this post was submitted on 26 Dec 2023
22 points (86.7% liked)

Technology

59569 readers
3431 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Question for the masses because I'm curious:

What do you think social media would be like if there was no anonymity?

Is it fair to say some people behave differently online because of anonymity?

Would it be good or bad if everything you posted could be tied back to you by your friends, family, employer, etc?

Some obvious concerns people express:

  • personal safety
  • freedom to express views contrary to community, government, etc without retaliation
  • fear of stigmas related to support, education, etc for stigma topics like mental health, sexuality, etc

What reasons do you have for not wanting to own your online identity other than being able to talk trash without being identified? Some people are public and still talk a lot of trash, looking at you Twitter.

You you got doxed, what do you think the impact would be just related to social media conduct?

Edit: With the introduction of online protections for minors, how does that affect the question?

Not from a political standpoint but from a technology one, how do you see that even working?

all 44 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] brsrklf@jlai.lu 14 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

There was a time when not revealing your identity was considered the safe way to be online, and telling strangers your name or personal info was taboo. Really, it was basic internet hygiene. The first push for real identities on social networks came mostly from advertisers, and those can go to hell.

Yes, some people abuse anonymity to be assholes with no repercussions, and obviously I am not okay with that. There should be ways to deal with those without forcing everyone to expose their identity to the whole world.

I will keep defending the right to anonymity. You only need one deranged maniac with different views on whatever, or trying to ruin your life for whatever reason to get into serious danger.

[–] neutron@thelemmy.club 13 points 11 months ago (1 children)

There are countries like S Korea that used to demand new users national ID at signup (not anymore thankfully) and many websites, especially at the early 2000s, had your real name featured next to your nickname (following the tradition from their own national dial-up BBS forums). The argument was that revealing your real identity would make internet interaction more "civil".

Guess what happened. Identity theft was rampant, trolling was equally widespread, you think Facebook spearheaded mixing real name profiles and internet sewagery, you haven't seen anything like CyWorld from early 2000s.

The cases of identity theft ranged from minors borrowing their dads and uncles ID to actual Chinese hackers dumping massive records from the same Korean companies gathering them because of that stupid law. This was done so they could... access forums that demanded a valid national ID from a 18+ years old citizen, for example.

I was there, man. You'd find out your typical forum shitposter (that had surprisingly "ample" tastes) with a profile that says "46 y.o. male (ID verified)" is revealed as an elementary school kid using their uncles ID and gets banhammer'd. Monthly.

[–] MSgtRedFox@infosec.pub 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

That is super interesting. Not getting into the politics, Security Now podcast recently discussed two US child protection online related initiatives.

From a technical perspective, I imagine it being difficult to both handle age proof, guardian proofing, and dealing with lack of anonymity. Part of why I posed the question.

[–] neutron@thelemmy.club 4 points 11 months ago

Precisely. The national ID number itself was easily to spoof using a simple formula, but the difficult part was actual the "adult" verification, which I presume it was done by consulting a government database with actual citizen info. It was very easy to leak, and it did leak a lot.

[–] EnderMB@lemmy.world 12 points 11 months ago

If you spend enough time on Facebook, you'll see that there is no shortage of people that will happily write some of the most hateful stuff against either their own name or their employer/business. The guy that repaired my roof puts the laugh reaction against any local news article about LGBTQ+ or immigration, and recently commented "wtf" when our local football team changed it's badge to rainbow colours.

What I think will happen is that people will double-down on these hateful opinions, and if anything, become more militant in their beliefs.

Alongside this, one thing the internet has shown is that people are slow and unwilling to forgive. At some point, we've all written an opinion on something that people either disagree with or actively dislike. For many, having that follow them around for years might again be enough to make them more militant in their belief that they are right and you are wrong.

[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 10 points 11 months ago

I think the 4chan hate trolling for funsies element would disappear, but I've seen plenty of hateful opinions posted by real people, under their real name, and next to a picture of their real face to think there'd be any real change in the world.

[–] theneverfox@pawb.social 10 points 11 months ago

That sounds horrible, for common reasons, but also because I'd basically never comment or post again.

Already, I end up deleting more than half my comments before posting, and it was more like 90% on Reddit.

I need the mask, because it means I can just close the app. I can be wrong, or say something stupid, or catch the attention of someone who will cyberstalk me... It's enough to worry about what reaction I'll get and if this is what I want to say

[–] pruwybn@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 11 months ago (1 children)
[–] EmperorHenry@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 11 months ago

Certain politicians want to force everyone to dox themselves so that they can always find out exactly who is saying what.

No more whistle blowers, no more protest organizing, no more political statements that rock the boat. No more shitposting for fun, no more porn, no anything else that you might want to keep private for any reason.

[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 5 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Would be pretty awful for any minority group.

