|
639. Indiana Jones - 2/8/2000 10:55:26 AM "I don't know why you bring up TT as an example of why real identity communities won't work."
Because those who chose to use real identities at TT have for the most part regretted it. As for a totally "real" community, you've already conceded that such a community is impossible. (By the way, I checked the Well's rules and even it allows fake IDs with the sysop's approval. In any case, if the Well is your ideal community, you should help build it up by posting there, rather than its competition. I like the Mote and have discovered it takes a lot of time and effort to do a good job as citizen of one online community.)
"So your objection to transparency is no longer about the wonderful benefits of anonymity but rather centering upon two things."
No, I still maintain that anonymity has its advantages for the kind of debate we have here. There is one kind of conversation that occurs when friends get together among themselves in a living room; there's another that occurs when people write signed letters to the editor in their local newspapers. This situation isn't totally analogous to either...more a group of friends discussing but unaware of who may be listening in. Anonymity allows openness that might not otherwise occur.
I noticed you participated in the debate with RustlerPike in International. Do you think it would be wise for Rustler to say those things with his real name attached? I think not. Does that invalidate them? No--it's helpful from time to time to see what people really think when they aren't constrained by the normal "correctness" of the masses.
Before you continue your assault on the "worthiness" of ideas expressed anonymously you might check into the history of the Federalist Papers. 640. Indiana Jones - 2/8/2000 10:55:33 AM As a community policy, of course, anonymity is either good or bad regardless of one person's individual prejudice, but since you continue to ascribe hidden motives to me, I would like to point out the following: You originally said you wanted the policy changed because it was too much of a hassle and turned people off. It has become clear, however, that the system you envision would, in fact, be much more of a hassle and far likelier to turn people off.
So instead your new reason (and I think your true reason) you state thusly, "If everyone's real name is attached to what they say within the Mote, some people might think a little more about what they say, and we'd have a lot less stuff going on that would ever inspire someone to retaliate against a poster personally."
Which is in fact, what I've argued all along: You desire to intimidate speech through the threat of real-world consequences.
And with that, I think you have achieved your magical state of "transparency." 641. Angel-Five - 2/8/2000 11:47:56 AM If that's what you think, I won't dissuade you by reiterating my position, I imagine. You say You desire
to intimidate speech through the threat of real-world
consequences. like some demogogue thumping a table, like it's a brand new thing, and your choice of words is telling. I don't want to intimidate anything. It's just that so much crap gets slung here and in other communities simply because no one's name is associated with it. I'm not talking about people getting beat with a baseball bat because they say bigoted things, I'm just talking about people here who I know would never be as subversive and needlessly antagonistic if there was a chance that people who knew them would be able to see their name next to the crap they say anonymously. And, really, it's not as though we'd be depriving people of the only chance they had to express their views anonymously by going transparent. Search on discussion forums and get back to me when you get tired of clicking on 'Next 10', Indiana. And don't start about the Federalist Papers. It wasn't exactly as though no one had any idea who was writing them at the time. Bring up Primary Colors next, why don't you? Yes, I do imagine that it would take some work to reach a transparent community level, which is why I made it a point several times that it would not be worthwhile unless a good majority of Motiers wanted to try it, yes? This is a very bright community, and it would be interesting to see what all we could do with it if the community were willing. 642. Angel-Five - 2/8/2000 11:50:25 AM And you didn't answer my question, Indiana. The one about 'absence'. These bullshit games have little interest to me; if you have something to ask, ask it, don't backpedal away from it. 643. CalGal - 2/13/2000 2:11:02 PM The problem is that a lot of people also seem to highly prize our ability to come in here and do and say things that they don't want anyone to ever be able to link to their IRL identities, and by definition free speech and the sort of censorship necessary to maintain this anonymity aren't compatible.
There is nothing to indicate that a preference for online privacy means that people don't want anyone to be able to link to their IRL identies. What it does mean is that they don't want everyone having that link, especially since everyone can be passers by, lurking psychopaths, sickos, angry violent folks, and so on. To me, putting my name online is akin to putting my name and phone number on a flyer and sticking it in mailboxes. Bleah.
Some people do have a desire to keep their opinions secure from their RL employment, and I see nothing inherently wrong with that.
Online has risks that aren't part of everyday RL interaction. One is that you haven't the same control over who you express your words to--once you post it, it is there forever. You have no control over your audience. It makes sense, therefore, to want extra control over your identity. IRL, it's reversed. You have greater control over your audience and less control over who knows your identity.
THe second risk is that you don't have the identification touchstones that you have IRL. You can't see who you're responding to, can't hear their voice. Allowing multiple ids gives people the ability to hide their online identity from people who know them online, and that just strikes me as an entirely different thing. In fact, the use of multiples allows people to do exactly what Angel thinks is done by the use of monikers--it enables people to escape the normal baggage that comes with regular communication in a way that violates normal expectations. Not everyone who uses multiples has this motive, of course.
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.
|
