Reddit's Case for Anonymity on the Internet (theatlantic.com) 361
An anonymous reader shares a report: All that's required to create an account and post on any of Reddit's 1.2 million forums is an email address, a username, and a password. You don't need to tell the company your birthday, your gender, or even your real name. As Huffman put it on Thursday at the Aspen Ideas Festival, which is co-hosted by the Aspen Institute and The Atlantic, "Reddit doesn't want the burden of personal information ... and is not selling personal information."
Huffman argued that anonymity on Reddit actually makes using the site "more like a conversation one has in real life" than other exchanges on the internet. "When people detach from their real-world identities, they can be more authentic, more true to themselves," he claimed.
Huffman argued that anonymity on Reddit actually makes using the site "more like a conversation one has in real life" than other exchanges on the internet. "When people detach from their real-world identities, they can be more authentic, more true to themselves," he claimed.
Simple argument... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Simple argument... (Score:4, Insightful)
So many times this. My real name together with the country I live in will yield exactly one match. Now consider shit like SWATting and there is no way in f'ing Hell I'm letting anyone but close friends come CLOSE to finding out what my real name is.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I grew up on the internet (we got dialup when I was 15), we were always 'anonymous' as we could be. Mainly making up stupid 15 year old-eqsue usernames.
The problem with a lot of people is that they never update those usernames. I've found the real person connected to a Reddit comment because their username was the same they had attached to Facebook, SoundCloud and a bunch of other sites.
I actually went back to facebook, under 2 pseudonyms completely disconnected from anyone I know because sadly thats where
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot is one of the few places where I post with my real name. (I created this account when I was much younger and don't feel like switching to a new account.) For everything else, I don't want people to know who I am because of the possibility that you could track me down. Sure, there are a lot of Jason Levine's (138 according to HowManyOfMe.com), but a read through my comment history on Reddit or other sites could easily narrow that down.
A few years ago, I attracted the attention of a cyber-stalker. Sh
Re: (Score:2)
I have a fairly unique name, and I purchased a house, putting my name and address on the public record. Frankly, I don't want you crazy people to know where I live.
I have some bad news for you, Kenneth Dyers.
What Reddit really is (Score:2, Funny)
Huffman argued that anonymity on Reddit actually makes using the site "more like a conversation one has in real life"
Reddit is more like being told there are cool kids hanging out, chilling, and having a good time, but finding out that it's just a couple of retards mumbling to each other.
Re: (Score:2)
No matter how cool you are, High School kids conversations go like this.
Teenage one: Me, space, Me, space, Me, space, space, Me
Teenage two: space, Me, space, Me,space, Me, space, space
Teenage three: space, space, space, space, space, space, Me, space
There isn't much listening or conversation just people talking about themselves and being quite waiting for the other to finish.
Don't mean shit (Score:3)
I can tell you from my experience on Facebook that having your account tied to your personal identity doesn't mean shit for how credible your posts are. Maybe knowing that on Reddit any ol' bot can easily post something means people are far more critical with post/comments on Reddit then on Facebook.
I'm sure we can all agree that more people need to think more critically when reading things they read online; like that fact that this comment is based on one person's experience and therefore cannot be trusted as a true representation of the crap posts online.
Control, not credibility (Score:5, Insightful)
I can tell you from my experience on Facebook that having your account tied to your personal identity doesn't mean shit for how credible your posts are.
You're missing the point.
It isn't for credibility, it's for control. If you say something that Facebook doesn't like, it can ban you, and if you're *required* to prove your identity Facebook can keep you banned. (Gun enthusiast sites, for instance.)
There's also the issue of consequences. If you say something that the community doesn't like (but is otherwise legal), the community can pound you into the ground for it. For example, harass your employer until you get fired (this actually happens).
While there is certainly a lot of trolls and general assinine behaviour on the net, forcing people to use their real identity has more important consequences. It's throwing the baby out with the bath water.
It's about control, not credibility.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's like with Slashdot. You can 'earn' credibility by actually posting good content.
