The most recent online mob I can think of was started by a guy named Jeremy, attacking a girl for wearing a Chinese dress as "cultural appropriation". He didn't want anonymity; he revelled in being known as the instigator, even giving interviews to the press. So I don't think that anonymity is the real root cause of online mobbing.
Because taking it seriously and arguing with propaganda only legitimizes it. And I'm pretty sure people didn't come here because they think there might be a legitimate reason to restrict and police people online.
Huh? I don't read the GP as advocating for restricting anyone online, even less as propaganda. Did they edit their comment?
FWIW, I do support restricting people's ability to communicate online, in particular their ability to spam me. I'm not talking about global censorship, just me personally, and if someone actually likes spam, then they can enjoy it for all I care.
One guy willing to attach their name to their mobbing doesn't disprove the almost tautological idea that fewer people would participate in such mobbing if they were all forced to do so with their real identity. That's because right now both that wish to be anonymous and those that don't get to participate, whereas such rules would exclude the former group.
Even the event you mention probably depended on many being able to participate without risk, since one guy alone doesn't make for a very convincing 'mob'.
There are arguments for anonymity online, and I tend to agree that they outweigh the problems. I think it'd be strategically better to focus on these than try to attack the rather intuitive logic at the core of such calls for ending anonymity.
> fewer people would participate in such mobbing if they were all forced to do so with their real identity.
I disagree. Mobbing existed before anonymity; in fact, it was very much the norm -- the concept of "honor" is often tied to public displays of condemnation for the "dishonorable". Publicity makes it harder for people to disagree with what is perceived as the opinion of the majority, as unpalatable and uncivilized as it might be. This is why political votes are secret, among others; or why the Gospels explicitly warn against public displays of faith.
Every group of people will have its "dishonorable" enemies, and will always be keen to publicly shame them. Forcing people to attach their public identities to online activity will do nothing to dissuade people who see such actions as a badge of honor, but it will chill the display of dissent from the status quo.
Mobs existed before because there were so many people that you were effectively an anonymous member of it. Similar to behaviour in protests today.
However removing anonymity today would be difference since everyone could see your name and could get you fired, killed etc. Hence the OP is right that you would see less mobs.
No, the mass dimension is a modern phenomenon. "Mobs" in the past were 20 villagers doing things like burning a witch at the stakes. Everyone knew everyone else, and nobody would speak out for the witch precisely because their identity and reputation would have suffered from it.
Removing anonymity will just reduce the possibility to express a dissenting opinion. This is why authoritarian systems the world over have always loved ID cards and the likes.
> Do we really care about the kind of people who care about "cultural appropriation"?
Yes, because not disagreeing is considered assent. Telling people with stupid ideologies that their ideologies are stupid is not something you want to avoid entirely, at the very least to remind folks that they haven't found the One True Ideology.
Whether the ideology in question is SJWs/ctrl-left or alt-right... doesn't really matter. Neither of those should dominate the public or wield governmental powers. And to avoid precisely that from happening, you speak out against it.
Coordinating "not feeding trolls" on a large scale is very difficult.
Also, it is difficult to ignore people who can attack you offline. I think these fanatical students (seems to me they are usually students; students are most susceptible to recruitment in all kinds of cults) constitute pretty much zero danger to me... but they can be quite dangerous to their classmates, so if I had children in university age, I would probably worry a lot.
If you told me that when I eat pizza that it is a cultural appropriation, I would just tell you to f.off. But when a student is surrounded by militant classmates, this can lead to bullying. And even worse, when a teacher is a part of some social justice cult. So... not feeding the trolls is sometimes not an option, unless you want to give up on your diploma, and the time and work spent so far studying.
Not feeding trolls also assumes that people are mature enough to recognize who is a troll. But there is a continuum between people who sincerely believe that political correctness is simply the usual politeness applied to politically sensitive topics... and people who throw a hissy fit whenever someone disagrees with their latest pseudoscience. Try to make a line somewhere, and people who are under the line but quite close to it are going to object.
People who aggressively support segregation should always be fought, no matter how relatively small their numbers.
If the cultural appropriation people win, they end up promoting an expanded racial and ethnic segregation as a consequence. The mixing, remixing, touching, learning from by experience and adoption of culture is a critical element that works against physical segregation.
Among the more surreal aspects of UK culture that I am aware of (only because of the Internet) are prejudice against people named "Jeremy", and "gingers" (not that there is any connection between the two).
