|
644. CalGal - 2/13/2000 2:19:58 PM I also don't see anything wrong with having these discussions periodically. It's not like they consume the community--policy debates are the near exclusive domain of policy wonks. Most people yawn at the very idea of a policy discussion. I think it makes a lot of sense to revisit these decisions every so often. In this case, there was a violation in an outside forum and it brought up Ace's prior concern about this sort of behavior. We chewed on it, pretty much reached a consensus that nothing should be done, and dropped it.
I certainly don't think these debates tear the community apart. I also think that more of the current community than not would refuse to post if they had to use their own name, and my gut feel is that it would discourage more people from joining as well.
645. JayAckroyd - 2/13/2000 9:46:26 PM I happen to agree with Angel on this one, in principle.
But it doesn't require a policy change. Transparency can arise by unilateral action. The fact that so few of us use our names makes it clear that transparency is not a feature that is widely desired.
646. Indiana Jones - 2/15/2000 5:21:59 AM And I agree with CalGal.
Those who opt for real-world IDs do enjoy many benefits, BTW, so I also think if a poster's willing to forego that in the interest of maintaining privacy, he or she should be able to. 647. Angel-Five - 2/15/2000 10:42:44 AM Some people find the 'anonymity' of the Mote to be pleasant and useful. It's important to remember that transparency in the Mote would in no way deny those people the ability to do any of those things online. Whereas transparency in the Mote would allow Motiers to do a lot of things they can't do right now, in an environment that the Mote doesn't currently offer. This is an unusually bright group of people, enough so that people of average intellect who come in are often perceived as being stupid in comparison when they aren't at all. There's a unusually wide range of nationalities, competencies and knowledge available here given that we're such a small and insular community. I happen to think that it would make an excellent transparent community. The flip side to the freedom that 'anonymity' brings is the garbage that it brings along with it. I'm not talking about things that are valuable and offensive at the same time, like Rustler's admission that he'd like to nuke 60 million young Germans and the subsequent debate, but rather things that are just pointless and offensive. Transparency is the ultimate democratic means of balancing this out for all that are concerned, because with a transparent community the very fact that it's transparent serves to discourage the garbage, but allows everyone to post whatever they will at the same time -- it allows them, and not a central set of rules, to dictate what's apropos for them to say, while at the same time serving as a natural barrier to a lot of the ankle-biter nonsense that gets said otherwise. And if I may, I'd like to use CalGal to make a point. She's probably the most visible proponent for anonymity in this forum and certainly has had some strong things to say about why her personal information ought to be protected (even though no state or federal law anywhere protects that information). Yet I would venture two guesses regarding public knowledge of CalGal's identity. 648. Angel-Five - 2/15/2000 10:43:05 AM The first is that even though I and others have been in this community longer and been much more open WRT our identities, the places we live and what we do, etc., than she has, I'd guess that more people know CalGal's full name and similar data -- and have since well before the Mote started -- than know mine. And I've gone so far as to post my real information here. Secondly, more people know her identity and personal data now, and did back in the Fray, than would have ever known it had she not bothered to try and protect it in the first place and instead chosen to be as open as I have. This is precisely because of the fact that she's so visibly fought to protect the privacy of her own data. What's that say about the efficiency of the privacy rules (all of which, I believe, are consistent with CalGal's stance on her own privacy)? To me it says one simple and plain thing -- they don't work very well at all, but instead encourage the opposite effect of what was originally intended. 649. Angel-Five - 2/15/2000 10:46:14 AM The Net is a place in which someone who wants your personal identification can either get it themselves with a little detective work and an open browser or else can have a third party get it for them. Privacy rules strike me as exactly mirroring Prohibition in this regard; not only do they not work, but they bear down equally hard on honest participants in a discussion as they do someone who would intend to use personal information maliciously. 650. Indiana Jones - 2/15/2000 12:46:38 PM A5--When you set about to write, tape one word over your monitor: discipline.