Uniden's downfall was that he cheated the system to get himself started.
AWildSketchAppears, shittymorph, are all novelty accounts that became Reddit popular without being tied to a real human.
In a lot of subreddits there are 'credible' users like /r/askhistorians or /r/askscience.
But if you're expecting someone famous to show up to /r/pics to refute something as himself, don't count on it.
More from the Aspen Ideas Festival (Score:4, Insightful)
Can Sacrificing Privacy Stomp Out Disinformation Online [theatlantic.com]?
According to Dipayan Piku Ghosh, a digital-privacy expert at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government,“the commercial interests of internet platforms like Facebook and those of disinformation operators are at some points aligned.”
Ghosh specified that keeping users engaged for as long as possible is a core goal for both internet companies and entities spreading false information. “For the internet platform, it allows them to create more ad space and collect more data,” he said on Thursday at the Aspen Ideas Festival, which is co-hosted by the Aspen Institute and The Atlantic. “For disinformation operators, it allows them to try to persuade the individual. And that alignment is what we need to really try to solve.”
Renée DiResta, who works as Data for Democracy’s head of policy, offered one possible solution—but it’s a bitter remedy for those who would wish to hold their data close: “Really, the solution ... is better information sharing,” she said on Thursday.
DiResta’s vision of online truth enforcement consists of a “triangle” of independent and academic researchers, researchers at big tech companies, and the government, all exchanging what they know and working in concert to stomp out disinformation. For some, that’s a chilling proposition—after all, it was data sharing between academics and Facebook [theatlantic.com] that allowed Cambridge Analytica to create 30 million psychographic voter profiles without users’ consent. But without data and analysis flowing between each point of the triangle, DiResta argued, there’s no hope of triumphing over nefarious actors in a disinformation arms race.
Re: (Score:2)
What a fucking awful idea though. Data for Democracy, indeed. I didn't realize that Stasi were operating under a new name now.
I like real names (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: I like real names (Score:2, Informative)
You're an example of why you shouldn't post personal info online.
Re:I like real names (Score:4, Interesting)
You are also considered important enough that DDOS mitigation services go way above and beyond when you get slammed. They're not gonna do that for any random Joe.
It's a matter of celebrity status, if you will. You have a background, a name, a history that all add up to making you Someone. That is not the case for the vast majority of people on the internet - for them the best defense is not in having everyone know their name, but in making sure no one knows that name.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, in contrast to you, most people (would) gain notoriety by making asses of themselves in public.
Myself included, probably.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a chicken-and-egg thing
No, it isn't. Few can be notable, by definition. Few will, therefore, ever enjoy the independence your status provides you. Most have three choices on the net; flatter the prevailing group-think, be silent or use anonymity. Think hard before having the last removed please.
Re: (Score:2)
I use my real name here, and on Reddit. It's a credibility thing. I did get sued for $3 Million for something I wrote on my personal blog. That person ended up swearing a $300,000 bond for my defense, which should be a warning to others.
The fact that you won the case is immaterial. You still got attacked from something you wrote online. If you were anonymous that likely wouldn't have been an issue. Your life was made more difficult BECAUSE of not being anonymous.
As a poster to Slashdot, I don't care if your name is Bruce, Bob, or Betty. It's nice that you have a name (as opposed to being an anonymous coward) so that I can perhaps remember you from previous comments and it gives meaning if I can put a comment in perspective to other com
That works for you (Score:5, Insightful)
I use my real name here, and on Reddit. It's a credibility thing. I did get sued for $3 Million for something I wrote on my personal blog. That person ended up swearing a $300,000 bond for my defense, which should be a warning to others.
I use my real name here, and on Reddit. It's a credibility thing. I did get sued for $3 Million for something I wrote on my personal blog. That person ended up swearing a $300,000 bond for my defense, which should be a warning to others.
Suppose you say something that the community doesn't like. Suppose it's OK to say that today, but tomorrow the community standards change. (Such as the thing with Apu in "The Simpsons". Poking fun at Indian convenience store owners was OK up until recently.)
