| ▲ | lovich 3 days ago |
| Hard disagree on anonymous speech. Individual humans should have free speech but that is divorced from anonymous speech. With anonymous speech you don’t even know if you’re talking to a person or a program. If you want to say something, then say it with your identity. You don’t get to be anonymous when saying something to my face so why should it be allowed across a screen? |
|
| ▲ | squigz 3 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| > If you want to say something, then say it with your identity. You don’t get to be anonymous when saying something to my face so why should it be allowed across a screen? My face is not my identity. Do I have to tell you my full name and address when I talk to you? I sure hope not! Beyond that, what about the threat of violence for saying something? As another commenter points out, this is a real issue for marginalized groups, but also could easily become an issue for your average citizen sharing their political opinion. While I agree it would be nice having some level of assurance that you're talking to a human, particularly going forward, the only way I could support such a system is if no party involved would be able to track what I visit or pin an actual identity to me as a user - but, perhaps more importantly, it also needs to not be easily broken by those actors who it's trying to stop. Otherwise it's useless and just hurts your actual citizens. |
| |
| ▲ | lovich 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > My face is not my identity Nah, it’s infinitely more identity than a screen name. If you speak in person I know which human being had those thoughts. In the medium we’re communicating over right now neither I nor you could tell if the counterparty was just a computer program. > Beyond that, what about the threat of violence for saying something? As another commenter points out, this is a real issue for marginalized groups, but also could easily become an issue for your average citizen sharing their political opinion. If you’re in that situation then you already don’t have free speech, so honestly that tradeoff seems like it doesn’t matter > While I agree it would be nice having some level of assurance that you're talking to a human, particularly going forward, the only way I could support such a system is if no party involved would be able to track what I visit or pin an actual identity to me as a user… That’s a lot of words to say you don’t agree with the idea. Pinning an actual identity to you is what makes it non anonymous | | |
| ▲ | squigz 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > If you’re in that situation then you already don’t have free speech, so honestly that tradeoff seems like it doesn’t matter What? Are you saying that if you face the threat of violence for saying something, you don't actually have free speech? By this logic, literally nobody anywhere has free speech. | | |
| ▲ | grog454 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > By this logic, literally nobody anywhere has free speech. Nobody anywhere has freedom of speech. And a majority of people don't really think about what it means and don't want it in the purest form despite what they say. Two examples of "free speech" that are protected in the U.S. under the first amendment: 1. Overt racism (less threat of imminent violence). 2. Nazi apparel. Say the wrong word or show the wrong symbol in certain settings and you'll quickly understand what I mean. Furthermore I'm confident > 50% of U.S. citizens would find you in the wrong and would support whatever happens to you without much consideration of legality. Freedom of speech is an ideal with no successful implementation and I don't think that's a bad thing. I prefer to live in the real world where saying stupid shit has consequences and people think just a little bit more carefully about what they say. | |
| ▲ | lovich 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yea, if you don’t say what you think because of fear of violence, you don’t have free speech. I’m actually surprised at your surprise. Is there a definition of free speech that includes not speaking because of violence? To be clear I’m speaking of “free speech” as a right in the absolute sense. I am aware that various situations and events degrade that in every attempt to implement it. Having anonymous speech lets your circumvent that somewhat, but comes with the tradeoff of disinformation and societal manipulation we’re currently dealing with. Also for clarification are you describing violence from other citizens or violence from the government? I need the clarification as I wasn’t specific enough myself in that I don’t think there is currently any anonymous speech if the government wants to identify you, only anonymity from the average Joe. | | |
| ▲ | squigz 3 days ago | parent [-] | | I'm speaking of violence from other people, yes. > but comes with the tradeoff of disinformation and societal manipulation we’re currently dealing with. I'd rather solve those issues in ways that don't eliminate anonymity and privacy on the Internet. Furthermore, as I noted in a previous comment, any such system must be immune to being circumvented by those actors doing those things. Otherwise, they will quickly adapt and we go back to business as usual but with less privacy. | | |
| ▲ | eimrine 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > I'm speaking of violence from other people, yes. Is this the violence from other citizens? Is this the violence from state actors? Your answer is not clearly answering the question. | | | |
