Live data from Hacker News

The Real Name Fallacy

blog.coralproject.net

61–70 of 323 posts

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#61
post #14
post #9

While I agree that expecting users to use real names is a bad thing, this knocked the air out of me: > In societies including the US where violence and mistreatment of women, people of color, and marginalized people is common, we can expect similar problems in people’s digital interactions [1] > [1] Sarah Banet-Weiser and Kate M. Miltner. #MasculinitySoFragile: culture, structure, and networked misogyny. Feminist Med…

A post by ESR was even flagged off HN because its message was that he expected evidence to back claims of harassment There's at least one other reason users may have flagged it, and in line with the site guidelines: it doesn't sufficiently satisfy intellectual curiosity, and at the same time has a high likelihood of producing little to no constructive discussion while also being very susceptible to flamewars. That do…

[deleted]

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#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 'fix' trolling is evenhanded, firm moderation of a community site. There are tons of forums and wikis and other such sites out there which do well here, because they simply lay out clear rules for participation and ban people for being scumbags and breaking said rules.

Facebook and Twitter struggle with this, partly because it's impractical to manually moderate a site with so many users and partly because their model doesn't really allow it. And maybe in part because they're very clearly inconsistent with who gets banned for saying what (like say, banning more conservative accounts than liberal accounts for trolling). Which itself undermines confidence in the site's rules.

So yeah, the key to an online community without harassment isn't removing anonymity, it's having clear rules in that place and enforcing them equally regardless of a member's status or political views.

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I reject the assertion that these issues are "common" in the US On what grounds do you reject that? Do you have hard evidence that women and ethnic/sexual minorities in the US are not at increased risk of violence and mistreatment? Or are you basing this on "feelings > reality", as you put it? > Further, it's getting rather tiring that the US is always listed as an example when countries/societies exist without leg…

> On what grounds do you reject that? Do you have hard evidence that women and ethnic/sexual minorities in the US are not at increased risk of violence and mistreatment? Or are you basing this on "feelings > reality", as you put it? That's beside the point of what the parent comment actually said. To illustrate: Certainly, national park rangers are at increased risk of being struck by lightning during the course of t…

> You're engaged in a discussion that is purely about the definition of fuzzy words. What is "common"? It's about trying to get the upper hand rhetorically by defining words (from both of you). Not a particularly enlightening debate.

Good catch and I considered that as well, but decided it was worth commenting on for discussion as I took the use of "common" with the context of a named country/society to be a claim of happening with increased frequency relative to other countries/societies or to mean "likely for one in that country to experience" (while also noting the author was casually asserting something quite bold).

I quite strongly believe in online anonymity, and as such, I don't want the argument for it to become weakened against debate.

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#64
post #59
post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On what grounds do you reject that? Do you have evidence that women and ethnic and sexual minorities are not at increased risk of violence and mistreatment? The FBI gathers data on bias in crimes[0]; I reject that the issues are specifically "common" in the US because they constitute a small number of the total crimes committed[1] and are taken very seriously (harsher sentences and being racist/sexist has severe so…

>That's not the argument here. It's stating that it's tiring that the US is always singled out as if it's somehow _specifically_ bad. And that isn't the case in the original quote. The US isn't listed as specifically bad, it is included as a member of a list where the author contends mistreatment of some groups is common: "In societies including the US where violence.." Nothing special or notably different there. Add…

> And that isn't the case in the original quote. The US isn't listed as specifically bad, it is included as a member of a list where the author contends mistreatment of some groups is common:

I contend that the US doesn't belong in that list, and also that a generalization with a single enumeration is almost comical to defend as not attempting to identify as a specific case.

e.g. "Software pirates, including 7Z7, often..."

> the intent may be read as "'we' are not any better at this thing than we imagine 'other' countries are".

Except that the UK and the US is quite good about these things to the extent that the author had to cite something written about _Twitter_ (with a title mocking a perception of men, no less) to make a point about violence.