(Or gun enthusiasts.)
The community could ostracize you, they could call up your employer and complain about you. Your business could be downrated to 1 star on Yelp (or GlassDoor or whatever). You could be doxxed, you could be swatted. If you were a Facebook user, Facebook could ban you, and the community could talk about you all day and you wouldn't be able to respond. Your voice of protest wouldn't be heard.
And as to your court case, how much did you have to pay up front to fund that? And it was a gamble up front, meaning that you might not have gotten that investment back. Additionally, how much of your time and energy went into proving yourself in a court of law?
You're honestly saying that regular people - people full-time of families and jobs, who don't have ten grand to wager on a court case - should shoulder that sort of burden?
Using your real name works for you, but don't expect it to be the right solution for everyone.
Freedom as in speaking to beer? (Score:3)
Using your real name works for you, but don't expect it to be the right solution for everyone.
And I think you just hit on one of the ideals that Americans should be striving for: The freedom of an individual to make a choice. Bruce has made the choice to become a public figure and stand up for what he believes in. Other people might ma
Re:I like real names (Score:4, Interesting)
I use my real name here, and on Reddit. It's a credibility thing. I did get sued for $3 Million for something I wrote on my personal blog. That person ended up swearing a $300,000 bond for my defense, which should be a warning to others.
that's down to creating a "brand" - a trademark in which people can "trust". it's a very reasonable, rational argument that assumes that there is a central "higher" authority to which one may appeal in the instance(s) where attackers make attempts to "phish" that name "bruce perens". for example by attackers registering bruceperens.info, or bruceperens.io, or bruceperens.name and so on. all of these you can go to a court of law for trademark infringement - the "higher authority" - or present a copyright registration certificate to nominet - the "higher authority" - and so on.
now let's roll back about 15+ years, to before these insane and extremely dangerous real-name policies existed. you're on the internet, it's lawless, you have *no* idea who you are talking to. you have no idea if they're a real person. you have no idea if they're who they say they are... and ABSOLUTELY EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT.
consequently, because everyone KNOWS that you absolutely do not, under ANY circumstances, EVER trust someone by their ***NAME AND NAME ALONE***, everything's fine. even people who use GPG *know* that the digital signature does not authenticate the *person*, it authenticates the *key* that the person is *responsible* for. or, if they don't, they're damn fools, but that's another story.
now let's move forward to the incredibly dangerous and extremely insidious but "perfectly justified" real-name policies. google. facebook. establishing themselves as "god". the "higher authority" to which we must appeal. the "higher authority" that we must place our absolute absolute faith and trust in, or be told "go fuck yourself and oh incidentally we're terminating access to 10 years worth of business email (and we don't give a fuck) because you REFUSED to accept our google+ real-name policy".
what effect do these "real name" policies have? where previously EVERYONE KNEW that you NEVER trusted an online identity... suddenly we can?? oink?
and what happens when that system fails? what happens when someone claims via one of these "real name" policies to be the President of the United States and sends out a "fake message" that there's a nuclear strike been ordered? what happens when someone claims to be their doctor, and orders them to send pictures of themselves naked for quotes medical review quotes? what happens when the "real named" account is COMPROMISED?
it's *unbelievably* dangerous to blindly place our trust and faith in these criminally-pathological companies that are so deluded by their belief that they can take away our right to be responsible for our own lives and decisions that we LET them, en-masse, sleep-walking into incredibly dangerous scenarios.
PLEASE WAKE UP, people. take responsibility for checking if people are who they say they are NOT by their "real name" but by heuristics on their *behaviour*.
i got phished on facebook by someone pretending to be my deputy head-master from 30 years ago. it took me almost 10 minutes to work out that they weren't that person. facebook had allowed the phisher to use the EXACT same name - and their photograph. if instead facebook had gone by "handles", like people used to 15+ years ago, (and like yahoo still does) the extra numbers on the end of the name would have given the game away almost immediately.
