Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

The Problem is Responsibility with Anonymity

1356

Comments

  • GinazGinaz Calgary, ABPosts: 1,731Member Uncommon

    Being upset over comments on the internet isn't a strong enough reason to lose anonymity.  Who gets to say what is acceptable or not?  Corporations?  Governments?  Special interest groups?  People are hooked too much on things like Twitter, Facebook and all that other social media hot garbage.  I think its better people use whatever aggressive thoughts and emotions they have and type them out rather than act them out.  As someone else asked, what exactly would you do if you knew my name and where I lived?  Phone me?  Phone my employers?  Come to my house?  The links below are reason enough to keep online activties anonymous.

     

    http://wow.joystiq.com/2007/10/24/16-year-old-girl-stalked-from-wow-to-her-high-school/

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/13/world-of-warcraft-stabbing-jordan-osborne_n_1671234.html

    image

    Is a man not entitled to the herp of his derp?

    Remember, I live in a world where juggalos and yugioh players are real things.

  • NorseGodNorseGod Behind Enemy Lines, FLPosts: 856Member
    Originally posted by MindTrigger
    Originally posted by NorseGod
    Originally posted by MindTrigger
    Originally posted by Quizzical  I'm referring to dehumanization. You know, the kind of things we learned the Nazi's did back in the day to justify their actions against "lessor" peoples. If you think that doesn't spill over into the real world, I'd like to know how you came to that conclusion.

     

    Wow, I did nazi see that one coming.

    So, how is asking for our papers so you can identify people that are not like you to keep them in line any different?

    How will this turn out any different than forcing lawful firearm owners to register their firearms, then posting their names and addresses to the public like that newspaper did in New York (the same newspaper that has to have armed guards at their office and homes now)?

    Just tell us what you intend to do with this personal information.

     

    Taking me out of context... I'm referring to many things I saw online where people from one political party were reducing people from their opposing political party as sub-human.  If you know anything about propaganda, you will get my meaning.  Additionally, the discussion you quoted was about why I used the increasingly nasty tone of political discourse in the US as an example of how hateful internet discussions spill into our real world lives and affect the world.

    You don't know me, so I'll just tell you.  I'm registered as an Independent non-partisan voter in the US, and I value my civil liberties.  I do like to have stimulating conversations about complex subjects though, and I tend to make an effort to understand opposing views.  In fact, I chose to be indy so I wouldn't have to follow a party line.

    So, how is asking for our papers so you can identify people that are not like you to keep them in line any different?

    How will this turn out any different than forcing lawful firearm owners to register their firearms, then posting their names and addresses to the public like that newspaper did in New York (the same newspaper that has to have armed guards at their office and homes now)?

    Just tell us what you intend to do with this personal information.

    Censorship is intended to create an illusion that one side of the debate is correct and unopposed. Silence is not consent.

  • bunnyhopperbunnyhopper LondonPosts: 2,751Member

    The only thing that astounds me is that people get their knickers in a twist over some no mark they don't know being pissy to them on an internet forum.

     

    "Oh noes, Bigdikx1337 just told me to die in a fire! Quick pass me the antidepressants!".

     

     

     

     

     

     

    "Come and have a look at what you could have won."

  • MindTriggerMindTrigger La Quinta, CAPosts: 2,596Member
    Originally posted by Ginaz

    Being upset over comments on the internet isn't a strong enough reason to lose anonymity.  Who gets to say what is acceptable or not?  Corporations?  Governments?  Special interest groups?  People are hooked too much on things like Twitter, Facebook and all that other social media hot garbage.  I think its better people use whatever aggressive thoughts and emotions they have and type them out rather than act them out.  As someone else asked, what exactly would you do if you knew my name and where I lived?  Phone me?  Phone my employers?  Come to my house?  The links below are reason enough to keep online activties anonymous.

     

    http://wow.joystiq.com/2007/10/24/16-year-old-girl-stalked-from-wow-to-her-high-school/

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/13/world-of-warcraft-stabbing-jordan-osborne_n_1671234.html

    You are the 4th person I think to bring this up, and I'm hoping you will respond to my reply.