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#65
post #46
post #21

In my experience it eliminates a particular kind of drive-by trolling, but leaves the other kinds unaffected. Only constant moderation really keeps it out.

Probably. I've definitely never seen a good Facebook comments section on any site. Nasty arguments and low-grade garbage. Real names simply don't stop most people from being vile on the internet.

Public Facebook comment sections on third party sites have the ugly effect of self-selecting users to those who either really don't care at all about appearances or who have that special level of righteousness that makes them believe that any opinion they might voice would be universally applauded. Those with a more balanced opinion tend to not put out their flag in a place like that. It's a recipe for the perfect storm. Real names do stop most people from being nasty on the internet, but that also makes them invisible, so that only the unstoppable minority remains.

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#66

I think it largely depends on the specific community and people in it. While some try to use online anonymity as an outlet to say and do things they wouldn't dare on Facebook or IRL, others seem to want a reality-like reputation around their username/account. A large portion is probably caused simply by community rules; just see /b/ and HN... And to be fair, I've hardly ever seen serious insults on Facebook, but been…

Those norms are correlated heavily with anonymity though. For example, while HN has no real name policy, HN users are generally substantially less anonymous than accounts on Reddit (for example). Many people openly list their personal identity in their profile.

I casually link my profile to my "identity" here because the discussions I'm involved in here carefully stick to things I'm happy to have linked to my name. That is partially because the culture here frowns upon a whole lot of types of discussions that would lead to comments I'd be unhappy to have come up when searching for my name.

To some extent of course that means people can afford to be ruder on Reddit than here. But for my part at least I've "invested" as much in my Reddit username as I have in my username here, probably more. Just in different aspects of my life. What I say on Reddit has less effect on my work life, but just as much or more on my social life (most people around me are not on HN; most of them are on Reddit), and so I'm not about to "burn" my Reddit account.

The greater difference here I think is the same as you see on smaller subreddits: A relatiely large proportion of the comments come from a small pool of heavily invested long term users.

It doesn't matter if you know who we are in real life as much as it matters that newcomers that don't settle in to the culture here will be quickly pushed away (often after a number of downvotes and "this isn't reddit" comments) by longtime users that outnumber the newcomers. That happens on many subreddits too. But when you go to the bigger ones, the turnover is huge and it becomes impossible to police without very dedicated moderator teams which many subreddits lack, and the trolls congregate where they can get away with their trolling.

There are plenty of subreddits where I'd be happy to go by my legal name. The reason I don't is more down to already having an established identity over the course of many years and no reason to.

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#68
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. Having the same harassment happen to their friends, relatives and colleagues. Etc.

And this is without considering people living in countries with oppressive governments, where using their real name could see them arrested, beaten and imprisoned.

Basically, the stakes are a lot higher for a lot of people. For many, preserving anonymity isn't a matter of "politeness" — it's a matter of personal security. It can literally be a matter of life and death.

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#69
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…

Nobody's claiming that nobody will ever be offended again (straw man); the idea / theory is that by using real name, there'd be less anonymous trolling.

Offense might become even worse when it's not done anonymously though. Then it becomes a real person kicking a target's shins. Can be good (the argument improving, becoming more of a critique than just brainless insulting), can be bad (the offender not giving a fuck).

Linus has been offending people for a long time without using a pseudonym. But he knows what he's talking about, and is not ashamed of himself for the language he uses / has used.

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#70

Facebook hate groups are real (anti-immigrant, anti-lgbt, ...). They're getting better at skirting the rules, so there's no way to disband them. I'm seeing dozens of such groups form for a country with a population of ~2 million (Slovenia). I think the mentality those bubbles breed is even more dangerous than Twitter harassment. Instead of manifesting itself in bullying and conflict, it's nurturing the different flav…

And being anti-immigrant or anti-LGBT is their right; it's freedom of speech, which extends to freedom to hate. Lots of people hate Trump, that's their right to have. There's a line drawn when it becomes harassment or incitement to violence (then they veer towards becoming a terrorist organization).
Post reply on HN