Re: (Score:2)
So I guess one of my favorite statements you made in "Revolution OS" is no longer quite accurate then, huh?
"Now if you're like just a guy on the net who's not doing this for a job at all and you sort of write a manifesto and it spreads out through the
world and a year later the vice-president of Microsoft is talking about it you'd think you were on drugs wouldn't you?"
That's OK - I still like it :)
For those bashing Bruce over this, or pointing out that he's Somebody and so "its different", I'd like to remind
Read Reddit's Privacy Policy... (Score:2)
Anonymity is a double-edged sword (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The only reason Facebook orignally wanted personal info is so that people could find their "friends". Similarly, LinkedIn has legitimate reasons for asking you to list where you have worked in the past. It is NOT about accountability, since you can lie all you want on those sites (and many do).
But Reddit, Slashdot, etc, have no legitimate interest in knowing who you are. But there are ways to know who's worth listening to and who should be given less credence - ie, modding, anonymous cowards, who recently
Re: (Score:3)
So you're in favor of self-censorship? That people shouldn't be able to express unpopular ideas unless their real-life identity can be harassed or punished?
The fact that my name is attached is precisely why Facebook only gets non-controversial, non-personal content. I only post about things I see out in public, or info about upcoming events or recent news.
I have a diversity of friends and I'm not interested in damaging my "brand" by posting a bunch of personal content for them to see. Just like Hillary
Re: (Score:2)
Or even the other way around (Score:2)
They can be less authentic, more false to themselves. It's a matter of personalities, non persons.
The good ole BBS days (Score:5, Insightful)
Some of you may not know the glory of anonymity in the BBS (Bulletin Board System) days. But it really was glorious. Everyone had a "handle" or "alias". It was generally encouraged to be anonymous online back then, or at least be something that contrasts who you were IRL. It was part of the fun. It was part of the drive of going online in the first place, it was like role playing.
Many people I knew had complete online alter-egos based around characters they'd play in door games (hence my alias TheDarkener, a character I created when playing L.O.R.D.). I was a young teenager then and it was absolutely liberating to be able to converse with people of all ages and, for the most part, know they only knew of my intellect, my character and not my IRL age (for obviously bias may come into play).
Sure, there were boards that demanded you put in your real name, had a callback verification system so they'd know your real phone number..and those boards were hardly as popular as those who didn't do that.
Remember the movie "Hackers"? When Joey said, "I need a handle, man. I don't have an identity 'till I have a handle!" Man, I miss that. Now there's pressure for online platforms to ensure people are putting in their real names, real birthdays, upload photo IDs for verification, all this crap..what happened to the innocence of imagination? Oh yeah, it got crushed by the Internet becoming a global economic machine, and the money people got their grubby mitts into how it should work.
Re: (Score:2)
"Some of you may not know the glory of anonymity in the BBS (Bulletin Board System) days."
Uh, no, you had no anonymity. CID before you connected to my BBS pretty much ensured that, and most of you had no clue about it back then.
Being able to call someone back after they tried to raise hell on my system was always fun. Having a child berating you for being stupid enough to not cover your tracks before trying stupid shit pretty much got most of them to never try connecting again.
Re: (Score:2)
"CID before you connected to my BBS pretty much ensured"
Unless the caller blocked CID ;}
Re: (Score:2)
Some of you may not know the glory of anonymity in the BBS (Bulletin Board System) days. But it really was glorious.
Anonymous to other users, sure.....but not the SysOps. Most of the boards I remember required call-back authentication* when you registered an account. You had to place some fairly heavy blind trust that they didn't do anything stupid with your phone number. I had a friend who started to get trolled by a SysOp, which is pretty serious when it's a phone call.
*For those of you too young to remember, when you went to register for an account on a BBS, you had to provide the telephone# that you were calling f
Re: (Score:2)
Callback verification was not employed by all boards. Like I said in OP, those boards, at least in my area, were less frequented because of this.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately that wasn't the case for me. There were probably only about 6-7 boards in my area that you didn't have to dial long distance for, and I think all but two required call back :-(
Re: (Score:2)
If you knew she was going to be your ex-wife then why the hell did you marry her? DUMBASS!