    Are you saying that having a false sense of anonymity online is more important than dealing with the bullies?  In theory, the bullies and attackers should be in the vast minority.  If this is the case, why wouldn't we address their actions as the problem rather than try to hide people from them?

    Again, I'm not advocating people's real names are online as a catch all solution, but I'd like to hear more about your logic on this matter.

    A sure sign that you are in an old, dying paradigm/mindset, is when you are scared of new ideas and new technology. Don't feel bad. The world is moving on without you, and you are welcome to yell "Get Off My Lawn!" all you want while it happens. You cannot, however, stop an idea whose time has come.

  • MindTriggerMindTrigger La Quinta, CAPosts: 2,596Member
    Originally posted by NorseGod
    Originally posted by MindTrigger
    Originally posted by NorseGod
    Originally posted by MindTrigger
    Originally posted by Quizzical  I'm referring to dehumanization. You know, the kind of things we learned the Nazi's did back in the day to justify their actions against "lessor" peoples. If you think that doesn't spill over into the real world, I'd like to know how you came to that conclusion.

     

    Wow, I did nazi see that one coming.

    So, how is asking for our papers so you can identify people that are not like you to keep them in line any different?

    How will this turn out any different than forcing lawful firearm owners to register their firearms, then posting their names and addresses to the public like that newspaper did in New York (the same newspaper that has to have armed guards at their office and homes now)?

    Just tell us what you intend to do with this personal information.

     

    Taking me out of context... I'm referring to many things I saw online where people from one political party were reducing people from their opposing political party as sub-human.  If you know anything about propaganda, you will get my meaning.  Additionally, the discussion you quoted was about why I used the increasingly nasty tone of political discourse in the US as an example of how hateful internet discussions spill into our real world lives and affect the world.

    You don't know me, so I'll just tell you.  I'm registered as an Independent non-partisan voter in the US, and I value my civil liberties.  I do like to have stimulating conversations about complex subjects though, and I tend to make an effort to understand opposing views.  In fact, I chose to be indy so I wouldn't have to follow a party line.

    So, how is asking for our papers so you can identify people that are not like you to keep them in line any different?

    How will this turn out any different than forcing lawful firearm owners to register their firearms, then posting their names and addresses to the public like that newspaper did in New York (the same newspaper that has to have armed guards at their office and homes now)?

    Just tell us what you intend to do with this personal information.

    I'm not going to address any more of your posts because you aren't reading what I am writing.  I never asked for anyone's papers, nor did I specifically advocate anyone puts their names online.  In fact in no less than ten posts on this thread I have said that I used real names as an example of how Google is dealing with the issue.  Why don't you write a strongly worded letter to Google and ask them that question?

     

    A sure sign that you are in an old, dying paradigm/mindset, is when you are scared of new ideas and new technology. Don't feel bad. The world is moving on without you, and you are welcome to yell "Get Off My Lawn!" all you want while it happens. You cannot, however, stop an idea whose time has come.

  • MaephistoMaephisto somewhere, DCPosts: 632Member

    OP, awesome write up.

    This subject is incredibly complex.  Beyond affecting entire nations or just the world, this subject has deep philisophical, ethical and economic factors to consider.  The lay couldnt begin to grasp all the considerations you would have to take in order to form a worthwhile opinion.

    This leads me to ask one question, why did you take the time and effort to make this contribution to THIS SITE?  I wish there were more people like you who contributed posts of this quality more often, but look at the responses.  Beyond the fact that, at most, 20% of responders completely read your OP and attached article, but it is clear they could even come close to grasping such a subject. 

    This is why we cant have nice things people.  We have someone who makes an effort to contribute in a real way, and it is shit over with trolling and a 3rd grade level of reading comprehension.

    ----------------------------

    To actually respond to your OP, I dont think I know enough to really offer an opinion.  I did, however, read anarticle some time ago that basically stated anonimity might not last because of needed security upgrades.  They spoke specifically of the death of the password and that possible replacements would be biometrics.  The article was more of a warning against measure to collect more info on those who surf the internet, though a common theme seemed to be that you would no longer be anonymous.