Queer kid in Idaho is going to have an even worse time trying to find community and such on the Internet when their identity is publicly associated with their activities. People would die. They would be murdered by conservatives.

[–] MSgtRedFox@infosec.pub 3 points 11 months ago (2 children)

I take your point. I might argue to swap conservatives with something like bigots. Quoting Ted Lasso: Every person is a different person

[–] WHYAREWEALLCAPS@kbin.social 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Conservative ideology is based on bigotry. Always has been. The fact the Republican party has so easily and wholeheartedly embraced white supremacists, misogynists, rapists, etc, proves the point. Indeed, the de facto leader of conservatism in the United States proudly embodies all those things and more. All the while he is the clear leader in their presidential candidate race without even having to participate in the process. It is impossible to extricate conservatism from bigotry - if you're a conservative in the US you are a bigot either directly or through association. You know, the ol' ten people and a Nazi having dinner is 11 Nazis having dinner.

[–] MSgtRedFox@infosec.pub 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

This is difficult to argue with.

[–] S_204@lemm.ee 0 points 11 months ago

Arguing with it might get you banned so ya, tough to argue with.

[–] Occamsrazer@lemdro.id 1 points 11 months ago

That would apply to any minority opinion as well, like supporting Palestine today, or being opposed to Japanese internment camps during world war 2 or opposing the Iraq war. Or being opposed to COVID vaccine mandates or school closures. People get cancelled for this stuff all the time, and being able to speak freely is critical to derailing social movements that go too far, which they always do. Anonymity is a double edged sword, where it holds people accountable for hate speech, but also provides security to express opinions that are contrary to prevailing narratives, things that desperately need to be said.

[–] ada@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Queer people would be denied a chance to explore their identities and find peers if they lived in an unaccepting environment. This would be particularly damaging to closeted queer kids.

[–] FoundTheVegan@kbin.social 4 points 11 months ago

That it would drastically harm queer people and those questioning their identity. Social pressure, fear and shame keeps people from asking certain questions or exploring their desires when it's potentially tied to them for life.

Look at the while concept of "queer appropriation" by celebrities. Their entire life is public and ironically while feeling themselves out and experimenting with new presentations, it's ironically met with backlash from some queer people thinking it's a capitalist ploy to appeal to queer fans.

Being able to just ask questions and explore is a fundamental part of understanding yourself. Anonymity is a precious gift, but one that is also easy to take granted.

Edit: Also religious folk.

[–] DarkThoughts@kbin.social 3 points 11 months ago

Aside from the obvious privacy issues, which are definitely the main problems here, it isn't just users that behave differently. I've got several bans on Reddit that were literal bullshit, like saying a fascist Italy should be kicked out of NATO and the EU. Apparently this is "spreading hate", worthy of a permanent ban, despite the fact that both institutions require democratic foundations for their member states. Mods and admins are just as ridiculous, be it out of malice or simply incompetency. And once you're banned, there's nothing you can do. You can try to appeal but those are in almost all cases denied too.

But it also goes very much against the basic principles on what the internet was founded on. If we put some heavy identifiable restrictions onto internet accessibility then that's a very powerful tool of oppression. Maybe you trust you current government enough to handle that, right now. I personally don't. But even then, you never know what the next one will do. Tools of oppression like this, or AI based surveillance, could strangle any sort of meaningful resistance before it even gains the slightest bit of traction. Just look at how many far right governments had been gaining votes or even got into power over the last decade. Do you really trust those people to handle such tools with the needed responsibility?

[–] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

One time on Reddit I said guns were bad, and some nut job looking for a fight tracked me down because my username (at the time) was able to identify me with enough effort. They threatened lots of stuff on various communication methods. Fortunately, I had just moved states, so all their efforts were concentrated on the wrong area. So now I’ve made an entirely new identity for social media. I never post personal things, like where I’ve been recently, or even simple things like places I like to eat. On one hand, if it were not anonymous, I would have had a better chance of identifying them. On the other hand, I wouldn’t have been able to make a new identity.

I’ve thought occasionally about how there could be real accounts, but there are so many dangerous reasons for it that I don’t think it would end up working in the end.

[–] MSgtRedFox@infosec.pub 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

All stories like this are super frustrating to hear.

I've heard some stories where a person was targeted because of their social media handle being desirable. The anonymity part works both ways for both parties, sometimes, but I feel like it helps criminals more often than regular people.

[–] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago

Well, every time a person isn’t attacked can’t be tracked.

[–] BlackSkinnedJew@lemmynsfw.com 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

This is not the way the CIA and secret services all over the world works, I mean do you expect agents to have a "Working as Secret Services agent at CIA" in their bio info with a history of all the stuff they publish online??

[–] Chakravanti@sh.itjust.works 1 points 11 months ago

Well I don't want to commit suicide by shooting myself in the head, twice.