Hey, TheDarkener was right, anonymity is great!
Re: (Score:2)
I even met my future ex-wife on my BBS.
Don't ever speak to my future ex-wife's son like that.
No more anonymous browsing (Score:3)
I left reddit since it did not allow me to browse anonymously anymore, had to register to just lookig to it.
And now they say that they value being anonymous ? Lie, a plain lie.
A verified Email is all it takes to track a user , build a profile and tag it back to a real person.
Then, the next step will come in: disappearing articles from your view, your posts will not get upvoted.
Nothing new, history is bound to repeat itself, worse.
Re: (Score:2)
They still allow anonymous browsing. I can go into Incognito Mode (to ensure no login cookies) and browse Reddit forums all I like. Perhaps a few sub-Reddits have login requirements built in, but none that I frequent do.
That's pretty normal (Score:2)
I want to say Unpopular Opinions Anonymously (Score:5, Insightful)
I live in a place where it's unfashionable to say certain things. The only reason it's unfashionable is because a vocal minority have deemed my speech "hateful" even though it's free.
The fact that my free speech can now get me barred from establishments is on par with the ideologies we conquered in the 20th century.
I should be able to say:
1.that abortion should/should not be abolished
2.gays can/can not marry
3. women are/are not fundamentally different than men
4. Illegal immigrants should/should not be able to stay in my country
5. Islam is/ is not a violent, hateful, and supremacist organization.
6. Apple and Macs are / are not the best computers around.
7. PCs are / are not the best computers around.
Without fear of reprisal or imprisonment. The fact that statements like this are being punished in western democracies is frightening and a sign we are in critical decline.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If you are saying any of these things too loudly, I may not want you in my establishment. (Well if I had one that is) Many of the things you listed above can be said in both hateful and non-hateful ways. So how you say those things would be a factor as well.
If he said them elsewhere, not in your establishment?
Like, say, in a discussion forum, which is supposedly for discussion?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I want to say Unpopular Opinions Anonymously (Score:4, Funny)
I agree with most of your examples. However, saying that Windows PC are the best computers is clearly hate speech and should be illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
As a Mac user on the desktop, a unix user for servers and a PC user for gaming, I think your narrow opinion should be revised.
Windows PCs are the best gaming computers.
Unix PCs are the best servers.
Macs are the best desktop computers... apart from the butterfly keyboards, the OLED touch bar, the forced thermal limits of the CPUs and GPUs, the limited or absent upgradability of RAM and storage drives, the single-mindedness of thin above everything else including usability. Apart from those flaws, Macs are th
That was the case before (Score:2)
Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory (Score:3)
And we all know how that [penny-arcade.com] ends.
SHITCOCK!
Only kids hide behind pseudonyms (Score:2)
Real adults like myself use their real name.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
You are a cow. Cows say moo. MOOOOOOO! MOOOOOOO! Moo cows MOOOOOO! Moo say the cows. YOU PSEUDONYMOUS COW!!
Re:Pseudonymity (Score:5, Insightful)
Slashdot trolls can be hidden at -1. Reddit trolls will often be right there in the middle of the comments. For example, I was reading a Reddit thread where someone began saying that (paraphrasing) "Jews aren't people because only those who believe in Jesus Christ are people." I've seen anti-Semitic comments like this on Slashdot before but I need to go to -1 to spot them usually. On Reddit, the comment is right there.
Now, this could be a good thing in some instances, sparking conversation and bringing unpopular ideas up for debate instead of moderating them to oblivion. In other instances, though, the commenter isn't looking for an exchange of ideas. They just want to say "Jews aren't people" (or something else) to spark outrage and then laugh as people get upset.
Re: (Score:3)
Slashdot trolls can be hidden at -1. Reddit trolls will often be right there in the middle of the comments. For example, I was reading a Reddit thread where someone began saying that (paraphrasing) "Jews aren't people because only those who believe in Jesus Christ are people." I've seen anti-Semitic comments like this on Slashdot before but I need to go to -1 to spot them usually. On Reddit, the comment is right there.