"Some people find the 'anonymity' of the Mote to be pleasant and useful. It's important to remember that transparency in the Mote would in no way deny those people the ability to do any of those things online. Whereas transparency in the Mote would allow Motiers to do a lot of things they can't do right now, in an environment that the Mote doesn't currently offer....Transparency is the ultimate democratic means of balancing this out for all that are concerned, because with a transparent community the very fact that it's transparent serves to discourage the garbage, but allows everyone to post whatever they will at the same time -- it allows them, and not a central set of rules, to dictate what's apropos for them to say, while at the same time serving as a natural barrier to a lot of the ankle-biter nonsense that gets said otherwise."
I hope you were under the influence of something when cranking out the above. 651. Angel-Five - 2/15/2000 2:14:18 PM No, just haste. I cut out an opening paragraph that had a few things in it I should have left in. Tell me, what do you have taped on your monitor? Should I ask? In a transparent community, anyone who wants to be an asshole is free to do it. The only things holding them back are a) being ashamed to say certain things without the protective screen of anonymity to hide behind and b) the laws regarding free speech. I humbly submit that there's very little loss to a community when people don't post things they'd be ashamed to have linked to their real name. And we've never been in the business of defending libel anyway. Why would we want to be? I mean, we could have a host of rules as to what can and can't be said, but there's a lot less need for those rules if we're all transparent, for the simple reason listed above. It's the same system of free speech that we are all acquainted with -- nothing more, nothing less -- in a very talented community. 652. Angel-Five - 2/15/2000 2:57:50 PM I remember the very first time I ever got online. It was through a VAX account and a VMS mainframe on a monochrome monitor and you had to telnet wherever you wanted to go. I ended up in a chat haven called The Coffeehouse. You could use a client program to soften the experience (the ones I used were 'dink' and 'tinyfugue') which ended up giving you a rudimentary interface with some controls like ignore functions and so on -- otherwise it was no holds barred and people wandered around with assault programs they'd use to overload your connection if you pissed them off. And it was brutal. The very first words I ever saw while telnetting into a chatroom were something like wolfmanjack(34): Take a long hard suck on my hairy hole, you fucking dipshit! Redneck sheeters would roll in on the hour every hour and start their racist rants. Bored sixty-something men and frat boys would get online and talk about how they were these hot, redheaded green eyed milk-skinned babes with huge hooters and how they were looking for some guy to be their first time. I swear, there were a regular truckload of them trolling around looking for some hard-up geek to screw around with. There were these real antisocial types who would just fuck with peoples' heads because they could. Techies would wander around .pbombing everyone that ever pissed them off. There were a lot of good people who just wanted to bs a little and talk about stuff that they found interesting, but it was a zoo trying to find them. 653. Angel-Five - 2/15/2000 2:58:22 PM To me, it's been kind of a privileged thing to see the evolution of the net from that time -- it's happened faster than hell. Things keep changing as people try to find ways around the stumbling blocks. You see the progression to regulated chat, and cliented chat rooms where you have every tool at your disposal to deal with ignorant people you don't want to deal with, you have email discussions, you have free forums, and regulated forums: all these little steps up as people get together and come up with something new and then try it out. I miss some of my old friends from the days I was Ash, hanging around the Coffeehouse. But I'm much happier with the community we have here. I think it would be interesting to jump to the next level as a group rather than have to leave and find some other group one level higher where transparency is the next major change to improve the function of online communities, weeding out some of the senseless bullshit that no one in this forum cares for anyway. You misspoke of my 'real' motivation before, as opposed to the arguments I was leveling against you, Indiana -- well, if there's a hidden agenda, that's it, I'm curious to try transparency out. Not much of a hidden agenda, really, other than a blend of curiosity matched with a like of the people in this community (yes, even you, Indiana, though sometimes I wonder why.) The arguments I've made are good arguments as far as I'm concerned, and they are what inform my desire to try transparency, but I'll admit to being motivated by curiosity and a simple desire to have a more meaningful online community as well. 654. JayAckroyd - 2/15/2000 10:20:10 PM So, Angel, why don't you just drop the handle? If the transparent participants start to outnumber the anonymous, it will create pressure for greater transparency.
I agree that anonymity is hard to preserve; I've made no effort whatsoever to know who anybody is, and know who a lot of people are. And this was before we set up the site. I got one email from someone trying to keep the Fray group together that listed all the other email addresses in clear. Many of those addresses were not public ones, either. I've deleted that email; there were people on that list who had strong privacy concerns, including, oddly enough, the sender, whose name was in clear.
