Slate article: "The Trolls Among Us"

[Auzie]

I think there are more good reasons than bad to allow anonymity for those who want it. The ability to speak the truth without repercussion is quite valuable to society. Yes it also allows lying without repercussion, but I think in the end the truth will always win out.

I second this. Many posters might get in trouble with their employers (fill in the other possibilities) for expressing particular views, opinions, etc. The more senior the poster is in their organization, the more risk is there to be some sort of conflict of interest if the poster posts under real name.

There is a valid reason for anonymity on investors threads. Often discussion includes various trade details. These details are interesting topics for discussion, however the same details are not suitable for public discussions under real identities, for various reasons.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Really interesting Slate article, proposing that we should lose our anonymity on the internet.
And then there was the female gamer who decided to deal with rude comments by contacting their moms on Facebook. (Loved this one!)

That actually reminds me of the whole Gamergate controversy that happened recently. A few female journalists were harassed (even via stuff sent by mail and via phone calls), but I think it shows both sides. On the one hand, if the people harassing didn't have anonymity perhaps they wouldn't have done what they did. On the other hand, if the targets had anonymity perhaps everything would have stayed in the electronic world (and nothing like actual mail, phone calls would have happened).

Basically the loss of anonymity online can also be negative in terms of making it more easy to make things "personal" and have arguments over things in one specific area bleed over to your entire online and offline identity. I imagine that's kind of scary for lots of people.

Another thing I'd like to point out is a nation that has worked to end internet anonymity: China. It's used as a way to crush dissenting speech.

 

[AudubonB]

A site such as this one is, for me, an example of one that very, very likely would rise from "very good" to "superlative" in quality were all members non-anonymous (there should be a word....).

A site such as BlackHatsRUsAndWhileYou'reAtItNukeTheGayTeaPartyWhalesForMohammed.com would be one that would be useless were all members not anonymous.

Quite different animals, I should hope.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

It would be nice, though, if the paid commenters could be weeded out somehow. That *truth* doesn't seem to be winning out in a lot of cases.

I'm not sure what the gain is on 'speaking truth without repercussion' is that is gained with anonymity. Most of us are comfortable speaking the truth without anonymity in real life. Why do we need it all of a sudden in electronic form? And do we really have it? Or do we just think we do? (I'd argue that we do not.)

Anonymity allows people to reveal information. But more importantly it can also make comments sections far more entertaining when people feel unrestrained. I think that the wonderful work you do in moderation is more important than revealing names.

If people want to know who I am it really wouldn't be that hard to put the pieces together.

 

[abasile]

My username is my first initial and my last name, and my 32 amp EVSE is in PlugShare, so I'm anything but anonymous. I find that I am more comfortable being who I am, not some made-up persona or identity, whether online, on the phone, or in person. Of course, I have to exercise some caution, but I'm not ashamed to share myself. If someone doesn't like what they see, and they choose not to associate or do business with me, then maybe it wasn't meant to be anyway.

 

[ggr]

I don't think anyone is arguing taking away the right to anonymity, ggr. I'm certainly not.

If you mean here on this forum, true. If you mean in the larger world, there are certainly many people arguing for exactly that, for example the Director of the FBI.

But let's talk specifically about a forum like this. Should there be anonymity? This isn't someplace where people NEED anonymity to be protected. (A car forum is not some place where the ACLU would be concerned with protecting rights.) Would lack of anonymity weed out those that are paid to place certain types of messages here or have other interests at play? Would people behave differently?

Removing anonymity is not under discussion by the forum, btw. Just an interesting thought brought on by the article and other stuff I've read recently.

Thinking as an engineer, how would one actually go about removing anonymity on something like this forum? Or, to frame the question slightly differently, how would one strongly authenticate the association between an individual's posting and their identity? If my friend signed up for this forum (which he might, he has a Sig X on order) he would probably use some variation of the name Richard M. Nixon; he uses that for all sorts of things! Hypothetically, if you wanted to remove his anonymity, you might want to see some form of government issued ID, but who would he actually have to show it to? Or maybe some sort of digital credential like a certificate from a trusted Certificate Authority, like Comodo . That begs the question of how did he authenticate to the CA.

