Online abuse: banning anonymous social media accounts is not the answer • Hacker News Board

Re: Online abuse: banning anonymous social media accounts is not the answer

#271

Post by gremloni » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 10:35 PM UTC

_0ffh wrote: post #173

>Banning anonymous social media accounts is not the answer to online abuse Entirely true, but it is also not the reason for the push to de-anonymise (and de-pseudonymise) the internet. It is merely the pretext. The true reason is to make it impossible to speak your mind without fear of retribution. The democratisation of the public discourse haunts and frightens the ruling classes to their bones. The broad disseminat…

Let’s not make this about purely a class war. There are terrible people online that “speak their mind” and foment racial and sexist hate. Banning individual anonymous accounts is the best way forward. I don’t want to be deanonymized and I don’t want speaking your mind online to lead to a rolling stone that gathers hate as it goes.

Re: Online abuse: banning anonymous social media accounts is not the answer

#272

Post by seoulmetro » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 10:53 PM UTC

HWR_14 wrote: post #183

_0ffh wrote: post #173

>Banning anonymous social media accounts is not the answer to online abuse Entirely true, but it is also not the reason for the push to de-anonymise (and de-pseudonymise) the internet. It is merely the pretext. The true reason is to make it impossible to speak your mind without fear of retribution. The democratisation of the public discourse haunts and frightens the ruling classes to their bones. The broad disseminat…

You think the push to deanonymize is to censor people? It's to extract more value from them. It's for more ads, more dynamic pricing, etc. Meanwhile, the enlightenment was specifically when a wide variety of viewpoints started getting published.

It's all of the above. Censorship, control, easier to target (for ads, etc.).

Basically it's just tagging everyone like the sheep that we are. Terribly scary for anyone who isn't already brainwashed.

Re: Online abuse: banning anonymous social media accounts is not the answer

#273

Post by oxfordmale » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 10:59 PM UTC

kodah wrote: post #152

oxfordmale wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can see the pros and cons of anonymity. However, personally I would delete a lot of my social media accounts if they forced me to disclose my identity. The case of Monika at Stackoverflow suggest you have to be really careful when using your full name, even on reputable sites. Data miners would also absolutely love it and governments are powerless to act on abuse as many of these companies are outside an enforceabl…

In case anyone else didn't know the story of Monica Cellio at StackOverflow it's a good one: https://cellio.medium.com/dear-stack-overflow-we-need-to-tal...

The important part is that Stack Exchange mentioned Monica Celio by name in a press release in a manner that was perceived to be defamatory by Monica. The original disagreement was about the CoC. That disagreement/misunderstanding should have been handled in private, there was no need to throw her under the bus

Re: Online abuse: banning anonymous social media accounts is not the answer

#274

Post by croutonwagon » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 11:10 PM UTC

_0ffh wrote: post #173

>Banning anonymous social media accounts is not the answer to online abuse Entirely true, but it is also not the reason for the push to de-anonymise (and de-pseudonymise) the internet. It is merely the pretext. The true reason is to make it impossible to speak your mind without fear of retribution. The democratisation of the public discourse haunts and frightens the ruling classes to their bones. The broad disseminat…

I will say. Over the last year I have more and more just pulled back.

I have regularly wiped my Reddit account, come back for a bit, notes the toxicity and blatant bias and wiped it again.

Within my circle of friends I no longer really discuss current events or politics. Once a pastime of challenging our beliefs and opinions has kinda just….stopped. And most are pretty moderate and more just burned out from the toxicity of others that we prefer not to engage it even in a relatively “safe” quarters because well, even some of our peers that traditionally have been level headed are less so and you never know who you will offend now.

For the most part I really only pull information now from RSS feeds. I no longer even seek out discussion. I just try and get a high level overview and call it good.

There’s a part of me that wants to discuss these things. But yeah, many are just over the top. I was discussing daycares with some colleagues at work over the “water cooler” and where we sent our kids. I mentioned the one we used because someone asked how it was. I gave them a rundown of my experience and someone else said the owners were “deplorable” and “advertised on xyz radio” and they were probably brain washing my….get it…3 year old. I told them I’m not huge on applying politics where it’s irrelevant if it’s not affecting the product. And that was it, everything went cold, and I ended up getting asked by my boss what I said.

My kids are not even aware there are other people in this world with the same name yet, and I offended someone by just mentioning a daycare center. And it’s a death by a thousand cuts, I’ll just pull back more I suppose.

Re: Online abuse: banning anonymous social media accounts is not the answer

#275

Post by luxuryballs » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 11:13 PM UTC

This is such a first world problem, when everything is going pretty well we must stop people from hating each other online!

Re: Online abuse: banning anonymous social media accounts is not the answer

#276

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 11:16 PM UTC

specialist wrote: post #28

No, there is no silver bullet. Yes, banning anonymity is dumb idea. Also, opt-in authenticated identity is necessary. It's ridiculous that bots, trolls, and sockpuppets are given the same esteem and protections as real people. To curtail harassment, nerf the outrage machine (algorithmic newsfeeds) and ad revenue biz models.

