Item — HN Reader

I've been posing online with my real name since the 90's because if forces me to self sensor. I don't say things on the internet that I wouldn't say to people in the real world who know where I live.

I think the internet would be a lot nicer place if people were held accountable for the things they say and do.

15 comments

I agree with your last paragraph but “real names” isn’t a solution. Instagram comments are filled with people saying awful, stupid things using their real names, faces, and enough information to find their locations.

Additionally I’d say this to your face. Pseudonymity isn’t about disowning word and actions.

But how would they be held accountable? Who gets to decide right vs wrong? How do you ensure the accountability mechanism isn’t used against you?

Today, people online are “held accountable” via harassment, threats, SWATting, and such directed towards their friends/family/employer, by internet lunatics who exist across the political spectrum. If you’re popular enough, it doesn’t matter if you’re a leftist, rightist, or literally Mr. Rogers; you’ll get haters who go out of their way to hurt you using whatever PII and vulnerability you expose. Or if you’re not popular, but unlucky and post something mildly controversial from either the mainstream left or right; or if you’re very unlucky. Or if you’re publicly a woman, you’ll face sexual harassment and potentially stalking.

And some of these haters and sex pests have nothing to lose, so holding them accountable doesn’t solve the issue.

I do think a solution involves holding people accountable, but carefully. Perhaps to start, people form overlapping social groups, so a system where a group can only punish people within that group (e.g. banning them from posting), but can’t outside (e.g. harassing them or people close to them, especially in-person, or threatening their job).

This just makes the internet a place only for the overtly shameless, which is certainly different, but you'd need to convince me it'd be better.

this was the idea being sold in like 2011 or wherever the real names policy was implemented in social media. we can now confidently say it doesn’t work and also deprives people of privacy unfortunately

It works fine for people with some level of common sense, decency and desire to not be seen as stupid/extremists/whatever other negative adjective. Unfortunately, these are not universal human traits and desires.

No, it just favors the majority. People say racist stuff under their real names online all the time, but it's not safe to use your real name as a trans person because of groups like Kiwi Farms.

Have you heard of Kiwi Farms? They are bullies who would immediately benefit from real-name policies.

A person of character is normally inflexible enough to inevitably make enemies.

Very fair. In that case, I guess the problem is that the internet is just so large that anyone of any not-completely-milquetoast opinion inevitably makes some enemies, and those enemies aren't easily avoidable, nor necessarily small in number.

No one in my real life would consider me anything other than kind, giving, and rational. I share things with them I wouldn’t say online. Even Kyburz admits to self censoring. That doesn’t mean I’m an extremist or even wrong. To some I’m a nazi, which is absurd. To others I’m a filthy pinko commie, which is equally absurd.

I don't feel the same way. I avoid a few topics that people probably would call me an extremist for opinions about, but they're rarely topics of conversation anyway. The internet is full of people from all ends of all spectra, so inevitably everyone will be called either a literal Hitler or a literal Stalin given enough time on the web. That doesn't make either of those extremes correct, nor even worth considering. They're both absurd, as you say, but that doesn't reflect poorly on you, but rather on the people making the claim.

Doesn’t that argue against the third part of your claim?

What part are you referring to?

> It works fine for people with some level of common sense, decency and desire to not be seen as stupid/extremists/whatever other negative adjective.

Emphasis indicating the part of the claim I’m addressing. (To be clear, I agree that those who hold such views should be dicarded.)

nowadays wanting public healthcare and advocating for the rule of law can get you branded a terrorist in certain third world countries.

Pseudonymity allows people to freely express ideas with others without fear of it seeping into all aspects of their lives. How else would individuals share and get feedback on things like health issues, relationships, employment, etc. without the threat of repercussion? The internet is so powerful as a tool for connection because of this layer of pseudonymity and striving for a 'nicer' internet is being content with a shallow version of the interconnected human experience.

Unfortunately that does not really work for people who live in countries governed by oppressive regimes, or people who are in any way different (immigrant, LGBT, etc), and in fact, even posting with the best of intentions will have people wanting you dead. Ask me how I know.

>> I think the internet would be a lot nicer place if people were held accountable for the things they say and do.