The point of that is that even for trivial cases, the only way it can work is for there to be a very pervasive infrastructure in place and in use, and this is what scares me. There are things for which I want that strong authentication to be possible, but very few things for which I want it to be mandatory, yet there are technological difficulties with making it work unless it is very widely deployed. The solution to this can't be technical, it has to be legislative protections.

 

[JRP3]

Considering this question, it occurred to me that if registering for this forum, or any other, required proof of my actual identity, I would probably not join up.

 

[cpa]

I am curious about the types of comments posted on internet forums like this: If a poster uses his real name, or some other handle that could easily identify his true name, how frequently does he post inflammatory or sarcastic or otherwise infelicitous remarks? If a poster uses a nom de internet, how frequently does he post something inappropriate or offensive?

As a society, we value anonymity. How many times does a news story cite a source "under condition of anonymity?" How often do the police not name an officer who has been involved in an incident? The list goes on.

The tricky part is deciding when it is appropriate to unmask our identities.

 

[woof]

I am curious about the types of comments posted on internet forums like this: If a poster uses his real name, or some other handle that could easily identify his true name, how frequently does he post inflammatory or sarcastic or otherwise infelicitous remarks? If a poster uses a nom de internet, how frequently does he post something inappropriate or offensive?

If you are willing to do the work, check out the "snippiness" thread, and start counting! Of course that thread also contains many comments about the comment that got moved, and that often includes the moderators themselves and many "innocent" bystanders who's posts got moved because they quoted the snippiness. But it would provide some interesting analysis, especially if one could isolate the original post and only count those.

Another possible source of data are those posters who've been banned. Moderators might be able to provide that list.

 

[Auzie]

I am curious about the types of comments posted on internet forums like this: If a poster uses his real name, or some other handle that could easily identify his true name, how frequently does he post inflammatory or sarcastic or otherwise infelicitous remarks? If a poster uses a nom de internet, how frequently does he post something inappropriate or offensive?

As a society, we value anonymity. How many times does a news story cite a source "under condition of anonymity?" How often do the police not name an officer who has been involved in an incident? The list goes on.

The tricky part is deciding when it is appropriate to unmask our identities.

My view is that the persons true character shines through their words, anonymous or not. Anonymity provides a bit of protective shield from various outside entities, and that allows for more of the information to be revealed.

In simple words, if someone behaves as a troll anonymously, it is likely they would still be a troll without the protection of anonymity.

The biggest plus for anonymity is the equalizing effect it has on the contributors. Each and every voice that contributes to a discussion is equal, unlike the real world discussions under real identities.

There is a strong pecking order in the world. That pecking order weighs heavily in public discussions, consciously or unconsciously. People get influenced by other people's societal status and achievements, their skin color, gender, their physical looks, stature and similar factors.

That is all wiped out by the anonymity. Each contributor can rely only on their wits to support their point of view. That would not be the case in public discussions with real identities.

 

[NigelM]

I am curious about the types of comments posted on internet forums like this: If a poster uses his real name, or some other handle that could easily identify his true name, how frequently does he post inflammatory or sarcastic or otherwise infelicitous remarks? If a poster uses a nom de internet, how frequently does he post something inappropriate or offensive?

There's no hard stats on that here on TMC but I personally think there is something of a correlation where infelicitous comments (love that choice of words btw) tend to come more frequently from anonymous posters vs identifiable posters.

- - - Updated - - -

Another possible source of data are those posters who've been banned. Moderators might be able to provide that list.

Mods here don't comment on banned users. Interestingly though, those that attempt to return via a sock-puppet account invariably give themselves away by their posting style and get re-banned.

- - - Updated - - -

On the general topic of anonymity, many of us on TMC are actively involved in promoting EVs and/or solar power and/or environmental causes and have been quoted in the press, been interviewed (press and TV), written articles, given speeches, presentations etc....there's simply no way to then stay completely anonymous online and trying to portray a different persona would represent a massive risk to real-world credibility and reputation.

 

[ElSupreme]

I have the blessing of having an unusual name that is very easy to track down. I prefer staying semi-anonymous as people in my professional life, do not, and should not have easy access to my political, religious, and other personal opinions. And without a nom de plume it would be trivial for anyone to access that information.