I am from austria. This is your typical right wing nazi bullshit. Thats what you get if you vote like an idiot. But on the bright side, this violates too many constitutional laws, austria doesnt has a single constitution rather a ranking system where some laws have the rank of a constitution.
So with the idea that this wont pass, I'd like to get some other tildians' opinions on the concept of anonymity and the problems its caused + the benefits it gives. Because personally, I'm of two...
So with the idea that this wont pass, I'd like to get some other tildians' opinions on the concept of anonymity and the problems its caused + the benefits it gives. Because personally, I'm of two minds about it.
On one hand (the for side), anonymity is great for allowing people to talk and think true to themselves, and I think the "we're all human first" label it gives has been responsible for a huge part of the social change we've seen over the last 15 years, especially LGBTQ+ acceptance. Additionally, anonymity is essential in a society that tracks everything. With companies like Google and Facebook slowly turning into Big Brother (and, in the USA, with the NSA actually being Big Brother), being able to stay truly anonymous helps shield you from dystopia and has helped shore against McCarthyism.
That said, its become abundantly clear that anonymity's biggest problem is that it enables hate speech at worst and, across the spectrum, what amounts to zealotry. The truth of the matter is, social accountability should mean something, because it helps keep dialog respectful and extremists out of main culture. I get that the internet denizens are deathly afraid of being held accountable for things they choose to say, but as someone who will someday be an employer, it would be a great comfort to know that the person I'm hiring is not semi-secretly a, actioning mysoginist or racist, which is what anonymity enables.
So when it comes down to it, for better or worse, anonymity is inherently dishonest. Sometimes (like when youre trying to avoid invasive government programs or corporate background checks) thats necessary. But is it worth the cost?
I'd argue that instead of dissolving internet anonimity, you should instead empower users to block messages more effectively. The internet is the last refuge on earth where anonimity is really a...
I'd argue that instead of dissolving internet anonimity, you should instead empower users to block messages more effectively. The internet is the last refuge on earth where anonimity is really a thing and I'd like to keep that. I don't want my various internet personas traced back to my real self, not because I say offensive things on the internet, but because I regard it as part of my privacy. Giving everyone to ability to trace someone from an internet comment can go wrong in various ways, one of them being doxxing. There's a reason justice is handled by a court and not by the mob, the mob often makes irrational choices. Even less so a single individual who only has a single or small number of comments to go off.
I think that anonimity can also serve well in discussions because everyone has to be judged by their argument and not by their name or face. Everything you know of me and everything you can reply to is in this comment and in my comment history. If my name or even a photo was attached to my profile, bias could come into play, instead of responding to this comment based on it's content alone.
Fair, hence the problem. I disagree with the idea of creating self-sustaining safe spaces, though. The only reason we still have any modicum of dialog is because this phenomenon - the ability to...
Fair, hence the problem. I disagree with the idea of creating self-sustaining safe spaces, though. The only reason we still have any modicum of dialog is because this phenomenon - the ability to simply block out everything you disagree with - hasnt fully materialized. Were it to, i worry that it would only exasperate the problems we already have.
So, I'd like to hear your resolution to that problem; in an age where echo chambers and hypersensitivity are both enormous problems, how can this theorized solution not solve that problem, but avoid at least making it worse?
(Note: "it cant get any worse" is not valid, it can always get worse)
I agree that it's not an easy problem to solve. I think that echo chambers are always going to form, simply because people like talking other people with similar interests and opinions, and as...
I agree that it's not an easy problem to solve. I think that echo chambers are always going to form, simply because people like talking other people with similar interests and opinions, and as such, any community that forms will have the risk of devolving into an echo chamber. I mean, you can see it happening here on Tildes already.
On one hand, I wish that people would grow thicker skin. On the other I don't want to devalue people's complaints on online toxicity. But they should be able to judge trolls as what they are and simply block and/or ignore them. I think a lot of these things have to be looked at on a case-by-case basis and if possible, introduce measures that work for a certain community. I also think that in a closed community, anyone should have the chance to block any other user, but it shouldn't devolve into using master lists to tag a large number of users (a particularly popular technique among the people fighting each other on reddit on both sides of the Gamergate debate).
But no one has the time for that. Yet I still feel that removing anonymity (I have learned to spell it correctly, yay!) from the internet is a step in the wrong direction, especially as authoritarian states around the world are growing stronger and the internet manifesting itself as a valuable tool for revolution and free discourse often critiquing said governments.
