The Real Name Fallacy(blog.coralproject.net)
blog.coralproject.net
The Real Name Fallacy
https://blog.coralproject.net/the-real-name-fallacy/
309 comments
I think this is probably the key takeaway from the article here:
> Designers need to acknowledge that design cannot solve harassment and other social problems on its own.
Trying to remove anonymity will not 'fix' trolling and harassment. After all, a lot of people simply don't care what others think of them, know they're too far away to be affected (in most cases) or just have nothing to lose to begin with.
What can 'fix' trolling is evenhanded, firm moderation of a community site. There are tons of forums and wikis and other such sites out there which do well here, because they simply lay out clear rules for participation and ban people for being scumbags and breaking said rules.
Facebook and Twitter struggle with this, partly because it's impractical to manually moderate a site with so many users and partly because their model doesn't really allow it. And maybe in part because they're very clearly inconsistent with who gets banned for saying what (like say, banning more conservative accounts than liberal accounts for trolling). Which itself undermines confidence in the site's rules.
So yeah, the key to an online community without harassment isn't removing anonymity, it's having clear rules in that place and enforcing them equally regardless of a member's status or political views.
> Designers need to acknowledge that design cannot solve harassment and other social problems on its own.
Trying to remove anonymity will not 'fix' trolling and harassment. After all, a lot of people simply don't care what others think of them, know they're too far away to be affected (in most cases) or just have nothing to lose to begin with.
What can 'fix' trolling is evenhanded, firm moderation of a community site. There are tons of forums and wikis and other such sites out there which do well here, because they simply lay out clear rules for participation and ban people for being scumbags and breaking said rules.
Facebook and Twitter struggle with this, partly because it's impractical to manually moderate a site with so many users and partly because their model doesn't really allow it. And maybe in part because they're very clearly inconsistent with who gets banned for saying what (like say, banning more conservative accounts than liberal accounts for trolling). Which itself undermines confidence in the site's rules.
So yeah, the key to an online community without harassment isn't removing anonymity, it's having clear rules in that place and enforcing them equally regardless of a member's status or political views.
Thing is, if I had to guess, I would say Facebook doesn't attempt to make you use your real name to make the community better in the first place. That's almost certainly just its pretext for everyone who's willing to fall for it. Most likely, it does that to make sure it can identify you globally and uniquely for commercial/advertising purposes. Think about how much more valuable your online identity is if you go solely by Jon Doe rather than by foolover123, bar456fudger, and nighthowler789?
I think that this overall push towards eliminating anonimity and trolls from the internet can only have negative outcomes.
Sure, nobody will ever be offended again, but at what cost? And who are these easily offended people for whom we're sacrificing freedom of speech?
It baffles me how nobody sees a parallel with 1984, here, and it's not the usual cliche claim. From: >do not say anything against someone To: >do not think anything against someone The step is incredibly short.
Moreover, how are we supposed to have true bipartisan information if we can only see one side of the coin because the other one would require to talk bad about someone?
I can see every dictator of the world smiling, as proposals like this are being considered throughout the world.
It baffles me how nobody sees a parallel with 1984, here, and it's not the usual cliche claim. From: >do not say anything against someone To: >do not think anything against someone The step is incredibly short.
Moreover, how are we supposed to have true bipartisan information if we can only see one side of the coin because the other one would require to talk bad about someone?
I can see every dictator of the world smiling, as proposals like this are being considered throughout the world.
One of the great benefits from an online alias is being able to build relationships in a community while retaining the ability to cease (and resume) that contact at any time. The alias may as well represent its own individual, with minimal risk to the underlying user(s) as to its reputation. It's a huge relief and a boon to expression to be able to communicate without worrying about the reputation of a sole "real name".
The internet was better when we were all anonymous. It felt like we could do anything, be anyone. The world was ours.
Then social media came and destroyed that dream.
Consider the difference in mood between the idea of creating a metaverse in the 90s/00s to creating one now.
One is the freeing experience of Second Life or Active Worlds and the other is that widely circulated image of a large crowd, all wearing GearVR headsets while Mark Zuckerberg strolls past[1].
[1] http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/02/22/16/3173A1BA0000057...
Then social media came and destroyed that dream.