I’m not aware of any particular Jeremy prejudice, I just thing it’s strange that a guy with an English/Hebrew name feels entitled to claim exclusive ownership of Chinese culture. Anyone can wear anything or be called anything in my book.
> Describing Silicon Valley billionaires, he said: “The phoniness irritates me - it’s, ‘I’m a hippy with a beanbag and, oh yes, there is my superyacht’.
This sentiment was quite popular around 2009-2011 with real-name policies, the "nymwars", and what have you. The idea that the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory [1] explained the noxious state of online discourse had taken root, and people believed, often in good faith, that peeling back the layers of anonymity from larger communities would combat bad behavior. Both Google+ and Battle.net infamously implemented real name policies during this period to very little discernible effect, and eventually reverted their policies. To this day human group interaction remains challenging to control, with or without authoritarian means.
I understand that the intended goal of this policy is likely orthogonal to the argument presented, but it's a surprisingly weak argument in face of all the previous attempts showing the contrary. You can effectively point to South Korea, where they relented on this [2], after the intended effect was shown to be practically insignificant, while simultaneously putting users at increased risk.
Must've thought 1984 was a manual instead of literature.
The "stiff upper lip" culture of basically just sucking it up may have a part in it. This thing doesn't immediately affect me or mine, so why fight it?
The economy is still decent for people at the top, and people at the bottom are constantly fed scapegoats for their state of things (i.e. foreigners).
Anti-authoritarianism only flourishes when a significant number of people is fed up with what they perceive as incompetent leadership - at that point, the manners of such leadership start to matter.
I guess, speaking as a Brit, we don't take the tech stuff that seriously. The only thing to actually effect me so far has been their attempts to block torrent search sites which involve me having to fire up a free vpn about once a month. And token efforts to reduce copyright abuse are sort of justified I guess.
Re authoritarianism I worry more about the G7s spokesman for Russia. Also I went along to spectate the Brexit court case but parliamentary democracy won that one https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38733090
Because the UK government is so incompetent right now that I doubt anyone would believe they could pull something like this off.
That and of course the predicted drop in tax receipts due to Brexit has basically caused a widespread freeze on IT spending across the government. So a Digital ID has zero chance of being implemented in the next decade or so.
I suspect one factor is that the many British people trust in the secret ballot and the old democratic system of voting to change things. So, as long as they can vote secretly, and vote in the people they want, the system will correct itself and any bad choice by a government can be corrected.
The main reason is that politicians come up with these ideas all the time. They never actually see the light of day in terms of implementation. Therefore these kind of announcements are met with a mixture of cynicism and "it's never going happen".
The bottom line is that some British family owned business is going to win the billion dollar security database tender.
Edit: I know that’s not fair, the money will go to some offshore company where it’s a bit harder to account for
Edit2: also I think when a politician starts telling us we need increased security, we need to start looking at the private communications for any evidence of bribery
A digital ID or drivers license that forces you to take a test that schools you on fake news, deep fakes, phishing, ransomware, two way verification and other similar things I think would be a good thing! Also each time you post a comment or video your Identity is attached to it which would make someone think twice about posting a deep fake(if the video is reposted the orginator and the reposter(s) ID is attached) that depicts something harmful to society (president saying going to nuke xyz) or harmful to someone else.
For security purposes you’d have to biometrical ID yourself before posting/attaching your identity to it.
*if you downvote this .. why is this a bad idea? It’s just an idea I thought after watching deep fakes thinking wow something needs to fight such.
That would make the (largely hypothetical) problem of deepfaked news far far worse. It's the same problem we see with TLS where a green lock just means people's brains turn off. "It must be tied to a real person's ID" is trivial for anybody determined to bypass (they can just steal, forge or make an ID) but when people view it they will see that it's been verified by the government's big brother identity system, so it must be legitimate. It's literally arming the bad guys with the tools to make their fakes look government endorsed.
Still absolutely trivial for a state level actor to bypass, aka: the exact people you really don't want creating fake news that looks government endorsed.
Yep, we'll have to make sure that the only place internets posting can take place is in person at the Department of Right Thinking until you have a high enough social score to be trusted.
Via what device? A government-produced one? Or will it be a free-for-all, with Google, Alexa, and countless off-the-books Chinese factories producing competing products that you'll be buying on Alexa - that will surely be unhackable, no sir!
Requiring an ID online in a country that requires no national ID? That's highly novel.
If there are no anonymous spaces how can people explore and discuss their mental health, sexuality, abuse and other issues they aren't keen on having permanently attached to their identity?
