnt-helping-the-p...

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#235

Post by pessimizer »

The only reason using real names affects behavior is because people fear retaliation, so the policy suppresses behavior likely to offend people and groups with the known will and ability to retaliate. This, to the powerful, is equivalent to improving behavior.

edit: what's the alternate proposed mechanism? There's no magic in a name other than a method to track people and hold them responsible.

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#236

Post by lisper »

ameister14 wrote: post #227
lisper wrote: post #225

Here's a data point: I was working at JPL when it instituted an internal usenet newsgroup (this was the mid-90s) for discussing work-related issues. It was initially anonymous to encourage people to speak frankly. Almost immediately it devolved into a cesspool of insults and epithets. It was my first experience with this phenomenon, and at the time I was shocked by it. (Nowadays, of course, this sort of thing is just…

There is also a difference between anonymity where no profile or pseudo-identity is created and one where you have an identity that you carry with you as you use a service or forum.

True. The JPL forum was anonymous, not pseudonymous (which made it very confusing in addition to being a civility train wreck). Pseudonyms offer some limited accountability because it allows people to ignore postings from a particular source. But you still need some enforcement. For example, there has to be some sort of cost associated with creating a new pseudonym, otherwise trolls will just keep creating new ones.

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#237

Post by newscracker »

morgante wrote: post #34
wfunction wrote: post #4

Thing is, if I had to guess, I would say Facebook doesn't attempt to make you use your real name to make the community better in the first place. That's almost certainly just its pretext for everyone who's willing to fall for it. Most likely, it does that to make sure it can identify you globally and uniquely for commercial/advertising purposes. Think about how much more valuable your online identity is if you go sol…

Facebook doesn't need you to give your name to figure out who you are. They don't sell advertising based on your name. Also, I think it's unfair to pretend that real names don't make a difference. They're a big part of what makes Facebook different than MySpace, Twitter, or other social networks.

> Facebook doesn't need you to give your name to figure out who you are. They don't sell advertising based on your name.

Well, they do need your name to link and correlate it with other data sources (like address books uploaded by people, offline data sources like data brokers, etc.) and use that to show "better ads" and make more money. The value lies in identifying related information with attributes like name, age, sex, location, preferences, check-ins, etc.

> Also, I think it's unfair to pretend that real names don't make a difference. They're a big part of what makes Facebook different than MySpace, Twitter, or other social networks.

Nobody is pretending. There are millions of people, not just a few exceptions, who use their real names and still engage in horrible behavior on Facebook. It's a misconception that "real names" makes people behave better or brings in accountability. It doesn't for the ones who harass others. On the other hand, using a real name exposes people to plenty of abuse online, like getting their profiles reported and deactivated because of Facebook's nonsensical rules and utter lack of any consideration for users, while bullies just go around shutting down people. Facebook is a great tool to shut people down whom one may disagree with.

Reading EFF and other sites' articles on Facebook's "real name policy" and the later rechristened "authentic name policy" would show the dark side of using real names online.

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#238

Post by eeZah7Ux »

marcosdumay wrote: post #176
NoGravitas wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, RSS implement only a fraction of the features of usenet.

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#240

Post by anigbrowl »

mirimir wrote: post #125
syshum wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is becoming harder and harder to do as Facebook increases their level of knowledge Just the Facial Recognition alone has caused problems for people attempting to do this. Further OpSec is not just on you, I know a couple of people that have tried this only to have OTHER people expose thier data or information by posting things on facebook and other sites about them.

One aspect of compartmentalization OpSec is not telling your meatspace friends about your fake-name accounts. And vice versa . And you wouldn't use real photos in fake accounts.

Oh for goodness' sake, not everyone wants to have to think like an espionage agent just to enjoy casual conversation on line. The people who suffer worst from harassment aren't opsec geniuses like you that screw up at critical moments, they're relatively clueless types who don't recognize the level of antagonism they might encounter - just as people in a new town are often ignorant of which neighborhoods are more or less safe (and for who, and why), and just as sheltered people may not be able to read subtle clues that a real-life situation is potentially dangerous.

I am so sick of this 'better security' argument - it's a roundabout way of saying you don't have a good answer. The whole 'better security' argument is based on the notion that conflict is inevitable so it should take priority over everything else (which might be why defense is such a large part of the US' discretionary budget). But taking that as your guide results in substantially worse quality of life. If crime goes up in my city, is the best response for everyone to put bars on their windows and dress in body armor etc. etc.? No, that would suggest we've given up on the idea of being able to reduce crime by any other method. Putting bars on my windows is near the bottom of my list of responses to crime, because it would make me feel like I'm living in prison - in which case, what's the point in being law-abiding, I might as well take up crime myself and hope I don't get caught than spend money on turning home into a fortress.

This isn't an argument against self-defense, but against security costs as a negative externality.

Post reply on HN