Fair points all the way through. I especially agree with the case-by-case idea. I suppose I only worry that any such implementation of the idea would eventually devolve into (to use your own apt...
Fair points all the way through. I especially agree with the case-by-case idea. I suppose I only worry that any such implementation of the idea would eventually devolve into (to use your own apt example) the stupid above reddit mentality.
HN discussion
TheLocal.at
DailyMail.co.uk
Reddit thread
On reddit, u/MoustacheAmbassadeur wrote:
So with the idea that this wont pass, I'd like to get some other tildians' opinions on the concept of anonymity and the problems its caused + the benefits it gives. Because personally, I'm of two minds about it.
On one hand (the for side), anonymity is great for allowing people to talk and think true to themselves, and I think the "we're all human first" label it gives has been responsible for a huge part of the social change we've seen over the last 15 years, especially LGBTQ+ acceptance. Additionally, anonymity is essential in a society that tracks everything. With companies like Google and Facebook slowly turning into Big Brother (and, in the USA, with the NSA actually being Big Brother), being able to stay truly anonymous helps shield you from dystopia and has helped shore against McCarthyism.
That said, its become abundantly clear that anonymity's biggest problem is that it enables hate speech at worst and, across the spectrum, what amounts to zealotry. The truth of the matter is, social accountability should mean something, because it helps keep dialog respectful and extremists out of main culture. I get that the internet denizens are deathly afraid of being held accountable for things they choose to say, but as someone who will someday be an employer, it would be a great comfort to know that the person I'm hiring is not semi-secretly a, actioning mysoginist or racist, which is what anonymity enables.
So when it comes down to it, for better or worse, anonymity is inherently dishonest. Sometimes (like when youre trying to avoid invasive government programs or corporate background checks) thats necessary. But is it worth the cost?
I'd argue that instead of dissolving internet anonimity, you should instead empower users to block messages more effectively. The internet is the last refuge on earth where anonimity is really a thing and I'd like to keep that. I don't want my various internet personas traced back to my real self, not because I say offensive things on the internet, but because I regard it as part of my privacy. Giving everyone to ability to trace someone from an internet comment can go wrong in various ways, one of them being doxxing. There's a reason justice is handled by a court and not by the mob, the mob often makes irrational choices. Even less so a single individual who only has a single or small number of comments to go off.
I think that anonimity can also serve well in discussions because everyone has to be judged by their argument and not by their name or face. Everything you know of me and everything you can reply to is in this comment and in my comment history. If my name or even a photo was attached to my profile, bias could come into play, instead of responding to this comment based on it's content alone.
Fair, hence the problem. I disagree with the idea of creating self-sustaining safe spaces, though. The only reason we still have any modicum of dialog is because this phenomenon - the ability to simply block out everything you disagree with - hasnt fully materialized. Were it to, i worry that it would only exasperate the problems we already have.
So, I'd like to hear your resolution to that problem; in an age where echo chambers and hypersensitivity are both enormous problems, how can this theorized solution not solve that problem, but avoid at least making it worse?
(Note: "it cant get any worse" is not valid, it can always get worse)
I agree that it's not an easy problem to solve. I think that echo chambers are always going to form, simply because people like talking other people with similar interests and opinions, and as such, any community that forms will have the risk of devolving into an echo chamber. I mean, you can see it happening here on Tildes already.
On one hand, I wish that people would grow thicker skin. On the other I don't want to devalue people's complaints on online toxicity. But they should be able to judge trolls as what they are and simply block and/or ignore them. I think a lot of these things have to be looked at on a case-by-case basis and if possible, introduce measures that work for a certain community. I also think that in a closed community, anyone should have the chance to block any other user, but it shouldn't devolve into using master lists to tag a large number of users (a particularly popular technique among the people fighting each other on reddit on both sides of the Gamergate debate).
But no one has the time for that. Yet I still feel that removing anonymity (I have learned to spell it correctly, yay!) from the internet is a step in the wrong direction, especially as authoritarian states around the world are growing stronger and the internet manifesting itself as a valuable tool for revolution and free discourse often critiquing said governments.
Fair points all the way through. I especially agree with the case-by-case idea. I suppose I only worry that any such implementation of the idea would eventually devolve into (to use your own apt example) the stupid above reddit mentality.
Thanks for your input!
How will this affect transgender persons who haven't transitioned yet?
While this is unlikely to hold up in front of the Austrian supreme court, I imagine they'd have to reveal their true, legal identity.