    EDIT:  I guess I could be a little more civil on these boards.  I will make the effort to do so.

    image

  • FARGIN_WARFARGIN_WAR New York, NYPosts: 166Member
    There are already ample tools to avoid bullies and misanthropes on the internet. If you are not using these tools then you are part of the problem. Asking for a blanket penalty where the majority is punished due to the bad behavior of a minority, is a child's view of morality.

    image

    If you don’t do stupid things while you’re young, you’ll have nothing to smile about when you’re old.

  • MindTriggerMindTrigger La Quinta, CAPosts: 2,596Member
    Originally posted by Maephisto

    OP, awesome write up.

    This subject is incredibly complex.  Beyond affecting entire nations or just the world, this subject has deep philisophical, ethical and economic factors to consider.  The lay couldnt begin to grasp all the considerations you would have to take in order to form a worthwhile opinion.

    This leads me to ask one question, why did you take the time and effort to make this contribution to THIS SITE?  I wish there were more people like you who contributed posts of this quality more often, but look at the responses.  Beyond the fact that, at most, 20% of responders completely read your OP and attached article, but it is clear they could even come close to grasping such a subject. 

    This is why we cant have nice things people.  We have someone who makes an effort to contribute in a real way, and it is shit over with trolling and a 3rd grade level of reading comprehension.

    ----------------------------

    To actually respond to your OP, I dont think I know enough to really offer an opinion.  I did, however, read anarticle some time ago that basically stated anonimity might not last because of needed security upgrades.  They spoke specifically of the death of the password and that possible replacements would be biometrics.  The article was more of a warning against measure to collect more info on those who surf the internet, though a common theme seemed to be that you would no longer be anonymous.

    EDIT:  I guess I could be a little more civil on these boards.  I will make the effort to do so.

    Thanks for your reply and your kind words.  I've been reading about the death of the password as well.  I know some of the big online companies are doing research into biometrics as well as haardware type devices.  Passwords aren't going to cut it in the future, and longer pass-phrases won't work because of the difficulty with typing on moble devices.

    I know it was risky to post this here, but the subject of the degrading nature of the MMORPG.com community has been hot lately.  The main thing I wanted to point out, I suppose, is that this is a larger societal problem, not just one here on this site.  It is an extremely complex subject, and one that works in layers of society ranging from the individual all the way up to the global community moving forward.

    We will have no choice but to face these and many other important issues as technology becomes more ubiquitous.  As I said in another post here, even the lines between internet and "real world" are quickly fading.

    A sure sign that you are in an old, dying paradigm/mindset, is when you are scared of new ideas and new technology. Don't feel bad. The world is moving on without you, and you are welcome to yell "Get Off My Lawn!" all you want while it happens. You cannot, however, stop an idea whose time has come.

  • MindTriggerMindTrigger La Quinta, CAPosts: 2,596Member
    Originally posted by FARGIN_WAR
    There are already ample tools to avoid bullies and misanthropes on the internet. If you are not using these tools then you are part of the problem. Asking for a blanket penalty where the majority is punished due to the bad behavior of a minority, is a child's view of morality.

    Interesting.  Please list some of these tools, preferebly in order of their estimated effectiveness if you can. 

    By the way, love your name and the images in your sig.  That movie always cracked me up, particularly that character...haha.

    A sure sign that you are in an old, dying paradigm/mindset, is when you are scared of new ideas and new technology. Don't feel bad. The world is moving on without you, and you are welcome to yell "Get Off My Lawn!" all you want while it happens. You cannot, however, stop an idea whose time has come.

  • QuizzicalQuizzical Posts: 14,784Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by MindTrigger
    Originally posted by Quizzical

    Why do people ever behave well, whether online or in real-life?  More often than we might like to think (though far from always), the answer is because we fear the consequences if we don't.  Would you steal if you knew absolutely for certain that you wouldn't be caught?  Maybe not at first, and maybe not ever, but it would sure be a lot more tempting if we saw other people commonly doing so and getting away with it.