655. CalGal - 2/15/2000 10:59:54 PM Well, that's because the sender is a tech weenie.
656. CalGal - 2/15/2000 11:05:09 PM I didn't say that in dismissal, btw, but just as a fact. Although I'm pretty sure that there were no private emails on that list--and I was the one passing the addresses to the person in question. All the ones I passed on were ones that had been posted online or that had been given with that permission. 657. CalGal - 2/15/2000 11:25:10 PM Angel,
Secondly, more people know her identity and personal data now, and did back in the Fray, than would have ever known it had she not bothered to try and protect it in the first place and instead chosen to be as open as I have.
This suggests that you still don't know my reasons for keeping information offline.
Angel, more people know my name than know yours for two reasons: 1) I probably email more people than you do and 2) I'm more notorious than most, so more people dislike me and make a point of getting my name, thinking that this bothers me. If I understand you correctly, you assume that my reason for not being open with my name online has to do with attempts to prevent those in category 2 from getting the information they want.
No.
I'll try an analogy:
Suppose I hang out regularly at a bar IRL. I know all the regulars, I like a lot of them, a few of them can't stand me. There are also a lot of people I don't know at all. Most of the regulars know my name, because I have told them my name. Some of the regulars don't know my name--although they know me as the chick with the loud voice and the yen for Wild Turkey--but they could get my name if they needed to, just by checking with a regular who does know it.
But I don't put my name and phone number on a little card and post it on the bulletin board. I don't announce my name in such a way that anyone in the vicinity can hear it, given I don't know who hangs out at the bar and don't feel like letting someone collect names for Jehovah's Witness meeting, a telemarketing campaign, or for his next gruesome murder scheduled for Tuesday at 1.
658. CalGal - 2/15/2000 11:47:37 PM That's why I don't put my name online. Not for any of the assholes I know. But because of the audience I don't know. Will some of them get my name anyway? Probably. But I see no reason to make it easy for them. I see this as purely sensible safety precaution. "Safety" in the psycho stalkers and telemarketing sense, not the kind that goes along with whether or not assholes I don't like know my name. That's no more avoidable online than it is IRL.
659. CalGal - 2/15/2000 11:53:25 PM Now. I provided a description of my reasoning for my privacy only because you keep misstating it. But that can mislead you into thinking that if you can prove my preferences to be misplaced, you can change my mind. No.
Your analysis of the reasons for privacy is irrelevant to your case. The forum doesn't have to care why people want to remain private. All it has to do is determine whether or not they will support the privacy. We can't go around determining the individual reasons, since there might be as many reasons as there are members. More members might change the reasons. No, this is something that can be abstracted out to a binary issue: privacy, yes or no?
At that point, it becomes simple: which approach benefits the forum?
If you want the transparency made mandatory, make a simple case: it will improve the quality of the forum in such a compelling fashion that the desires of any individual member are irrelevant.
You haven't even really stated your argument as to why it would benefit the forum, much less tried to convince anyone else. Instead, you've been trying to attack reasons--figuring if you can make the reasons go away, you can make the rule go away.
You could successfully deconstruct every reason for privacy into nonsense (which you haven't, mind you, but I'm just allowing for that possibility) and it would have no effect on my support for a privacy policy.
Why? Because the reason I support privacy has nothing to do with my own preferences. The reason I support privacy is because I feel that this forum is better off for it. I know all the arguments for transparency, and none of them are compelling enough to require transparency instead of allowing it.