Consider the difference in mood between the idea of creating a metaverse in the 90s/00s to creating one now.
One is the freeing experience of Second Life or Active Worlds and the other is that widely circulated image of a large crowd, all wearing GearVR headsets while Mark Zuckerberg strolls past[1].
[1] http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/02/22/16/3173A1BA0000057...
The Real Name Fallacy is social nostalgia- if we all could go back to the village, then everything would be good?
The solution for this and fake news, would be chains of trust. I do not trust my government, i do not trust my media, but i know two or three guys, i would trust too know. If these guys vouched for the guys vouching for the knowledge i see to be true, i would trust that.
In return, i can fade the crack-pots opinions with a filter, based upon a similar chain of trust.
But this system would need to be decentralized, it would need to allow to withdraw this trust in an instant. Centralize this, and the inherent distrust breaks free time after time again.
The solution for this and fake news, would be chains of trust. I do not trust my government, i do not trust my media, but i know two or three guys, i would trust too know. If these guys vouched for the guys vouching for the knowledge i see to be true, i would trust that.
In return, i can fade the crack-pots opinions with a filter, based upon a similar chain of trust.
But this system would need to be decentralized, it would need to allow to withdraw this trust in an instant. Centralize this, and the inherent distrust breaks free time after time again.
Been at this battle for a few years. Check out https://nymrights.org/ (and https://nymrights.org/nymrights-info-flyer/ for the info flyer)
Facebook hate groups are real (anti-immigrant, anti-lgbt, ...). They're getting better at skirting the rules, so there's no way to disband them. I'm seeing dozens of such groups form for a country with a population of ~2 million (Slovenia). I think the mentality those bubbles breed is even more dangerous than Twitter harassment. Instead of manifesting itself in bullying and conflict, it's nurturing the different flavours of toxicity in nicely compartmentalised jars.
I can't agree with the author's statement, that design itself is not primarily responsible for a solution, as it is instrumental in enabling such an environment in the first place.
I can't agree with the author's statement, that design itself is not primarily responsible for a solution, as it is instrumental in enabling such an environment in the first place.
Here's a data point: I was working at JPL when it instituted an internal usenet newsgroup (this was the mid-90s) for discussing work-related issues. It was initially anonymous to encourage people to speak frankly. Almost immediately it devolved into a cesspool of insults and epithets. It was my first experience with this phenomenon, and at the time I was shocked by it. (Nowadays, of course, this sort of thing is just business and usual on the internet.)
After a month or two it got so bad that management decided to remove the anonymity. The tone of the group changed literally overnight, and people started behaving in a civil manner. The sad fact of the matter is that if you want human beings to behave, you have to be able to hold them accountable.
After a month or two it got so bad that management decided to remove the anonymity. The tone of the group changed literally overnight, and people started behaving in a civil manner. The sad fact of the matter is that if you want human beings to behave, you have to be able to hold them accountable.
Who is harmed by a "Real Names" policy?
http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Who_is_harmed_by_a_%22Rea...
http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Who_is_harmed_by_a_%22Rea...
Real Names on the internet only create problems and the things it intends to solve get shoved into a backroom and forgotten about.
Moderating the content is far more effective if done right. It's probably a bit like IT security and should be thought of as such.
Real names are something you can do but it's most likely on the same level as whitelisting programs and hotglue-ing all unused ports shut. Even with all that, a determined hacker will just use the office copier and the installed OCR Text Recognition to infiltrate a microsoft office script. (DEFCON talk that I recommend to watch).
There is no 100% safety from trolls and every defense measure also hurts legit users in some way.
TL;DR Know your threat level. Real Names are not necessarily the thing you want and most likely are very rarely and still won't be 100%.
Moderating the content is far more effective if done right. It's probably a bit like IT security and should be thought of as such.
Real names are something you can do but it's most likely on the same level as whitelisting programs and hotglue-ing all unused ports shut. Even with all that, a determined hacker will just use the office copier and the installed OCR Text Recognition to infiltrate a microsoft office script. (DEFCON talk that I recommend to watch).
There is no 100% safety from trolls and every defense measure also hurts legit users in some way.
TL;DR Know your threat level. Real Names are not necessarily the thing you want and most likely are very rarely and still won't be 100%.