    Anonymity online greatly diminishes the harm that can come to us if we behave badly, which is why it provides a glimpse into how people are likely to behave if there were no consequences.  But attaching real names to what you say online isn't the solution; the flip side of a lack of consequences for behaving badly online is that we really can't do that much damage.  I'd sure rather have some idiot launch into a tirade against me on an online like this one and then have to block him than have someone come to my apartment and stab me.  Take away anonymity and the person inclined to cause trouble may be able to find where I live and do far more harm.  We can cite the occasional example of someone who committed suicide after being bullied online, but that's a drop in the bucket compared to over 10000 murders annually in the United States.

    The problem is that if you are a jerk online, you likely never again have any contact with whoever you wronged.  He can't take revenge or meaningfully shun you.  That's still true if you attach your real name to your posts.  It's also true with meeting random strangers on the street in a large city, provided that you don't behave badly enough for the police to get involved; it's no coincidence that small towns where everyone knows everyone else tend to be friendlier than large cities with millions of people.

    If you're in a small community online, and talk to the same people frequently, then you get a reputation for whatever you do (whether good or bad), and that can harm you if you behave badly.  That works out about the same whether you attach your real name or not.

    I don't believe that political arguments are an example of bad online behavior leaking into the real world.  Between the rise of television news in the 1960s and the rise of conservative talk radio in the 1980s (which had previously been banned by the "Fairness Doctrine"), the American right wasn't able to get its message out very well, which allowed the left to pretend that they didn't exist.  This is perhaps an odd fluke of history, as all three major TV networks had a left of center political bias.  If political arguments are more heated today than they were 30 years ago, it's only a reversion to the norm throughout American history, and not a new phenomenon.  Outright slandering your political opponents goes all the way back to colonial times; indeed the US Constitution explicitly defines treason and soon added the First Amendment precisely in order to allow this sort of verbal roughhousing in our politics.

    1. Trying to hide behind what is, at best, obscurity of your identity, is a poor solution for dealing with bullies and criminals.  Again, if we all need to sit around and worry that someone online may find out who we are and come stab us, then it's time for some real soul searching as to the nature of our society in general. 
    2. I used political discussion as an example because I get involved in a lot of poltical debates.  People seem to have license to say whatever they want about those who disagree with their own ideology, and I have watched the nature of this discourse become worse and worse online.  I saw so much dehumanizing of the opposing political parties on Facebook, emails and so many other sources during this last election that it blew my mind.  I'm not talking about disagreeing vehemently on the issues here.  I'm referring to dehumanization. You know, the kind of things we learned the Nazi's did back in the day to justify their actions against "lessor" peoples. If you think that doesn't spill over into the real world, I'd like to know how you came to that conclusion.

    But way over-the-top political attacks are nothing new in American politics.  See, for example, Bleeding Kansas.  You can't blame that on the Internet.

    Incivility is not a new phenomenon that traces to the Internet.  People have been doing nasty things to other people since before they figured out how to write it down for posterity.  The Internet only means that we find out about a lot of nasty things that other people say or do, and we wouldn't have found out about it otherwise.

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by MindTrigger
    Originally posted by nariusseldon

    So the US is divided on political matters. It is a good thing. Better to air the differences with words .. even mean words .. then with guns, and bombs.

    It's fine to be divided.  However, to make progress we have to be able to find common ground and compromise.  If we are busy slinging shit at each other, that is never going to happen.  If you've observed anything about humanity it should be that humans tend to shut down and dig into their position, no matter how wrong or bad it is, if they feel they are being attacked.  Get a girlfriend or wife and start an argument.  You will learn first hand how it works.  

    Common ground is not always possible. Pro-life and pro-choice is the best example. We don't have to make progress on everything single issue. Taking anonymty away is not going to make people agree. There is discord way before the rise of the internet.

    Anonymity at least keep the violence at a minimum. THAT .. is the more desirable outcome. Witness even comic artists being threatened with death just because he is insulting to a religion. Do we really want others to threaten you with bodily injury becase you don't agree?

    Mug slinging is human nature. Just accept it. Plus, a place like MMORPG.com is about games .. some unimportant entertainment. There is much worse offender of mud slinging (any political site will qualify). It is probably not the ideal place if your mission is to "clean up the internet".