| ▲ | lovich 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > I'd rather solve those issues in ways that don't eliminate anonymity and privacy on the Internet. Then we will have to disagree. I think the anonymity is the source of the problem and there is no workaround for it. I would prefer this problem solved instead of waiting around for someone to possibly figure out an alternative while we suffer under the weight of all discourse being flooded by disinformation so that no one can agree on reality. If your ideology leads to its own destruction than it’s a failed set of values, and that’s what I believe is happening to people who value free speech without divorcing that from anonymous speech | | |
| ▲ | squigz 3 days ago | parent [-] | | You continue to ignore the very glaring issue with trying to address these issues by de-anonymizing speech - that is, any such system will be easily circumvented. Furthermore, the idea that we can't address this in any other way is wrong. We can work to combat and ban misinformation and propaganda campaigns. We can outlaw it for domestic politics. We can work with other countries where such efforts come from to stop them. We can put warnings and other labels on misinformation. To say nothing of the education angle. | | |
| ▲ | lovich 3 days ago | parent [-] | | When you say “…any such system will be easily circumvented.” What do you mean by “circumvented”? If I’m proposing that your statements are tied to your identity what’s the circumvention there? Just fake IDs? > Furthermore, the idea that we can't address this in any other way is wrong. We can work to combat and ban misinformation and propaganda campaigns. We can outlaw it for domestic politics. We can work with other countries where such efforts come from to stop them. We can put warnings and other labels on misinformation. To say nothing of the education angle. I don’t see how you can have a problem with making statements tied to identities as an attack on free speech but then suggest that the government decides what correct speech is. That seems like a direct attack on the “free” part of speech separate from the less important “anonymous” part Edit: also sorry for the delay, HN’s automatic blocker kicked in | | |
| ▲ | squigz 2 days ago | parent [-] | | > When you say “…any such system will be easily circumvented.” What do you mean by “circumvented”? I mean... bypassed. Ignored. Fooled. This might be with fake IDs, it might be by compromising the system itself, it might be something else. > I don’t see how you can have a problem with making statements tied to identities as an attack on free speech but then suggest that the government decides what correct speech is. That seems like a direct attack on the “free” part of speech separate from the less important “anonymous” part Interestingly, I really haven't said anything about "free speech", nor have I taken the position that the government is unable to already tie your identity to your online activity. Anyway, those responsibilities I outlined could be put on the platforms, if you somehow trust them more, or perhaps a third party service. Out of curiosity, supposing identity verification doesn't work out, what ideas might you propose for tackling the issues of misinformation and propaganda? | | |
| ▲ | lovich 2 days ago | parent [-] | | >Out of curiosity, supposing identity verification doesn't work out, what ideas might you propose for tackling the issues of misinformation and propaganda? No idea, would have to see the anonymity go away and see how society restructures |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | heavyset_go 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Just thought I'd share the EFF's take[1] on the importance of anonymity and its long history with free speech: > Anonymous communications have an important place in our political and social discourse. The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that the right to anonymous free speech is protected by the First Amendment. A frequently cited 1995 Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads: > > Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society. > The tradition of anonymous speech is older than the United States. Founders Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote the Federalist Papers under the pseudonym "Publius " and "the Federal Farmer" spoke up in rebuttal. The US Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized rights to speak anonymously derived from the First Amendment. > The right to anonymous speech is also protected well beyond the printed page. Thus in 2002 the Supreme Court struck down a law requiring proselytizers to register their true names with the Mayor's office before going door-to-door. To build on that, the Fourth Amendment protections against general warrants stems from the fact that general warrants were used to identify and persecute anonymous authors, many of which were founders and framers. [1] https://www.eff.org/issues/anonymity |
|
| ▲ | zelphirkalt 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Probably only works for as long as you are not living in a dictatorship, authoritarian state, utterly corrupt country, or similar. Then suddenly we would want our anonymity back. While anonymity comes with its own issues for society, I am not convinced it would be worth it getting rid of it. |
|
| ▲ | Doxin 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| While what you're saying sounds like a reasonable enough stance on the face of it, keep in mind that this would deeply fuck over closeted queer folks among other marginalized groups. |
| |
| ▲ | lovich 3 days ago | parent [-] | | It would. Currently they and everyone else are getting deeply fucked because the signal to noise ratio on the internet has been obliterated and everyone is being manipulated all the time by misinformation from humans lying to bots. I think the trade off for a lack of anonymity is worth it. This is crass and old but the penny arcade guys identified this decades ago https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/greater-internet-fuckwad-theo... |
|