Exactly. It would be cool to opt-in and only see other authenticated users. We keep talking about freedom to be anonymous and freedom of speech, but what about my freedom to not use a totally ratfucked web where I cannot trust anybody?

Re: Online abuse: banning anonymous social media accounts is not the answer

#277

Post by 908B64B197 » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 11:38 PM UTC

_0ffh wrote: post #173

>Banning anonymous social media accounts is not the answer to online abuse Entirely true, but it is also not the reason for the push to de-anonymise (and de-pseudonymise) the internet. It is merely the pretext. The true reason is to make it impossible to speak your mind without fear of retribution. The democratisation of the public discourse haunts and frightens the ruling classes to their bones. The broad disseminat…

> The true reason is to make it impossible to speak your mind without fear of retribution

I've seen this with Diversity and Inclusion.

You can't openly be against it or suggest that the bar was lowered for someone. So instead it's discussed behind closed doors, and you hear things like "You know X is here for the right reasons. He went to Y and is Asian so you know he's qualified".

Else you end up like the cancelled MIT lecturer.

Re: Online abuse: banning anonymous social media accounts is not the answer

#278

Post by BeFlatXIII » Fri, Oct 22, 2021, 12:41 AM UTC

mrtksn wrote: post #201

_0ffh wrote: post #173

>Banning anonymous social media accounts is not the answer to online abuse Entirely true, but it is also not the reason for the push to de-anonymise (and de-pseudonymise) the internet. It is merely the pretext. The true reason is to make it impossible to speak your mind without fear of retribution. The democratisation of the public discourse haunts and frightens the ruling classes to their bones. The broad disseminat…

But retribution is an important social construct. Sometimes, you speak your mind and get retribution. Sometimes you deserve it however if you are not getting a fair one people side with you. I know that this is very unpopular opinion but there are very few cases where anonymity is useful. The rest is mostly useful for the abusive ones. Instead of banning people and removing content, I would prefer losing anonymity. I…

I'm signing up for that service with fake information.

Re: Online abuse: banning anonymous social media accounts is not the answer

#279

Post by mlac » Fri, Oct 22, 2021, 1:02 AM UTC

croutonwagon wrote: post #274

_0ffh wrote: post #173

>Banning anonymous social media accounts is not the answer to online abuse Entirely true, but it is also not the reason for the push to de-anonymise (and de-pseudonymise) the internet. It is merely the pretext. The true reason is to make it impossible to speak your mind without fear of retribution. The democratisation of the public discourse haunts and frightens the ruling classes to their bones. The broad disseminat…

I will say. Over the last year I have more and more just pulled back. I have regularly wiped my Reddit account, come back for a bit, notes the toxicity and blatant bias and wiped it again. Within my circle of friends I no longer really discuss current events or politics. Once a pastime of challenging our beliefs and opinions has kinda just….stopped. And most are pretty moderate and more just burned out from the toxic…

Yeah. I’d like to run for office one day, but I would need the wife fully on board and I don’t want it to impact the kid(s). I don’t post really anything on social media, but I do have this account.

I believe that if I do run for office that the things I’ve written here, in the context of today, will be dug up and taken out of context then. But I need to develop my thinking somewhere, and oddly enough this site has the most civil discourse I can find.

I don’t want to give up my anonymity and I don’t feel right now is the right time.

Right now, candidates are pigeon holed into two extremes, so I’m ok waiting on the sidelines and learning and reading more. I think what you bring up, and the cost of running for office (e.g. it could screw up your career if you’re targeted with a smear campaign) definitely limits the pool of candidates.

It’s definitely a sacrifice, especially if you lose. It turns you into a lightning rod, has the potential to ruin about half of your relationships, could wreck your career, and puts your anonymity and personal security in jeopardy. But I appreciate the opportunity that being born in this country gave me. And I feel a responsibility to do my part to provide those opportunities for the next generation and those who want to come here from around the world.

Re: Online abuse: banning anonymous social media accounts is not the answer

#280

Post by Telemakhos » Fri, Oct 22, 2021, 2:03 AM UTC

evgen wrote: post #166

Telemakhos wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Communities without abuse problems never even float the idea of banning anonymity. This implies that many communities with anonymity don't face abuse problems, so anonymity is not the root of the problem. Maybe the problem lies in the subject matter that the community handles and the sort of people that attracts.

Anonymity makes abuse easier. It diminishes the cost to the abuser and places almost all of the cost on the victim. I would also recommend that you not be so quick to push the blame back on 'the community', because when you do so you tend to end up with the gatekeepers for those communities being forced to shoulder the cost and then we end up with twitter bans, Facebook moderation, and a lot of pearl clutching by the…

I don't blame the community but the subject. People on car repair fora are perfectly civil to each other; people discussing politics become barbarians toward each other. Take two people from the car repair forum and have them hash out politics, and watch them turn into savages. It's the subject matter.