    No, mud slinging is not "human nature" for most people.   We didn't evolve this far as humans because our general tendancy is to argue and fight with each other. On the whole, we evolved through cooperation and community.  Throwing insults is a place people go when they have nothing intelligent or useful to say, or if they just flat out want to use their words as a weapon.  Furthermore, I'd be willing to bet that most of the people who choose to talk smack online DO NOT do so to people in person. Read the article I linked in the OP for more examples.

    Hmm ... we evolve through the principles of survival of the fitness. Cooperation is only part of it .. .not all of it. Don't tell me you don't know that competition, and self-interests are also part of evolution.

    Oh, i don't disagree that there is more insults and useless dribble on the Internet because of anonymity. I just think that the alternative is worse.

     

     

  • bliss14bliss14 eleva, WIPosts: 565Member
    Originally posted by MindTrigger
    Originally posted by FARGIN_WAR
    There are already ample tools to avoid bullies and misanthropes on the internet. If you are not using these tools then you are part of the problem. Asking for a blanket penalty where the majority is punished due to the bad behavior of a minority, is a child's view of morality.

    Interesting.  Please list some of these tools, preferebly in order of their estimated effectiveness if you can. 

    By the way, love your name and the images in your sig.  That movie always cracked me up, particularly that character...haha.

    There aren't any unless Fargin means just not going on the internet.  I suppose abstinence would resolve the issue though.  I think I will cancel my internet tomorrow. Also my cell phone.  Selling my kindle too.  Quitting my job, gots the internets there too. 

  • QuizzicalQuizzical Posts: 14,784Member Uncommon

    One way to clean up comments on a forum like this is to do what Wizard 101 does:  when you "post" something, it doesn't immediately get displayed for everyone.  Rather, it goes for a forum moderator to read it and decide whether it can go live or not.  And sometimes they decide to block it.

    While that can prevent unsavory posts from appearing on the forum, a lot of people won't like to use such a forum where they can't necessarily say what they want.  It also carries the problem that the forum moderation to read and consider every single post is expensive.

    You can partially address the cost problem by doing what National Review Online does:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/comments-policy#

    By default, they monitor every single comment, like Wizard 101 does.  But if you've made a number of comments and they decide that you're a good poster, they'll flag you as such and let your comments go through directly without being moderated first.  One could easily adopt that policy with wildly varying thresholds of what it takes for someone to be an approved commenter.

    Of course, if you have to rely on moderators to clean everything up, then you have to have good moderators.  People will disagree on whether a post should be deleted or not, which opens up a whole new set of problems.  There isn't a perfect solution, but there are alternatives.

  • maplestonemaplestone Ottawa, ONPosts: 3,099Member
    Originally posted by MindTrigger
    All I'm saying (and maybe it wasn't clear enough), is that more and more people are using this false internet anonymity to hide behind so that they can be as disgusting as they want to other people.

    My point is that there are a lot of hypothetical problem people in this discussion.  So let's focus on one person: me.  I want to know what exactly you intend to do with *my* name/number/moniker that will make the world a better place?

    I mean, sure, if I had access to the right databases, I (or maybe someone a touch smarter than I) could whip up a statistical calculation on IP addresses, bulk word usage and arrangement that would be able to link one pseudonym to another most of the time.  But what is that missing step between assigning people a unique ID and the world becoming a better place?  What exactly are you going to do to me?

  • bunnyhopperbunnyhopper LondonPosts: 2,751Member
    Originally posted by MindTrigger
    Originally posted by FARGIN_WAR
    There are already ample tools to avoid bullies and misanthropes on the internet. If you are not using these tools then you are part of the problem. Asking for a blanket penalty where the majority is punished due to the bad behavior of a minority, is a child's view of morality.

    Interesting.  Please list some of these tools, preferebly in order of their effectiveness if you can. 

    Not plastering yourself all over social networks.

    Have delayed postings which go through moderation.

    Using blocks/filters/ignores.

    Reporting users.

    Actually picking and choosing what websites you get involved with. You realise you are going to get less shit on a Moms network cooking tips site, or a career orientated site than on 4chan or a gamers website right?