Anonymity doesn't cure or cause. People can be reactionary assholes with or without identity. Neither does it cause them to check every fact before resharing the cute meme - essentially no one does that.
The people behind Britain First (now banned by FB) didn't seem in the least bit bothered by being exposed as former BNP fascists spreading fake facts on FB. It did not cure them of their race hate, or stop the current US president retweeting them a few times.
Seems like it would work mostly as a method to retrospectively shame people, publicly.
It will also make you think twice about posting something that criticizes the government. Or an opinion that your boss, or your father-in-law may disagree with.
How would you make a post on a forum dedicated to helping people overcome their problems with alcoholism, drug addiction or sex addiction - without potentially outing yourself to everyone you know? How do you join a support group for people living with HIV, or those who have been sexually assaulted, or people with an eating disorder without airing incredibly personal laundry in public? How do you seek advice on coming out as gay? Or suspecting that your parents might not be your biological parents? Or that your children aren't your biological children?
These are trivial off the top of my head examples, usually reserved for the "if you've got nothing to hide..." arguments.
That’s cool I appreciate everyone’s feedback. This is only one thought on how to fight deepfakes.
As those concerned about discussing things publicly that could prove harmful to you and your reputation then with this concept you could still post anonymously yet it wouldn't hold much weight when you post something that is harmful to society or to someone else. If your posting something bad about your boss keep on doing so yet anonymously and go to HR to TRY and solve your issue or if your getting nowhere then use your verified online identity.
As for government officials subverting it and framing the innocent that's a good point ... maybe it should be attached to blockchain technology and open sourced/not controlled by a govt body.
Again just some thoughts for ways to stop deepfakes from becoming a threat to national security, etc.
I'm curious why bullying/mobs/trolling/whatever is rampant on Twitter, common on Facebook, but non-existent on LinkedIn. Anyone got any ideas why this is so?
It's both pretty tightly tied to real identity and mostly public. Add to that, like it or not, it's heavily used by recruiters, etc. for professional jobs.
A lot of Twitter handles are anonymous. And, if you're not connected as a friend, you're basically not going to see anything about or from me on Facebook.
LinkedIn is definitely the go to place to check people out for professional purposes.
Question (not rhetorical): is it worthwhile to allow anonymous criticism of the state and those in power, while requiring people to stand behind all other types of statements as real named individuals?
At the root of much of this, I find "leaders" who call for such things while simultaneously exempting themselves from the same level of scrutiny and accountability.
59 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 122 ms ] threadhttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-43947959
Jeremy by the way is an English name of Biblical origin: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_(name)
FWIW, I do support restricting people's ability to communicate online, in particular their ability to spam me. I'm not talking about global censorship, just me personally, and if someone actually likes spam, then they can enjoy it for all I care.
Even the event you mention probably depended on many being able to participate without risk, since one guy alone doesn't make for a very convincing 'mob'.
There are arguments for anonymity online, and I tend to agree that they outweigh the problems. I think it'd be strategically better to focus on these than try to attack the rather intuitive logic at the core of such calls for ending anonymity.
I disagree. Mobbing existed before anonymity; in fact, it was very much the norm -- the concept of "honor" is often tied to public displays of condemnation for the "dishonorable". Publicity makes it harder for people to disagree with what is perceived as the opinion of the majority, as unpalatable and uncivilized as it might be. This is why political votes are secret, among others; or why the Gospels explicitly warn against public displays of faith.
Every group of people will have its "dishonorable" enemies, and will always be keen to publicly shame them. Forcing people to attach their public identities to online activity will do nothing to dissuade people who see such actions as a badge of honor, but it will chill the display of dissent from the status quo.
Mobs existed before because there were so many people that you were effectively an anonymous member of it. Similar to behaviour in protests today.
However removing anonymity today would be difference since everyone could see your name and could get you fired, killed etc. Hence the OP is right that you would see less mobs.
Removing anonymity will just reduce the possibility to express a dissenting opinion. This is why authoritarian systems the world over have always loved ID cards and the likes.
The same can be said about many, many other "online mobs".
Yes, because not disagreeing is considered assent. Telling people with stupid ideologies that their ideologies are stupid is not something you want to avoid entirely, at the very least to remind folks that they haven't found the One True Ideology.
Whether the ideology in question is SJWs/ctrl-left or alt-right... doesn't really matter. Neither of those should dominate the public or wield governmental powers. And to avoid precisely that from happening, you speak out against it.
Also, it is difficult to ignore people who can attack you offline. I think these fanatical students (seems to me they are usually students; students are most susceptible to recruitment in all kinds of cults) constitute pretty much zero danger to me... but they can be quite dangerous to their classmates, so if I had children in university age, I would probably worry a lot.