I really don't want to say this but, the real names policy does help in terms of trolling behavior for certain communities. When TechCrunch switched over from Disqus to Facebook comments, the amount of trash and trolling was immediately reduced and stayed at a minimum permanently. A lot of the media outlets (Motherboard, Vice, NPR) who've disabled commenting altogether were using Disqus. I've noticed media outlets that use Facebook comments seem to still have commenting turned on.
I know anonymity in comment systems is as touchy a subject for internet freedom lovers as gun rights are for people in high crime neighborhoods. Those that hate them have already made up their mind and won't look at contradicting evidence, those that love them have already made up their mind and won't look at contradicting evidence. The truth seems to lies somewhere in the middle.
So "Real Names Policy" definitely has it's place. Maybe not everywhere, but definitely in some communities.
I know anonymity in comment systems is as touchy a subject for internet freedom lovers as gun rights are for people in high crime neighborhoods. Those that hate them have already made up their mind and won't look at contradicting evidence, those that love them have already made up their mind and won't look at contradicting evidence. The truth seems to lies somewhere in the middle.
So "Real Names Policy" definitely has it's place. Maybe not everywhere, but definitely in some communities.
In my experience it eliminates a particular kind of drive-by trolling, but leaves the other kinds unaffected. Only constant moderation really keeps it out.
My real name doesn't uniquely identify me, because there are more people in the world with the same name. According to some web searching, I have already died a long time ago, I am a technical illustrator, I collect model trains, etc. So a "real name" could be compromising even if totally unjust
One of my relatives uses a pseudonym on Facebook because they were harassed at school under their real name because they're gay.
If harassment is a social and cultural problem, then in my view, so is the desire for anonymity, which is a natural byproduct that aids both sides. Banning anonymity would negatively impact both sides. But who is harmed more? And who is harmed more in the other scenario? The article just focuses on one side of the former. Sure certain individuals need more protection if a real name policy is enforced, but at least it's easier to identify and punish the bigots.
That said, I don't think pseudonyms should be banned in order to prevent harassment, but where people go to discuss complex and sensitive topics, I would expect to see more thoughtful responses from a Real Name vs. a_guy_with_nothing_to_lose, barring a decent karma system.
That said, I don't think pseudonyms should be banned in order to prevent harassment, but where people go to discuss complex and sensitive topics, I would expect to see more thoughtful responses from a Real Name vs. a_guy_with_nothing_to_lose, barring a decent karma system.
Step -1.) Demand real name's to protect the childrens.
Step 0.) We did it! Everyone has to use real names now! Equality unlocked!
Step 1.) Put in someone else's real name instead of your own.
Step 2.) Troll as that person or use that real name to infiltrate that person's social network
Step lulz.) Doxx brigade/morality police now target the wrong person.
Step 3.) Congratulations, not only did you not solve the problem you were trying to solve, now your rules are a robust breeding ground to cause actual social and economic damage to people YOU ALREADY AGREE WITH because "pixels are feelings, too".
Step 4.) Hang your head in shame for such short-term thinking.
Step 5.) Downvote me because of tone.
Step 0.) We did it! Everyone has to use real names now! Equality unlocked!
Step 1.) Put in someone else's real name instead of your own.
Step 2.) Troll as that person or use that real name to infiltrate that person's social network
Step lulz.) Doxx brigade/morality police now target the wrong person.
Step 3.) Congratulations, not only did you not solve the problem you were trying to solve, now your rules are a robust breeding ground to cause actual social and economic damage to people YOU ALREADY AGREE WITH because "pixels are feelings, too".
Step 4.) Hang your head in shame for such short-term thinking.
Step 5.) Downvote me because of tone.
Many "real names" cannot even be used in the "real world" because systems don't support it.
I think it largely depends on the specific community and people in it. While some try to use online anonymity as an outlet to say and do things they wouldn't dare on Facebook or IRL, others seem to want a reality-like reputation around their username/account. A large portion is probably caused simply by community rules; just see /b/ and HN...
And to be fair, I've hardly ever seen serious insults on Facebook, but been called dipshit on anonymous platforms regularly. But again, this could be due to community standards.