[–] andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.works 2 points 11 months ago

Much crime or just shitty activity that becomes possible once info is harvested. You don't need to be a minority to get targeted by scammers, businesses, corrupt govt. And while you are open to them, they would have an incentitive to get a fake ID or something or have none at all milking you. That saves them time and money.

[–] TacoButtPlug@sh.itjust.works 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It would put victims of domestic violence and other similar situations in a lot of danger. It would also paint a red x on the queer community, feminist activists, police reformists, housing rights activists, people opposed to war and genocide, so on and so forth. Meanwhile, Chase and his white supremacist buddies would continue to post their bile behind their real identities, just as they always have, and Mark and Elon would still sleep like babies.

[–] merde@sh.itjust.works 0 points 11 months ago

not to forget the new most popular target: "ecoterrorists"

[–] r00ty@kbin.life 2 points 11 months ago

Personally, sometimes I'm going to say things that are against the industry or specifically the actions of the company I work for. If my real name was shown someone could connect me to the actual business and they'd see me as some disloyal employee and not only would I not have a job, I could be blackballed by the industry because most businesses follow the same practices.

With this level of anonymity I can post my opinion about these subjects and not be calling out an individual company or connect the comment to myself in order to alienate myself from other potential employers.

[–] EmperorHenry@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 11 months ago

freedom to express views contrary to community, government, etc without retaliation

Actually...forcing everyone to dox themselves will prevent that, which is why all of the worst candidates want to do it.

Anyone who's gay or trans, or even if they just have left wing political views...everyone who hates them will know exactly who they are and where they are.

[–] EmperorHenry@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 11 months ago (2 children)

prohibition of anonymity means that everyone is mandated to dox themselves....That's a bad time for everyone if they're forced to have their real name and real location attached to literally everything they do online.

[–] MSgtRedFox@infosec.pub -2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

Why?

Edit, location, I get that. That could be unsafe under certain circumstances, and it's sometimes hard to protect your location privacy.

[–] EmperorHenry@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 11 months ago

That could be unsafe under certain circumstances,

That's unsafe in ALL circumstances. The only one who should get to decide who reveals your real location should be you and you should have full control over who you reveal it to.

[–] EmperorHenry@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Don't vote for Nikki Haley, she wants to dox the entire world to "prevent Russians bots"

[–] gregorum@lemm.ee -2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It has had shockingly few consequences so far

[–] EmperorHenry@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Yes actually...When people are anonymous online and they have an argument, it can't go anywhere besides the online space.

If everyone is forced to dox themselves, then the violent people in online arguments know where the other person lives.

[–] gregorum@lemm.ee 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I was not making that argument that everyone should be forced to dox themselves and that online anonymity should be abolished

I was just pointing something out

[–] karmiclychee@sh.itjust.works 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Just read a thing about how persistent usernames may work better than actual ID. Of course, I don't have a link, and I'm not finding anything on Google right now, but as someone who uses the same handle across multiple services, which makes my activity traceable, but not necessarily to my real identity, I definitely think there's something to that.

[–] r00ty@kbin.life 1 points 11 months ago

The problem there is that once you're doxed in one place, you'd be doxed everywhere. Also how do you prove you're the same person? Whatever info they hold to prove that is in one single location, which for security isn't great if they get hacked.

[–] MSgtRedFox@infosec.pub 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I live under a rock. I just had to look up who Nikki Haley was. This question was not initiated by a political view, but I guess it will be.

Side note, I don't mind the idea of algorithms or decisions being public though.

[–] EmperorHenry@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 11 months ago

Nikki Haley wants to Dox the entire world because she thinks trolls are way worse than they really are.

The reality is she and many others like her just want to be the only ones who control what people get to say, like the old days before the internet was easily accessible.

[–] ExLisper@linux.community -1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I think there should be two parallel networks:

  • anonymous one run by private corporations or volunteers with heavy moderation and the company taking full responsibilityp for anything posted there. pretty much what EU is trying to establish. You want to make money of anonymous posts? You take financial responsibility for making sure there's nothing illegal on the platform. You could still have right leaning sites but with no misinformation or harassment. Fedivers instances that notoriously post illegal content would get the same treatment as neo-nazi sites.

  • publicly owned platforms (like mastodon instances) available for everyone for free but with no anonymity: you want to make something public, complain about something or simply interact with normal people you can always go there. Less moderation would be needed so it would be cheaper to run. Users will be responsible for the things they post, not the platform.

This way if Twitter is unable to moderate their content you block it and people would have public instances as an alternative. We would see if running a platform like that with proper moderation is still profitable. If not they would start charging people or shut down. I don't think losing sites like Facebook or Twitter would a big problem if we had public alternatives.

[–] EmperorHenry@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 10 months ago

Both of those ideas are stupid. All online platforms should be regulated like public utilities and everyone should be allowed to go by a pseudonym if they want to.