It is really that simple, as far as I'm concerned. 660. Angel-Five - 2/16/2000 4:11:37 AM Jay: I'm mulling it over, though for me the benefits are in a community change more than in a lone-wolf change. Besides, I'm rather taken with Angel-Five after all these years. CalGal Where have I mischaracterized your reasons for anonymity in this debate? Can you refresh my memory? Because the only thing I remember saying is that you wanted your privacy protected, not why. And all your statements which hinge upon my supposed mischaracterization and attack of your need for privacy are therefore bogus. I know why you want your privacy protected, because you've brought it up before -- you don't want to blindly advertise your personal information to people you don't know at all. You've also inferred that you might not want your employer to link your opinions to your real life identity. I'd guess that you also just don't want your name next to some of the things you say, but if you claim that's absolutely not the case, fine. Your point about the forum not having to care why people want to be private is, I'm afraid, specious. Every rule that's gone into this forum so far demonstrates a concern with intent as well as action. And people have no means of determining whether or not they'd like privacy rules without first envisioning what those rules might engender. Furthermore, I have never once spoken of forcing transparency, so the bit about 'making a case that outweighs any individual's desires to the contrary' doesn't apply here. I've lost track of the number of times I've said it now -- it's pointless to try unless a strong majority want to try. What I have done is give two good reasons why people might want to try transparency -- fewer barriers to understanding communication, and a better signal to noise ratio. 661. CalGal - 2/16/2000 5:02:07 AM Where have I mischaracterized your reasons for anonymity in this debate?
Here:
Secondly, more people know her identity and personal data now, and did back in the Fray, than would have ever known it had she not bothered to try and protect it in the first place and instead chosen to be as open as I have.
and here:
This is precisely because of the fact that she's so visibly fought to protect the privacy of her own data.
Incidentally, that last is untrue. The reason that people post the information is because they don't like me personally. Many other people could have been extremely adamant about their personal information and it wouldn't have gotten the same response. Were someone to post Wabbit's picture online, she would ask that it be removed immediatly. I doubt that anyone would continue to post it in another forum just to bother her. That is because Wabbit is a good and gentle soul, and I'm disliked. I'm not complaining, but let's not confuse the issue.
BTW, I didn't say that you mischaracterized it. I said that you seemed not to understand it. I said that because of this comment, here:
Some people find the 'anonymity' of the Mote to be pleasant and useful.
And I am not the most visible proponent of privacy. That would be Ace. There are also many people here who sensibly refrain from stating their opinions on privacy because it gets the attention of punks who then will post it just to bother them.
You've also inferred that you might not want your employer to link your opinions to your real life identity.
No, I did not. I said that I find it reasonable that people might not want them linked. I am self-employed, and anyone I've ever worked with knows my political views and know I post at this forum.
662. CalGal - 2/16/2000 5:02:36 AM Your point about the forum not having to care why people want to be private is, I'm afraid, specious.
No, it isn't. It is entirely relevant. The forum doesn't have to care why people want to be private. They can make it as abstract an issue as they like. And right now, like it or not, it's at the level of privacy or no privacy. There is no real debate over whether or not its reasonable to want privacy. You and Jay are welcome to try and change the debate, but let's not pretend that you can set the terms. The forum as a whole sets the terms, and it's pretty clear the forum as a whole values privacy. I certainly think it safe to say that the forum as a whole will refuse to require transparency.
Furthermore, I have never once spoken of forcing transparency
Must be a misunderstanding. Why have this discussion, if you don't think it should be forced? Do as Jay said, change your own name, and be done with it. Otherwise, make the case for requiring it.
663. Angel-Five - 2/16/2000 2:41:42 PM No, CalGal, you're still missing it. We didn't just up and decide on a whim in the Fray about privacy and blackmail, just because people wanted it. We analyzed why, and what could come of it. There was a very specific thing that happened, we all remember it, it scared more than one person (needlessly, I might add) and that's the root. All the privacy arguments since in the Mote have centered on intent, mitigation, and justification as regards the use of personal information, and the punishment due for using that information in a specific infraction. That necessarily leads back to the question of when someone in the Mote can reasonably expect to have his or her personal information protected from 'inadvertent' first slips, like mentioning what someone's husband does for a living. Because absolute privacy is not supported by the Mote rules in and of itself, but instead limited privacy is granted to Motiers based on some system of mitigation. So we have to construct some big rigamarole argument (remember those multipost legalistic documents Ace was writing?) saying what could be said by who and why. And that is ENTIRELY about whether an 'aggrieved' party has the right to expect the enforcement of privacy in any particular instance. So don't tell me about there's no debate in the Mote about whether it's reasonable to want privacy, because there is -- and since privacy in the Mote must be justifiable under Mote rules, it's legitimate to question that justification.
|