And to be fair, I've hardly ever seen serious insults on Facebook, but been called dipshit on anonymous platforms regularly. But again, this could be due to community standards.
The problem isn't just discrimination/harassment (though that's huge - I used to use a male pseudonym on my github & stackoverflow accounts, and still do on medium.) It's also just pragmatically impossible.
I have changed my first name legally three times.
I have changed my last name once.
I currently have different legal names in three countries, on my undergraduate & masters degrees, and on my 401k, and none of those are the name I am known by to my colleagues & friends.
What is my "real name"?
I have changed my first name legally three times.
I have changed my last name once.
I currently have different legal names in three countries, on my undergraduate & masters degrees, and on my 401k, and none of those are the name I am known by to my colleagues & friends.
What is my "real name"?
While I agree that expecting users to use real names is a bad thing, this knocked the air out of me:
> In societies including the US where violence and mistreatment of women, people of color, and marginalized people is common, we can expect similar problems in people’s digital interactions [1] > [1] Sarah Banet-Weiser and Kate M. Miltner. #MasculinitySoFragile: culture, structure, and networked misogyny. Feminist Media Studies, 16(1):171-174, January 2016.
I reject the assertion that these issues are "common" in the US, even if "violence and mistreatment" is broadly defined as people acting rudely on the internet. A post by ESR was even flagged off HN because its message was that he expected evidence to back claims of harassment, which is a microcosm of the trend of "feelings > reality". This is absolutely ludicrous and I'm surprised Mozilla is funding this junk.
Further, it's getting rather tiring that the US is always listed as an example when countries/societies exist without legal protection for all races/genders and where slavery and forced labor is still legal.
> In societies including the US where violence and mistreatment of women, people of color, and marginalized people is common, we can expect similar problems in people’s digital interactions [1] > [1] Sarah Banet-Weiser and Kate M. Miltner. #MasculinitySoFragile: culture, structure, and networked misogyny. Feminist Media Studies, 16(1):171-174, January 2016.
I reject the assertion that these issues are "common" in the US, even if "violence and mistreatment" is broadly defined as people acting rudely on the internet. A post by ESR was even flagged off HN because its message was that he expected evidence to back claims of harassment, which is a microcosm of the trend of "feelings > reality". This is absolutely ludicrous and I'm surprised Mozilla is funding this junk.
Further, it's getting rather tiring that the US is always listed as an example when countries/societies exist without legal protection for all races/genders and where slavery and forced labor is still legal.
I think a lot of the commenters on this thread would do themselves well to read about Gamergate from women's perspectives, and learn about extreme online harassment.
Real names make it a little harder for attackers to hide behind anonymity, but a lot easier for those crossing lines to find their targets.
Real names make it a little harder for attackers to hide behind anonymity, but a lot easier for those crossing lines to find their targets.
Very thoughtful article... we are having this debate now in Italy and this would need to be translated.
I have been using this pseudonym online for over 20 years. I have been using it for so long that I have since found others who have started using it too but there are far fewer of them than there are of people who share my actual first and last name.
I am a member of a Facebook group that has over 60 members who share the same first and last name.
So, it's more descriptive when I use this pseudonym than it is when I use my real name. I'm only aware of about 3-4 people using this pseudonym but more than 60 who use my real name.
I am a member of a Facebook group that has over 60 members who share the same first and last name.
So, it's more descriptive when I use this pseudonym than it is when I use my real name. I'm only aware of about 3-4 people using this pseudonym but more than 60 who use my real name.
I'm biased by empirical data - e.g. look at youtube comments (anonymous) vs. amazon reviews (real identity owned by amazon).
Human nature demonstrates that a fraction of people really like to put down / bully / see others suffering because they are personally unhappy (e.g. the shock talk shows). Anonymity allows bullying behavior with no consequence.
More simply, why do people spend time and energy online "trolling" others. Clearly a sizable portion of people like trolling others, though I don't personally see why.
Human nature demonstrates that a fraction of people really like to put down / bully / see others suffering because they are personally unhappy (e.g. the shock talk shows). Anonymity allows bullying behavior with no consequence.
More simply, why do people spend time and energy online "trolling" others. Clearly a sizable portion of people like trolling others, though I don't personally see why.