On Reddit you can't post as an AC, so there is no automatic -1/hidden. If the comment gets downvoted on Reddit it will get hidden, just like on Slashdot. The difference might be in how the default Reddit settings are as far as when something crosses this threshold and gets hidden. If I or you posted the anti-Semitic comment (as logged in users) it would be scored as 1 and visible depending on how many comments the story has.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh yeah? What about this, then:
Your handle is stupid because you used a ONE instead of an "i"!
How's that for a "nice" troll? Not so funny now, eh?
Re: (Score:2)
Beats the shit out of doxing.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps he was evicted from home and returned under a new name?
Re:Pseudonymity (Score:5, Interesting)
With usernames people will still go through your comment history and judge you on previous unrelated comments.
That is ok. I just don't want my online comments to affect my real life. I don't want conflict with my boss or coworkers or family because of political comments I made in a forum.
I had a co-worker who posted online in a psychology forum using his real name. Some of those posts were used against him in family court, and he was denied custody of his children.
Only true anonymity, not pseudonymity, can lead to discussions completely detached from identity.
I am fine with identities, I just want more than one.
Re:Pseudonymity (Score:5, Interesting)
I am fine with identities, I just want more than one.
A long time ago I used to use the same user name on every forum and site I signed in for. It was my childhood nickname, which whilst not my real name, was fairly unique.
I was stalked by an individual who searched for my username and tracked me back to every forum I had ever used at that point (even ones I hadn't been active on in over a year). They then tried to use my comments and information against me; and, generally tried trolling me all across the internet. I now use a completely different user id on every forum I go to. I have a half dozen e-mail address and pick one at random to sign up to things so not all on the same account.
It makes life slightly more complicated but it is worth it to not be trackable across the internet. I really don't understand people that link things to their facebook or google accounts and use facebook to log into somewhere. They're making it easier for some future harasser to harass them.
Re: (Score:2)
I had a co-worker who posted online in a psychology forum using his real name. Some of those posts were used against him in family court, and he was denied custody of his children.
That's the problem, though. Using only the information you've given here (so not relating to your co-worker himself), let's consider the scenario objectively.
If he's saying something that is concerning enough to take children away, why would it be better if he could say those things anonymously or pseudonymously? Having an attached real identity doesn't change the factual basis of what he said, or the fact that he said it, or that whatever he said is concerning enough to make the court question the well-bei
Re: (Score:2)
Because "concerning enough to take children away" is such a low bar you could easily trip over it.
Getting treatment for mental health issues is generally the right thing to do, but is seen as the wrong thing to do - especially by judgemental idiots who are present in large numbers in the legal system, social services and teh intarwebs.
This is what's
Re: (Score:2)
If the real problem is how the the courts treat a particular condition, why is it better to just hide the evidence of the condition?
Shouldn't we instead seek to fix the court?
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is that the courts are always biased to some degree. Look at the American Supreme Court and the importance put on the political affiliations of the Judges. This reflected in simple things like rights. Which is more important, the right to swing your fist or the right not to get hit by a swinging fist? While this one seems obvious, lots of questions are more subtle and some types will rule one way and others will rule the opposite.
Re: (Score:2)
Shouldn't we instead seek to fix the court?
Golly, that is an excellent suggestion. I will call him and ask him why he didn't do that.
Btw, can you fix global warming by the end of the week? Thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
We certainly can do both, but why should we, when one "solution" has far-reaching negative impacts, and does nothing to help fix the actual problem?
Re:Pseudonymity (Score:5, Interesting)
That's the problem, though. Using only the information you've given here (so not relating to your co-worker himself), let's consider the scenario objectively. If he's saying something that is concerning enough to take children away, why would it be better if he could say those things anonymously or pseudonymously? Having an attached real identity doesn't change the factual basis of what he said, or the fact that he said it, or that whatever he said is concerning enough to make the court question the well-being of children in his custody.