If you told me that when I eat pizza that it is a cultural appropriation, I would just tell you to f.off. But when a student is surrounded by militant classmates, this can lead to bullying. And even worse, when a teacher is a part of some social justice cult. So... not feeding the trolls is sometimes not an option, unless you want to give up on your diploma, and the time and work spent so far studying.
Not feeding trolls also assumes that people are mature enough to recognize who is a troll. But there is a continuum between people who sincerely believe that political correctness is simply the usual politeness applied to politically sensitive topics... and people who throw a hissy fit whenever someone disagrees with their latest pseudoscience. Try to make a line somewhere, and people who are under the line but quite close to it are going to object.
If the cultural appropriation people win, they end up promoting an expanded racial and ethnic segregation as a consequence. The mixing, remixing, touching, learning from by experience and adoption of culture is a critical element that works against physical segregation.
It might stem the tide of individual online harassment but that's not really 'mob rule'.
In order to save freedom of speech we have to curtail it.
In order to save democracy we have to put limits on it.
Well, at least he got something right.
I understand that the intended goal of this policy is likely orthogonal to the argument presented, but it's a surprisingly weak argument in face of all the previous attempts showing the contrary. You can effectively point to South Korea, where they relented on this [2], after the intended effect was shown to be practically insignificant, while simultaneously putting users at increased risk.
[1] https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19
[2] http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2011/12/30/2011...
The "stiff upper lip" culture of basically just sucking it up may have a part in it. This thing doesn't immediately affect me or mine, so why fight it?
Anti-authoritarianism only flourishes when a significant number of people is fed up with what they perceive as incompetent leadership - at that point, the manners of such leadership start to matter.
Re authoritarianism I worry more about the G7s spokesman for Russia. Also I went along to spectate the Brexit court case but parliamentary democracy won that one https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38733090
That and of course the predicted drop in tax receipts due to Brexit has basically caused a widespread freeze on IT spending across the government. So a Digital ID has zero chance of being implemented in the next decade or so.
Edit: I know that’s not fair, the money will go to some offshore company where it’s a bit harder to account for
Edit2: also I think when a politician starts telling us we need increased security, we need to start looking at the private communications for any evidence of bribery
For security purposes you’d have to biometrical ID yourself before posting/attaching your identity to it.
*if you downvote this .. why is this a bad idea? It’s just an idea I thought after watching deep fakes thinking wow something needs to fight such.
Because that's what all this is really about.
Requiring an ID online in a country that requires no national ID? That's highly novel.
If there are no anonymous spaces how can people explore and discuss their mental health, sexuality, abuse and other issues they aren't keen on having permanently attached to their identity?
Anonymity doesn't cure or cause. People can be reactionary assholes with or without identity. Neither does it cause them to check every fact before resharing the cute meme - essentially no one does that.
The people behind Britain First (now banned by FB) didn't seem in the least bit bothered by being exposed as former BNP fascists spreading fake facts on FB. It did not cure them of their race hate, or stop the current US president retweeting them a few times.
Seems like it would work mostly as a method to retrospectively shame people, publicly.
How would you make a post on a forum dedicated to helping people overcome their problems with alcoholism, drug addiction or sex addiction - without potentially outing yourself to everyone you know? How do you join a support group for people living with HIV, or those who have been sexually assaulted, or people with an eating disorder without airing incredibly personal laundry in public? How do you seek advice on coming out as gay? Or suspecting that your parents might not be your biological parents? Or that your children aren't your biological children?
These are trivial off the top of my head examples, usually reserved for the "if you've got nothing to hide..." arguments.
As those concerned about discussing things publicly that could prove harmful to you and your reputation then with this concept you could still post anonymously yet it wouldn't hold much weight when you post something that is harmful to society or to someone else. If your posting something bad about your boss keep on doing so yet anonymously and go to HR to TRY and solve your issue or if your getting nowhere then use your verified online identity.
As for government officials subverting it and framing the innocent that's a good point ... maybe it should be attached to blockchain technology and open sourced/not controlled by a govt body.
Again just some thoughts for ways to stop deepfakes from becoming a threat to national security, etc.
Oh that is easy to stop: women are now banned from our platforms.
Every government action or law will have unintended results.
Because of this everyone uses their real identity. And because of that it's also the most boring and fake social media platform around.
LinkedIn is definitely the go to place to check people out for professional purposes.
You're a "leader". You, first.