I agree. I've often advocated for zero anonymity by default. Everyone traceable by anyone. The thinking is that bad behavior (threats and such) could be reported. There was enough pushback to make me rethink that. People will still make threats when you know who they are - less often but they will. Offline (real world) harassment is still possible too without being identified, though thats getting harder every day.

Verified identity online is not the same thing as being held accountable.

The problem with no anonimity is that not all people are rational even if they're dont have shizophrenia or something worse.

You can be a small guy doing your small thing and sharing it online. Unfortunately you never know when and why you gonna become a supervillain in eyes of craze.

Traceability and Anonymity aren't antonyms.

This fact comes up with Bitcoin a lot. I and everybody else doesn't know who a random hash is but all the activity involving that address is highly traceable. So all you need is an oracle (like a cryptoexchange) that can convert a hash into a person to enforce any penalties against a person.

Same could be true of the internet. You notice illegal activity from a specific IP; that source is responsible for that activity (they did it!). In general that IP is going to be some intermediary (like an ISP) who was relying a packet from a different IP so it'll be on them to provide the next person who is accountable and do you do this chain until you get to an end subscriber. Everybody is anonymous by default but can be traced back to an actual person.

the problem often in conflict is that the incentives aren't symmetrical. if you and somebody exactly like you are put in a ring with a knife each, you'd both have the same things to lose. but often times in real life, and much more so online, one of you has a lot less to lose.

in a conflict in the street, if he gives you a brain injury, you might lose your job, mortgage, family, etc. it's just his next stay in prison, he has nothing more than his freedom to lose for the 5th time. if you give him a brain injury, you might lose your job, your mortgage, family, etc. he'll spend some time in hospital and then he'll be back on the street doing the same thing in a year.

online, it's worse, because now you can be matched with the bum with the least to lose within a 50 miles radius.

> I agree. I've often advocated for zero anonymity by default. Everyone traceable by anyone. The thinking is that bad behavior (threats and such) could be reported. There was enough pushback to make me rethink that. People will still make threats when you know who they are - less often but they will. Offline (real world) harassment is still possible too without being identified, though thats getting harder every day.

Nowadays people can just SWAT you anonymously and cheaply. Or pressure your employer to fire you without identifying themselves to you.

>> Nowadays people can just SWAT you...

Right. My old argument would have been that the authorities should not respond anonymous calls - remove the anonymous factor there and punish false reports. The problem is there will always be more ways to be anonymous when one has malicious intent. Thats why I've dropped the idea.

> I think the internet would be a lot nicer place if people were held accountable for the things they say and do.

What does this mean? What sort of accountability do you have in mind?

> I think the internet would be a lot nicer place if people were held accountable for the things they say and do.

Agreed. Equal rights for all people regardless of race wouldn't have happened if individuals starting the first discussions were held accountable for their words.

Same: I decided c. 2000 that it was better to be the real me everywhere and to live with the benefits but also the restrictions. I am probably a kinder, more constructive person for it.

This

I stand behind my words and that’s part of my social identity and there’s an imperfect record.

It’s social ledger that has an incredible memory tied to my mortal label. Good bad ugly and just plain wrong.

Probably also doing an undeserved benefit to all the others with the moniker.

There wouldn't be any furry porn, though

> I think the internet would be a lot nicer place if people were held accountable for the things they say and do.

Then I think you've been very fortunate (or sheltered). It's really not about accountability in any rational sense: it's not that I want to be a secret Nazi. It's that when you interact with enough people on the internet, you will probably encounter at least one person who isn't nice. Someone who gets upset not because of what you say, but maybe simply because you're "not worthy" of the attention of others. Who feels humiliated because you politely corrected them about some minor detail. Or maybe who just flat out misinterprets what you're trying to say.

Again, in a circle of real-life friends, this is rare. But in a sampling of 10,000 random strangers, even the nicest person will probably have one sworn enemy.

And yeah, I get it: anonymity shields the bad guys too. But on balance, I think there's a lot more good than bad when you look at pseudonymous content on the internet.

Hell, the Nazis are in office. I want to be a secret good person.

Wish my spelling was better :<