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

251–260 of 323 posts

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#251

Post by pessimizer »

anigbrowl wrote: post #224
pc86 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the second city has ~36500 times the population, then it's not a change in degree at all. City A is no more or less safe than City B, nor is the police force any more or less effective, etc. There are billions of people on the internet now. How many were using it in the days of Usenet?

By a frequentist analysis, which omits complicating factors and may lead to inaccurate conclusions. One obvious thing that a frequentist analysis misses is that the larger the population, the bigger the size of the gang you can summon to harass someone. Getting trolled by 3 or 4 people on Usenet was annoying, but today someone can find their Twitter feed flooded by hundreds of people. The frequency of the harassing a…

What you're saying is right (in general, but not in reference to the specific analogy), but I'm not sure what it has to do with a frequentist analysis. Rather, it's a simplistic linear analysis of a higher-order system. Instead of multiplying the number of murders (which is an output, not an input), just multiply the number of potential murderers, with some percentage chance of being triggered to desire to murder a particular individual if encountered. If that chance averages 1%, in a town of 101 people you would have a 50% chance of having at least one person who would want to murder you. In a town of 10,001, you would have a 99.5% chance of having at least one person who would want to murder you. [edit: and in a town of 101, there would be no chance of having more than 100 people who wanted to murder you. In a town of 10,001, you'd be as likely as not to have 100 people would would murder you.]

If everyone is exposed to everyone at all times, then everyone is endangered in large groups (seems obvious) even if no one is consistently looking for trouble more than anyone else. If that the qualities that inspire that 1% reaction have a clumpy distribution (either in perpetrator or victim), the experiences that individuals have will be vastly different in an average forum, and when holding the tolerance for danger constant, the least targeted will feel comfortable in far larger towns than the most targeted.

Of course, in real life, the larger the town, the higher the level of anonymity. In the case of internet forums, however, 1) smaller groups are being eliminated in favor of larger groups due to finance and economies of scale and 2) there is a profit motive in de-anonymizing users. There's absolutely no degree of moderation that can make it work. Anonymity simply makes the problem disappear. What you said can be targeted, you yourself cannot be.

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#252

Post by DelaneyM »

The problem isn't just discrimination/harassment (though that's huge - I used to use a male pseudonym on my github & stackoverflow accounts, and still do on medium.) It's also just pragmatically impossible.

I have changed my first name legally three times.

I have changed my last name once.

I currently have different legal names in three countries, on my undergraduate & masters degrees, and on my 401k, and none of those are the name I am known by to my colleagues & friends.

What is my "real name"?

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#253

Post by CocaKoala »

Tharre wrote: post #242
CocaKoala wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's pointing out that you're trying to force an argument to happen, even when it's clear that the other party doesn't really want to engage in an argument. Additionally, you're doing it in a fairly obnoxious manner.

I thank you for your explanation, but I still don't get it. How was I forcing an argument in any shape or form? I merely asked for clarification on a _very_ extreme claim, which I got shortly afterwards, in the form that the claim was meant differently. That would have been the end of the matter for me. But apparently I'm obnoxious? Well, than so be it.

You started out by dramatically misrepresenting the other person's position, which is obnoxious at best and malicious at worst. Would you prefer that I not give you the benefit of the doubt and claim that you deliberately straw-manned the other person's argument for some nebulous, nefarious purpose?

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#254

Post by PretzelFisch »

EekSnakePond wrote: post #245

Step -1.) Demand real name's to protect the childrens. Step 0.) We did it! Everyone has to use real names now! Equality unlocked! Step 1.) Put in someone else's real name instead of your own. Step 2.) Troll as that person or use that real name to infiltrate that person's social network Step lulz.) Doxx brigade/morality police now target the wrong person. Step 3.) Congratulations, not only did you not solve the proble…

so, make them prove their id. Sure it doesn't scale but now you would have to actually steal someone's identity rather than just use a fake name.

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#255

Post by quirkafleeg »

DelaneyM wrote: post #252

The problem isn't just discrimination/harassment (though that's huge - I used to use a male pseudonym on my github & stackoverflow accounts, and still do on medium.) It's also just pragmatically impossible. I have changed my first name legally three times. I have changed my last name once. I currently have different legal names in three countries, on my undergraduate & masters degrees, and on my 401k, and none of tho…

Frank Abagnale?

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#256

Post by EekSnakePond »

PretzelFisch wrote: post #254
EekSnakePond wrote: post #245

Step -1.) Demand real name's to protect the childrens. Step 0.) We did it! Everyone has to use real names now! Equality unlocked! Step 1.) Put in someone else's real name instead of your own. Step 2.) Troll as that person or use that real name to infiltrate that person's social network Step lulz.) Doxx brigade/morality police now target the wrong person. Step 3.) Congratulations, not only did you not solve the proble…

so, make them prove their id. Sure it doesn't scale but now you would have to actually steal someone's identity rather than just use a fake name.