    Not getting buttfrustrated over some random poster having a pop at you.

     

    Anonymity (true or perceived) has little to nothing to do with it. People on Facebook, Twitter and the like are often the worse for it (trolling) and they are hardly bastions of anonymity now are they.

     

    People are simply more inclined to be arsey when they are sat safely inside their house, insulting someone potentially thousands of miles away and unable to clout them around the chops.

     

    Perhaps you would like some kind of electic shock mechanism put into peoples computers to fire into their gonads whenever they call someone a shit face? How about a boxing glove on a mechanical arm? That should do the trick.

     

     

    "Come and have a look at what you could have won."

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by bunnyhopper

    Perhaps you would like some kind of electic shock mechanism put into peoples computers to fire into their gonads whenever they call someone a shit face? How about a boxing glove on a mechanical arm? That should do the trick.

     

     

    Do you want one on your machine so someone can shock you whenever they don't like what you say?

     

  • NorseGodNorseGod Behind Enemy Lines, FLPosts: 856Member
    Originally posted by maplestone
    Originally posted by MindTrigger
    All I'm saying (and maybe it wasn't clear enough), is that more and more people are using this false internet anonymity to hide behind so that they can be as disgusting as they want to other people.

    My point is that there are a lot of hypothetical problem people in this discussion.  So let's focus on one person: me.  I want to know what exactly you intend to do with *my* name/number/moniker that will make the world a better place?

    I mean, sure, if I had access to the right databases, I (or maybe someone a touch smarter than I) could whip up a statistical calculation on IP addresses, bulk word usage and arrangement that would be able to link one pseudonym to another most of the time.  But what is that missing step between assigning people a unique ID and the world becoming a better place?  What exactly are you going to do to me?

    Good luck, he told me he won't answer that question. It's a secret, but it's for all of our own good. What could go wrong?

    Censorship is intended to create an illusion that one side of the debate is correct and unopposed. Silence is not consent.

  • bunnyhopperbunnyhopper LondonPosts: 2,751Member
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by bunnyhopper

    Perhaps you would like some kind of electic shock mechanism put into peoples computers to fire into their gonads whenever they call someone a shit face? How about a boxing glove on a mechanical arm? That should do the trick.

     

     

    Do you want one on your machine so someone can shock you whenever they don't like what you say?

     

    Sure. I'd ask you to help install it but you would no doubt be too busy making another "mmorpgs don't need game worlds" thread.

    "Come and have a look at what you could have won."

  • MindTriggerMindTrigger La Quinta, CAPosts: 2,596Member
    Originally posted by Quizzical
    Originally posted by MindTrigger
    Originally posted by Quizzical

    Why do people ever behave well, whether online or in real-life?  More often than we might like to think (though far from always), the answer is because we fear the consequences if we don't.  Would you steal if you knew absolutely for certain that you wouldn't be caught?  Maybe not at first, and maybe not ever, but it would sure be a lot more tempting if we saw other people commonly doing so and getting away with it.

    Anonymity online greatly diminishes the harm that can come to us if we behave badly, which is why it provides a glimpse into how people are likely to behave if there were no consequences.  But attaching real names to what you say online isn't the solution; the flip side of a lack of consequences for behaving badly online is that we really can't do that much damage.  I'd sure rather have some idiot launch into a tirade against me on an online like this one and then have to block him than have someone come to my apartment and stab me.  Take away anonymity and the person inclined to cause trouble may be able to find where I live and do far more harm.  We can cite the occasional example of someone who committed suicide after being bullied online, but that's a drop in the bucket compared to over 10000 murders annually in the United States.

    The problem is that if you are a jerk online, you likely never again have any contact with whoever you wronged.  He can't take revenge or meaningfully shun you.  That's still true if you attach your real name to your posts.  It's also true with meeting random strangers on the street in a large city, provided that you don't behave badly enough for the police to get involved; it's no coincidence that small towns where everyone knows everyone else tend to be friendlier than large cities with millions of people.

    If you're in a small community online, and talk to the same people frequently, then you get a reputation for whatever you do (whether good or bad), and that can harm you if you behave badly.  That works out about the same whether you attach your real name or not.

