Even though many of us understand the issues around pseudonymity in our various tech and gamer scenes, this is a generational flash-point in general society.
I intentionally reveal my identity on purpose for various reasons. It isn't unreasonable to believe that at some point there will be negative consequences for some thoughtless, unreasonable, or unpopular remark; maybe there already has been and I just don't know about it.
There is power and privilege in the ability to do this, and I like to think that one person openly being their flawed self in public might help a tiny bit push society towards accepting that everybody is flawed and everybody has done things which aren't socially acceptable to some whether or not they would continue defend every action in their past.
If I was getting death threats or had anything in particular. worth defending, I might change my behavior; but for now nothing I write really matters except maybe to a few people who read it.
I feel the same way, but it’s also something about a stubborn unwillingness to accept the fate that we can’t ever have meaningful political discourse without unreasonable consequences for mildly unpopular stances. That’s not to say I think anyone should be able to say anything without consequences, but the fact is right now people are using intimidation and guilt by association tactics to try to push out all sorts of opinions, gradually making any opposition more extreme and grouping unrelated sects of thought together to increase divisiveness, and not just for opinions that were always universally believed to be deserving of scorn.
I am keeping intentionally vague because this is an issue bigger than any individual controversial opinion. I am sure I have many opinions that are controversial to somebody, even as a pretty liberal person, although in all honesty I probably could not identify all of them on my own. Maybe some of them will change, maybe not. Should someone be “cancelled” forever for holding such an opinion? Are people allowed to change, or, god forbid, just simply not agree on something clearly divisive? I believe the answer should be yes so as long as they are not trying to infringe or invalidate someone else’s rights or existence. And certainly, perhaps above all, the right response to ignorance is education and not vitriol. Unfortunately, escalations only seem to get more toxic by the year, with a heavier emphasis on appeals to emotion and not reason.
It’d be remiss to not mention bad actors who intentionally try to abuse good faith, too... but I feel that nowadays, the pendulum has swung far into the other direction.
I think I used to feel the same way, but over time came to understand that a problem which arises is missing context and drawing conclusions from incomplete information.
If you're sharing a sensitive piece of information about yourself with someone who already knows you well, then they have the benefit of all the prior context of knowing who you are, plus they can ask questions for clarification if needed.
Contrast this with sharing sensitive information about yourself on the web. Even if there are numerous other articles that you have published to provide context, someone who doesn't know you can easily take that single piece of sensitive information and completely misunderstand it, because frankly it's impossible to get to know everyone intimately enough to have all the supporting information.
You propose that this openness might help push society toward accepting that humans are flawed and have done things which are not socially acceptable. The problem is that behavior which is not socially acceptable can easily be interpreted as dysfunctional or outright anti-social without knowing who you are. Another example, let's say you have made a mistake in the past (as all humans have) and genuinely feel remorseful and apologetic. The remorse and apology cannot be known to be genuine except by yourself and the people closest to you.
That's why I feel it is actually vital to only share sensitive information with people who have enough context and information to properly understand and integrate it.
The basic problem is exactly "missing context and drawing conclusions from incomplete information" and that every person could fall victim to that sort of attack and misunderstanding.
You can try to defend against it by hiding from it, or you can try to defend against it by overwhelming it to show that everybody is "guilty" of one thing or another. It is entirely reasonable to have good justifications for hiding, but it is also something to strive for, a life situation where you don't have to care about idiots and pitchforks.
What I think is vital is convincing everyone that a single piece of context-free information does not demonstrate the value of a person's entire life.
unfortunately there's simply too much to be gained by rejecting context and willfully assuming the worst possible intent or even fabricating it; 'x/y/z is a dogwhistle'. live and let live does not seem to be a value that has been retained by secular moralism.
i'd gladly be incorrect if it meant we could live in your world, that doesn't seem likely anytime soon though.
and if either your next of kin or theirs feels raw about the outcome of that fight? live and let live is a vital principle or we all wind up on the pointy end of one stick or another.
The idealism you're expressing here is definitely worth aiming for. I'm unconvinced that basic human psychology as it has evolved is currently capable of such a thing.
A close friend of yours points to someone you don't know and says "That person is either on coke or meth, watch out."
Take that same stranger, now add the information that they are loved by their community, they have always been available and reliable for other people, which is in fact something you know first-hand because they are a dear friend of yours. One day they tell you in confidence "colechristensen I've recently been struggling with substances."
In both versions, it's the same good person with the same problem, but the information we have presents them very differently. Does that not affect your behavior at all?
I would be deceiving myself if I didn't admit that it would alter my behavior pretty dramatically. I am capable of being the proverbial idiot with a pitchfork simply because of how human psychology stereotypes and extrapolates on insufficient information as an evolved survival technique. Nature doesn't care if we're overly cautious 99% of the time, because not being cautious enough just 1 time can be fatal.
What you're suggesting is an awesome ideal, but we have a long way to go before achieving that, and approaching it too recklessly can end up being harmful to ourselves if we're not mindful.
Does this not apply to Paypal? Because I read some ridiculous requirements on coin sites, such as sending scans of your national IDs or even doing videos of yourself.