"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." -- Cardinal Richelieu
"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws." -- Ayn Rand
"Don't talk to the police" -- James Duane & many others
Basically, anything you say can and will be used against you but not for you. The more you say, the more ammunition you give someone to play devil's advocate and take things out of context or discussing hypothetical possibilities and so on.
It also doesn't mean that what you're doing is wrong and the reaction you get is fair or whether you're with the majority or minority. Take for example James Reeb [wikipedia.org], he was a white man that got beaten to death for supporting MLK. I'm not saying he'd want to be pseudonymous or anonymous, but he'd sure run a lot less risk that way. You never know what kind of fanatic/lunatic will latch on to you and decide to make your life miserable.
Re: (Score:2)
All lovely quotes, but still no closer to a solution.
Basically, anything you say can and will be used against you but not for you.
You say that like it's a given rule, but yet it's part of your attorney's job to find the things said in your favor and argue for you. No, it's not the prosecutor's job to argue on your behalf. That's pretty inherent in having an adversarial justice system.
Your quotes also don't address the actual question at hand. You seem to advocate making investigators work for their results, but is that worth the risk to society if it's trivial to hide behind pseudon
Re: (Score:3)
yet it's part of your attorney's job to find the things said in your favor and argue for you.
No. This is wrong. Anything you say to the police is inadmissible by the defense, because it is hearsay evidence. It CAN NOT be used by your attorney to help or exonerate you.
You really REALLY need to watch This Video [youtube.com] before you talk or write about this further. In fact, the video should be mandatory for any resident of the United States.
If you are over 18 years old, you should always say exactly 4 words to the police:
1. I
2. want
3. a
4. lawyer.
If you are under 18 years old, you should always say exactly
Re: (Score:3)
Anything you say to the police is inadmissible by the defense, because it is hearsay evidence. It CAN NOT be used by your attorney to help or exonerate you.
That's not entirely true. Exculpatory statements to the police cannot be admitted on their own, but once admitted for any reason they can be used and referred to by the defense. The reason they aren't generally admissible is because you can testify yourself, under oath, and present the same statements. From the perspective of justice, the only reason that would be problematic is if you had lied in the initial statement.
More to the point, it is an exemption to the hearsay exclusion rule to use statements to
Re: (Score:2)
I have a solution for that: live in a country with less backwards values about marriage and divorce.
Re:Pseudonymity (Score:5, Funny)
With usernames people will still go through your comment history and judge you on previous unrelated comments.
I've done that, Mr. "Coward", and it's clear that you are by far the worst user on this site.
You always post dozens of off-topic comments and trolls on every single story, going back decades. How do you manage to do that? Do you even get any sleep at all?
Re:Pseudonymity (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Not even then. Style, arguments used, topics replied to, time of posting etc. all make most contributors unique. Sure, fire off one post per month and people will most likely not recognize you unless the topic + arguments used are standing out too much.
Re: (Score:2)
You can delete your comments if you want anonymity.
Re: (Score:3)
Here's what you tell Reddit:
- E-mail address (unless you're one of the low-single-digit percentages which don't use their main e-mail address to register)
- Username (people tend to use the same username everywhere)
- IP address (linked to the username, allows the website to build a nice list of IP addresses you post from, together with at least approximate geolocation)
- Online times (often overlooked, but important to build a profile)
- Browser type.
- Any other info derived from your posts.
Those just off the
Re:Pseudonymity (Score:5, Insightful)
“Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.”
Oscar Wilde
Re: (Score:3)
With usernames people will still go through your comment history and judge you on previous unrelated comments. Only true anonymity, not pseudonymity, can lead to discussions completely detached from identity.
That's not what you were saying on that other thread.
Re:Trolls? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Trolling used to be a subtle art. You had to post something just outrageous enough to cause a stir. Then people weren't sure if you were serious or not. That was trolling.
Re: (Score:2)
The art of trolling is lost.