    I don't believe that political arguments are an example of bad online behavior leaking into the real world.  Between the rise of television news in the 1960s and the rise of conservative talk radio in the 1980s (which had previously been banned by the "Fairness Doctrine"), the American right wasn't able to get its message out very well, which allowed the left to pretend that they didn't exist.  This is perhaps an odd fluke of history, as all three major TV networks had a left of center political bias.  If political arguments are more heated today than they were 30 years ago, it's only a reversion to the norm throughout American history, and not a new phenomenon.  Outright slandering your political opponents goes all the way back to colonial times; indeed the US Constitution explicitly defines treason and soon added the First Amendment precisely in order to allow this sort of verbal roughhousing in our politics.

    1. Trying to hide behind what is, at best, obscurity of your identity, is a poor solution for dealing with bullies and criminals.  Again, if we all need to sit around and worry that someone online may find out who we are and come stab us, then it's time for some real soul searching as to the nature of our society in general. 
    2. I used political discussion as an example because I get involved in a lot of poltical debates.  People seem to have license to say whatever they want about those who disagree with their own ideology, and I have watched the nature of this discourse become worse and worse online.  I saw so much dehumanizing of the opposing political parties on Facebook, emails and so many other sources during this last election that it blew my mind.  I'm not talking about disagreeing vehemently on the issues here.  I'm referring to dehumanization. You know, the kind of things we learned the Nazi's did back in the day to justify their actions against "lessor" peoples. If you think that doesn't spill over into the real world, I'd like to know how you came to that conclusion.

    But way over-the-top political attacks are nothing new in American politics.  See, for example, Bleeding Kansas.  You can't blame that on the Internet.

    Incivility is not a new phenomenon that traces to the Internet.  People have been doing nasty things to other people since before they figured out how to write it down for posterity.  The Internet only means that we find out about a lot of nasty things that other people say or do, and we wouldn't have found out about it otherwise.

    Sorry, but I've seen it escalate online.  There's a difference between what happened in the past in interpersonal communication and via print media, and what is happening now on the internet.  I lost friends over this last election, not because of who they voted for, but because of some of the awful, dehumanizing things they said or reposted from their sources.  I'm not some dandelion with thin skin either, but I still couldn't believe how bad things were during this election.  Even our politcians feel freer to say almost anything they want, no matter how radical or undermining it is for our whole government.  It's not just the internet, I know, but that's where I saw the worst of it on a daily basis.  Perhaps the worst part is that you can say almost anything you want about anyone, and your peer group will likely just believe it.  There was lots of that.

    No it wasn't just people I know.  It was all over the place.  I'm 41 years old, and I clearly noticed the difference even between this election the last one.  You may be falling vitctim to the normalization of this in the same way most other people are.  Even if I agreed with your position that all of this is "normal", which I don't, then I would still say we have a major problem on our hands going forward. 

    A sure sign that you are in an old, dying paradigm/mindset, is when you are scared of new ideas and new technology. Don't feel bad. The world is moving on without you, and you are welcome to yell "Get Off My Lawn!" all you want while it happens. You cannot, however, stop an idea whose time has come.

  • MindTriggerMindTrigger La Quinta, CAPosts: 2,596Member
    Originally posted by NorseGod
    Originally posted by maplestone
    Originally posted by MindTrigger
    All I'm saying (and maybe it wasn't clear enough), is that more and more people are using this false internet anonymity to hide behind so that they can be as disgusting as they want to other people.

    My point is that there are a lot of hypothetical problem people in this discussion.  So let's focus on one person: me.  I want to know what exactly you intend to do with *my* name/number/moniker that will make the world a better place?

    I mean, sure, if I had access to the right databases, I (or maybe someone a touch smarter than I) could whip up a statistical calculation on IP addresses, bulk word usage and arrangement that would be able to link one pseudonym to another most of the time.  But what is that missing step between assigning people a unique ID and the world becoming a better place?  What exactly are you going to do to me?

    Good luck, he told me he won't answer that question. It's a secret, but it's for all of our own good. What could go wrong?