I wrote about this before as well, from a technical point of view:
http://magarshak.com/blog/?p=114
http://magarshak.com/blog/?p=114
I like how Roblox register form tells new users NOT to use their real name:
https://www.roblox.com/
https://www.roblox.com/
I think that in practice the problem comes down to preventing sociopathic sadists from annoying everyone in complicated ways. The actual level of anonymity doesn't really matter but there are classes of solutions that work better without.
The only possible non-technical solution for that class of user would be to track them down in real life and fine them. The possible abuse associated with such a scheme make that sort of solution unattractive.
The only possible non-technical solution for that class of user would be to track them down in real life and fine them. The possible abuse associated with such a scheme make that sort of solution unattractive.
(This was a reply to a now-deleted comment.)
>Is there actually a widespread "life and death" issues here? There have some very publicized cases, but I have yet to see any data that there this is a significant problem beyond having the police called to your house or getting bunch of pizzas delivered that you didn't order. That said, there are definitely dangers with governments who deny basic human rights.
>The bank account issue is really more just about normal identity theft and isn't really part of the topic either.
>I should add that things like "harassment" do not qualify here as those are normal parts of everyday life anyway regardless if your personal information gets revealed online.
>Are we sure we're not just participating in the typical online habit of blowing regular issues into 10 alarm fires?
>beyond having the police called to your house
That's understating the danger of the situation due to the militarization of US police (and also their duty to respond to what they think is a real threat).
These "SWATing" attempts usually go like this:
"Help, someone's being held hostage at [X] address, they have rifles"
SWAT team arrives and kicks in the door, guns blazing, kills all your pets [1], and might shoot you too [2]. So far there hasn't been a human death from SWAT hoaxes, just animals and injuries, but it'll probably happen at some point.
Is this a "widespread" problem? I don't know. In the communities I've been in, it is, though it probably isn't for the Internet at large.
Even ignoring the risks of SWATing, though, there are so many people out there who will try to find your personal information and make your life a living hell on a daily basis due to online disagreements. I deal with such people on a daily basis. Anonymity is absolutely critical and me to others who might cross paths with sociopaths and "e-road rage" types.
[1] https://archive.is/nu4Lv
[2] http://www.theblaze.com/news/2015/07/16/swatting-prank-ends-...
>Is there actually a widespread "life and death" issues here? There have some very publicized cases, but I have yet to see any data that there this is a significant problem beyond having the police called to your house or getting bunch of pizzas delivered that you didn't order. That said, there are definitely dangers with governments who deny basic human rights.
>The bank account issue is really more just about normal identity theft and isn't really part of the topic either.
>I should add that things like "harassment" do not qualify here as those are normal parts of everyday life anyway regardless if your personal information gets revealed online.
>Are we sure we're not just participating in the typical online habit of blowing regular issues into 10 alarm fires?
>beyond having the police called to your house
That's understating the danger of the situation due to the militarization of US police (and also their duty to respond to what they think is a real threat).
These "SWATing" attempts usually go like this:
"Help, someone's being held hostage at [X] address, they have rifles"
SWAT team arrives and kicks in the door, guns blazing, kills all your pets [1], and might shoot you too [2]. So far there hasn't been a human death from SWAT hoaxes, just animals and injuries, but it'll probably happen at some point.
Is this a "widespread" problem? I don't know. In the communities I've been in, it is, though it probably isn't for the Internet at large.
Even ignoring the risks of SWATing, though, there are so many people out there who will try to find your personal information and make your life a living hell on a daily basis due to online disagreements. I deal with such people on a daily basis. Anonymity is absolutely critical and me to others who might cross paths with sociopaths and "e-road rage" types.
[1] https://archive.is/nu4Lv
[2] http://www.theblaze.com/news/2015/07/16/swatting-prank-ends-...
Back then, the consensus was roughly:
1. If a community accepts pseudonyms, it is polite to use either your realname or an obvious pseudonym.
2. If a community places high value on realnames, either use your realname or a realname-sounding (i.e. non-obvious) pseudonym.
3. Unmasking someone's nonpublic realname, or other private information, is generally considered impolite if not aggressive, regardless whether the community places high value on realnames or not.
Has anything substantially changed since then?