Sometimes, I can't tell if the newer generation understands that Photoshop is a thing or not.

Also, I'm pretty sure they have no idea that when you create a massive repository of identities to try and protect the childrens, you're just painting a huge bullseye on the back of it's database.

It's like people believe Russians hacked the election, but no one could EVER hack a central repository of identities! Why, it's protected by good intentions and saving the childrens! Oh hey, another 1 billion Yahoo! identities got leaked...

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#257

Post by sinxoveretothex »

Tharre wrote: post #242
CocaKoala wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's pointing out that you're trying to force an argument to happen, even when it's clear that the other party doesn't really want to engage in an argument. Additionally, you're doing it in a fairly obnoxious manner.

I thank you for your explanation, but I still don't get it. How was I forcing an argument in any shape or form? I merely asked for clarification on a _very_ extreme claim, which I got shortly afterwards, in the form that the claim was meant differently. That would have been the end of the matter for me. But apparently I'm obnoxious? Well, than so be it.

For what it's worth, I think your position is fair and the whole 'sealioning' people are strawmanning your argument.

I think your 'error' here was approaching a topic that is [post-facto] obviously sensitive in a normal (i.e.: less than sensitive) manner.

People get very polarized about politics[1] and your comments signaled you as being in opposition in some form wrt the "women's rights" position but did NOT virtue signal against their outgroup.

Consequently, your argument was interpreted as being pro-outgroup, hence the "you're a neckbeard"-style attacks.

Be more careful about sensitive topics next time.

[1] http://lesswrong.com/lw/gw/politics_is_the_mindkiller/

[2] http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything...

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#258

Post by pessimizer »

bleair wrote: post #77

I'm biased by empirical data - e.g. look at youtube comments (anonymous) vs. amazon reviews (real identity owned by amazon). Human nature demonstrates that a fraction of people really like to put down / bully / see others suffering because they are personally unhappy (e.g. the shock talk shows). Anonymity allows bullying behavior with no consequence. More simply, why do people spend time and energy online "trolling"…

> Human nature demonstrates that a fraction of people really like to put down / bully / see others suffering because they are personally unhappy (e.g. the shock talk shows).

I don't believe this is true at all. My experience of human nature is that all people really like to put down, bully, or see others suffering, but each person has their own particular groups who make them feel that way. They also generally don't think of it as trolling, but as heroic truthtelling - as do observers who think of the bully as a member of the ingroup and the target as a member of an outgroup.

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#259

Post by kps »

eternalban wrote: post #104
vog wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes. I see the issues you are stating, but not so much a qualitative change. > serious risk of being harassed and endangered in real life by an army of trolls This type of trolls (aka "stalkers") have already existed decades ago. Back then I had no trouble finding such cases documented in the Usenet archives. Of course, these happened to fewer people, but then, the net was a lot smaller, too. > For many, preserving…

> Back then I had no trouble finding such cases documented in the Usenet archives. Curious to see a specimen or two if you can dig it up. Not challenging the statement, just mostly interested in which specific era of usenet you are referencing. I couldn't dig up anything earlier than 1999 for "usenet stalking".

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

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#260

Post by logfromblammo »

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…

> Call the police.

The quality of this advice is very dependent on the quality of the police you are calling.

For instance, someone in Kern County (incl. Bakersfield), California, should probably not call upon the police for anything less severe than "someone is already dead".

If you truly fear for your life at the laundromat, save your quarters for a few weeks and buy a washtub, scrub board, wringer, and clothesline. Or use a drop-off service. You do not need a laundromat or your own washing machine to do laundry. It is counterproductive to feel like you're going to soil your pants when trying to get another pair clean.

But the grocery store... food is a necessity. You can't really decide not to eat, or to grow everything you will eat at home. There, you're going to need to carry the most effective weapon for self-defense that the state will allow you to keep, keep your shoelaces tied properly, and be hyper-vigilant of your surroundings, potential threats, and escape routes.

The police aren't there to protect you, specifically. They are paid to enforce the law, as directed by their superiors. If you wind up dead, it is likely that no cop will ever be held even partially responsible for it, regardless of the circumstances. If you take appropriate and ethical measures to protect your own safety, police may treat you as just another part of the problem when they arrive (if they decide to show up at all).

In any case, the danger is not Facebook, or the laundromat, or the grocery store: the danger is the person who wants to harm you. The danger is that you cannot effectively defend yourself from such people in your everyday life, regardless of whether some business or other is passively enabling their threatening behavior. If someone is using Facebook to make you fear, complaining to Facebook is the wrong thing to do first. Depending on your means, build a wall, hire a bodyguard, buy a weapon, get security monitoring, join the neighborhood watch, or install surveillance cameras--whatever it takes to make you feel safe from unknown assailants. Then you can complain to Facebook.

Post reply on HN