    Because to answer that question would assume I chose this as my solution to the problem, which I have not.  Google and other people have, but I DO NOT know what the solution is, nor do I think there's an easy one to point at. This is a very, very complex subject,

    If it helps you get past this point:  I'd do *nothing* with that information.  Nothing at all. I don't want or need your real name.  

    There are a couple posts here, and there are articles online which discuss in detail why some people advocate Real Names online if you are really curious. 

    A sure sign that you are in an old, dying paradigm/mindset, is when you are scared of new ideas and new technology. Don't feel bad. The world is moving on without you, and you are welcome to yell "Get Off My Lawn!" all you want while it happens. You cannot, however, stop an idea whose time has come.

  • ghstwolfghstwolf hampstead, NHPosts: 386Member

    It's an interesting challenge, the idea of balancing some degree of anonymity (or privacy) while simultaneously fostering a less toxic environment.

    If anything, I consider Facebook a perfect example of why anonymity does have a place.  How many people haven't been hired because "OMG, they've been drunk at a party", or made a statement/has an interest that the hiring manager doesn't like?  Some degree of compartmentalizing and control is important.  Maybe I have an interest in the "prepper" culture, it could be I just dig a bit of the "post consumer" knowledge that exists there.  So while I could just be interested in preserving food and a bit of "folk" medicine, I've associated (in some peoples minds) myself with all sorts of extremists.

    I'm not convinced the internet (and by extention it's anonymity) is the problem, nor can it be the solution.  At best it is a funhouse mirror of the larger social problem.  I see it far more as a perfect storm of selfishness and short attention spans.  There is certainly a selfish streak built into human nature, and when tempered by our somewhat weaker altruistic and social tendencies it is essential for survival.  However, the shorter attention span serves little purpose.  Political debates were once thoughful affairs, consider the format of the Lincoln/Douglas debates @ 60-90-30 minutes.  Now 1 or 2 minutes a side is the norm, and even that is often too long.  This post is getting to be too long.

    I'm not going to "solve" the problem here.  Laying out a solution is possible, but requires many changes far beyond the web and an explaination for each of them.  Hell, I'm not sure I've appropiately defined the elements of the problem to easily transition to the various steps required to offer such solutions.

  • MaephistoMaephisto somewhere, DCPosts: 632Member
    Originally posted by NorseGod
    Originally posted by maplestone
    Originally posted by MindTrigger
    All I'm saying (and maybe it wasn't clear enough), is that more and more people are using this false internet anonymity to hide behind so that they can be as disgusting as they want to other people.

    My point is that there are a lot of hypothetical problem people in this discussion.  So let's focus on one person: me.  I want to know what exactly you intend to do with *my* name/number/moniker that will make the world a better place?

    I mean, sure, if I had access to the right databases, I (or maybe someone a touch smarter than I) could whip up a statistical calculation on IP addresses, bulk word usage and arrangement that would be able to link one pseudonym to another most of the time.  But what is that missing step between assigning people a unique ID and the world becoming a better place?  What exactly are you going to do to me?

    Good luck, he told me he won't answer that question. It's a secret, but it's for all of our own good. What could go wrong?

    Its not about what we would do with your "name."  It is about what you would or would not do if anything you say/do could be traced back to you.  How would you act on the internet if your name/reputation were on the line.

     

    image

  • PhelcherPhelcher Boston, MAPosts: 1,053Member

    Listen, is doesn't matter who the poster thinks He is... the point being he's speaking his logic. Thus, not anonymous anymore... bcuz u can hold them to their post history..!

     

     

    "No they are not charity. That is where the whales come in. (I play for free. Whales pays.) Devs get a business. That is how it works."


    -Nariusseldon

  • NorseGodNorseGod Behind Enemy Lines, FLPosts: 856Member
    Originally posted by MindTrigger
    Originally posted by Quizzical
    Originally posted by MindTrigger
    Originally posted by Quizzical 
    Even if I agreed with your position that all of this is "normal", which I don't, then I would still say we have a major problem on our hands going forward. 

    Forward towards what?

    Censorship is intended to create an illusion that one side of the debate is correct and unopposed. Silence is not consent.

Sign In or Register to comment.