All the while Paypal only has name and address and perhaps a credit card number.
Seems to me coin sites are either smothered in red tape or so afraid they go above and beyond the legal requirements.
In my experience, it does apply to paypal, except they wait until you put a minimum amount into your account and then lock it pending KYC. This basically forces you to provide KYC documents (or say good bye to your money). This is likely so they can avoid the 99% churn rate they'd get if they KYC'ed people on registration, IMO there should be a law against this practice or just fix draconian KYC laws. Skrill did the same with ID required, except i still cannot access my $900 2 years later because the KYC is fully automated.
What the hell is this? Why does it exist (I don't know anything about the context) and why does an anti-dox article share the full name, job title, website, and backstory of someone who was doxxed?
On a more practical note, why is the NYT insisting on their idiotic policy? If you want to make sure no one ever speaks on the record to your newspaper ever again, ham-fisted policies like this are a great choice.
23 comments
[ 4.0 ms ] story [ 66.4 ms ] threadThere is power and privilege in the ability to do this, and I like to think that one person openly being their flawed self in public might help a tiny bit push society towards accepting that everybody is flawed and everybody has done things which aren't socially acceptable to some whether or not they would continue defend every action in their past.
If I was getting death threats or had anything in particular. worth defending, I might change my behavior; but for now nothing I write really matters except maybe to a few people who read it.
I am keeping intentionally vague because this is an issue bigger than any individual controversial opinion. I am sure I have many opinions that are controversial to somebody, even as a pretty liberal person, although in all honesty I probably could not identify all of them on my own. Maybe some of them will change, maybe not. Should someone be “cancelled” forever for holding such an opinion? Are people allowed to change, or, god forbid, just simply not agree on something clearly divisive? I believe the answer should be yes so as long as they are not trying to infringe or invalidate someone else’s rights or existence. And certainly, perhaps above all, the right response to ignorance is education and not vitriol. Unfortunately, escalations only seem to get more toxic by the year, with a heavier emphasis on appeals to emotion and not reason.
It’d be remiss to not mention bad actors who intentionally try to abuse good faith, too... but I feel that nowadays, the pendulum has swung far into the other direction.
If you're sharing a sensitive piece of information about yourself with someone who already knows you well, then they have the benefit of all the prior context of knowing who you are, plus they can ask questions for clarification if needed.
Contrast this with sharing sensitive information about yourself on the web. Even if there are numerous other articles that you have published to provide context, someone who doesn't know you can easily take that single piece of sensitive information and completely misunderstand it, because frankly it's impossible to get to know everyone intimately enough to have all the supporting information.
You propose that this openness might help push society toward accepting that humans are flawed and have done things which are not socially acceptable. The problem is that behavior which is not socially acceptable can easily be interpreted as dysfunctional or outright anti-social without knowing who you are. Another example, let's say you have made a mistake in the past (as all humans have) and genuinely feel remorseful and apologetic. The remorse and apology cannot be known to be genuine except by yourself and the people closest to you.
That's why I feel it is actually vital to only share sensitive information with people who have enough context and information to properly understand and integrate it.
You can try to defend against it by hiding from it, or you can try to defend against it by overwhelming it to show that everybody is "guilty" of one thing or another. It is entirely reasonable to have good justifications for hiding, but it is also something to strive for, a life situation where you don't have to care about idiots and pitchforks.
What I think is vital is convincing everyone that a single piece of context-free information does not demonstrate the value of a person's entire life.
"Live and let live" is cool until someone gives you the pointy end of the stick.
At that point, you want a way to fight back.
Do you want have sex with men or women? Not my problem. Live and let live.
Do you want to do drugs? Also not my problem. Live and let live.
Do you want to shoot my dog? MY problem. Live and let live doesn't apply.
Once you impinge on my freedom of action, "live and let live" is trumped by the needs of justice and fairness.
"Live and let live" is NOT a license for you trample over me with impunity.
A close friend of yours points to someone you don't know and says "That person is either on coke or meth, watch out."
Take that same stranger, now add the information that they are loved by their community, they have always been available and reliable for other people, which is in fact something you know first-hand because they are a dear friend of yours. One day they tell you in confidence "colechristensen I've recently been struggling with substances."
In both versions, it's the same good person with the same problem, but the information we have presents them very differently. Does that not affect your behavior at all?
I would be deceiving myself if I didn't admit that it would alter my behavior pretty dramatically. I am capable of being the proverbial idiot with a pitchfork simply because of how human psychology stereotypes and extrapolates on insufficient information as an evolved survival technique. Nature doesn't care if we're overly cautious 99% of the time, because not being cautious enough just 1 time can be fatal.
What you're suggesting is an awesome ideal, but we have a long way to go before achieving that, and approaching it too recklessly can end up being harmful to ourselves if we're not mindful.
Last I looked you needed to provide bank-level identification to do anything while, you know, not dealing with a bank.
Come to think of it, Paypal requires less identification than any site touching coins and for Europe they are a bank in Luxembourg.
All the while Paypal only has name and address and perhaps a credit card number.
Seems to me coin sites are either smothered in red tape or so afraid they go above and beyond the legal requirements.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23617887
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23621466
Which is best?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23635818