I went trolling this weekend about immigrants stealing our jobs coming from famine and war. All of the responses, on both sides were yelling and only one person pointed out that I pointed to their native tongues, Irish and German.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on whether you're hoping to troll up some responses by name calling or whether it is just your opinion.
Lots of people think troll means someone who lives under the bridge and hates goats rather then a means of fishing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course not. Trolling is posting with the intention of generate responses. If someone have an unpopular opinion it doesn't necessarily mean he/she/it* intend to create an argument with many participants.
(* _this_ is an example of trolling)
Re: (Score:2)
Encouraging discussion is trolling?
No, trolling is posting something you yourself don't believe with the intention of generating responses. If you aren't misrepresenting yourself, then you can't possibly be a troll.
Re: (Score:2)
How would you distinguish between trolling and devil's advocacy? Does devil's advocacy require explaining that you're being the devil's advocate?
I wonder if the use of the word "trolling" is just a way of dismissing someone with better reasoning skills than your own.
Re: (Score:3)
I'd argue that if someone plays devil's advocate and doesn't announce it, then they are taking advantage of one of the social niceties that help smooth communication - the trust that people are being genuine when they represent or argue an opinion. If someone is attempting to examine a position that they don't feel strongly, that should be clear from their manner, argument and response. If they present an appearance of belief that is different from what they actually hold, whether for the purpose of Socrati
Re: (Score:2)
Trolling is overrated. The amount of time a troll causes issues and isn't easy to ignore are pretty minimal. Meanwhile the problems caused by measures to deal with trolling tend to far outweigh the problem it causes in the first case, e.g. no anonymity, heavy handed moderation, shadow banning, censorship or just outright getting rid of comment sections altogether.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't say no ethics. The guy that lied and claimed the shooter was a Trump supporter was fired. If they had no ethics, he wouldn't have been fired, much less so quickly.
Re: (Score:3)
Never attribute to malice that which is explained by stupidity.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with reddit is that they use shadow blocking and banning all the time. Post something that triggers their overzealous filter and your post gets disappeared. No explanation, no notification. Doesn't even matter if your account is years old with thousands of karma. You basically have to use Incognito Mode or Tor and check everything you submit to ensure that it goes through. I am not even sure if it's helping against spam and trolls, as those can just check if their stuff goes through, it's the av
Re: (Score:2)
I created an account and started posting stuff (not spam). After recieving zero views/clicks/comments for a long time, I contacted the support, and it eventually turned out that they had silently put me inside a "bubble", not because of anything I posted, but immediately after creating the account because I was using a VPN. Same thing happened on Hacker News.
Forget anonymity -- they require you to use your uniquely identifying home IP address to post anything that will be seen by anyone other than yourself. They do not believe in anonymity and I don't blame them, because it has countless problems associated with it, but the point here is that they are not being honest, and I can't stand that.
Any service that employs these underhanded, disgusting tactics such as "putting you in a bubble", showing fake error messages, etc., are absolutely vile and I want nothing to do with them.
It's a shame for you that they mistakenly put you in a bubble; but in many ways it's a clever technique. You put a troll in a bubble and he posts away and doesn't cause trouble. You ban a troll and he starts a new account. You presumably got labeled a troll incorrectly, so they have problems, but the idea behind what they were doing is sound and designed to protect the users.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
uniquely identifying home IP address
Since when does a home IP address uniquely identify a person? In cases like North American wired Internet, an IP address uniquely identifies a household. In cases with carrier-grade network address translation (CGNAT), an IP address uniquely identifies no less than an entire neighborhood. Mobile ISPs also tend to use CGNAT. Another suggestion is to post from a public place instead of home while building your initial comment karma, such as a coffee shop.
Re: (Score:2)
The up/down voting is rather terrible as it heavily favours clickbait and popular content (not to be confused with correct or good content). Slashdot's moderation system where your votes fall into categories (funny, insightful, etc.) is far more useful, as it tells you something about the content of the post, not just a number.
Moderation on Reddit also does often more harm than good as it actively works against the already existing scoring system and just makes mods power tripping and remove content that th