Anonymity Vrs Personal Resposability
Discussion
There's been a lot of talk about personal responsibility over the past few weeks with all the goings on. One of CMD's actions was to allow police to remove masks from people. Yet on-line people hide behind masks all the time, not for the same reasons (I hope) but isn't it time that people took personal responsibility for what they say on-line and start using their real names? If you can't put your name to it then maybe you shouldn't post it. I realise this would be nearly impossible to enforce but again, take some personal responsibility and remove the mask. Just because someone else can get away with being anonymous doesn't mean that you have to.
I'd be interested to hear peoples thoughts on this.
I'd be interested to hear peoples thoughts on this.
I do not.
There are waaaaay too many creepy people online and I'm quite happy with them not knowing who I am (in the main).
I don't know the names of everyone in a pub, why should I know the names of everyone online? Much less their views on any topic ever discussed online since the dawn of time?
Then one must also consider...uh...niche interests people may have...there is a fundamental right to privacy and the nature of the internet means a degree of anonymity is kind of essential.
All imho of course.
There are waaaaay too many creepy people online and I'm quite happy with them not knowing who I am (in the main).
I don't know the names of everyone in a pub, why should I know the names of everyone online? Much less their views on any topic ever discussed online since the dawn of time?
Then one must also consider...uh...niche interests people may have...there is a fundamental right to privacy and the nature of the internet means a degree of anonymity is kind of essential.
All imho of course.
Nick Grant said:
Well I can see one person who has replied to this thread has been posting about torrents for films. Is that electronic looting?
That depends, have studies shown that looters spent more money in shops than non-looters whilst doing no physical property damage at the same time? Because there are studies showing pirates spent significantly more on media than non-pirates.You probably don't want to take the thread here
roachcoach said:
That depends, have studies shown that looters spent more money in shops than non-looters whilst doing no physical property damage at the same time? Because there are studies showing pirates spent significantly more on media than non-pirates.
You probably don't want to take the thread here
Only that it was a good reason to "wear a mask". You probably don't want to take the thread here
RemainAllHoof said:
No... it's pretty easy to find out all about the person you're pretending to be.
Nick Grant said:
I realise this would be nearly impossible to enforce but again, take some personal responsibility and remove the mask. Just because someone else can get away with being anonymous doesn't mean that you have to.
You're missing the point, deliberately or not I can't tell, stop focusing on 'illegal' and start thinking about the wider picture.
There are a vast number of perfectly legal activities which, if known, could cause irreparable damage to someone's personal/professional reputation.
Note I do not agree with the following examples causing social stigma, but they can and will in many circles.
Examples:
member of nationalist forums
gay/lesbian forums
casual sex forums
various fetish forums
'unpopular' political forums
disease support forums
lost baby support forums
etc
etc
The list above is a mere part of an extremely long one. With any/all of the above, many people may well have an interest in not sharing with just anyone with a 'net connection.
I'm sure you can see that known membership to some of the sites above may cause both professional and personal complications for people - this is (morally) wrong, but true regardless.
Private lives are called that for a reason, I think that is a good thing.
I'm sure the 'nothing to hide, nothing to fear' gang will be along presently to tell me why I am wrong.
ETA:
I'm sure when applying for jobs people don't list any unusual sexual preferences, whether or not you are gay, if you have an unpopular/controversial political viewpoint - because they have no business knowing and some people would take that information into account when (not) employing you. Again, this is not right but it happens.
ETA 2.0: Remember that a lot of employers are already trawling facebook to check out potential employees, they would have a field day with a more 'honest' internet.
I do see what you're getting at but so long as there is an ignore function I see no material issue with the status quo which would not be made dramatically worse by changing it. Sometimes it really is better the devil you know.
There are a vast number of perfectly legal activities which, if known, could cause irreparable damage to someone's personal/professional reputation.
Note I do not agree with the following examples causing social stigma, but they can and will in many circles.
Examples:
member of nationalist forums
gay/lesbian forums
casual sex forums
various fetish forums
'unpopular' political forums
disease support forums
lost baby support forums
etc
etc
The list above is a mere part of an extremely long one. With any/all of the above, many people may well have an interest in not sharing with just anyone with a 'net connection.
I'm sure you can see that known membership to some of the sites above may cause both professional and personal complications for people - this is (morally) wrong, but true regardless.
Private lives are called that for a reason, I think that is a good thing.
I'm sure the 'nothing to hide, nothing to fear' gang will be along presently to tell me why I am wrong.
ETA:
I'm sure when applying for jobs people don't list any unusual sexual preferences, whether or not you are gay, if you have an unpopular/controversial political viewpoint - because they have no business knowing and some people would take that information into account when (not) employing you. Again, this is not right but it happens.
ETA 2.0: Remember that a lot of employers are already trawling facebook to check out potential employees, they would have a field day with a more 'honest' internet.
I do see what you're getting at but so long as there is an ignore function I see no material issue with the status quo which would not be made dramatically worse by changing it. Sometimes it really is better the devil you know.
Edited by roachcoach on Wednesday 17th August 10:41
One of the fundamental aspects of any constitution is generally the protection of privacy.
But today the state wants to know, and generally knows, where everybody is all the time and what they're doing.
It's the only way the state and its toady supporters can hold onto power. Rupert Murdoch isn't in trouble because the police, politicians or any other element of the stste found out what he was doing. They all knew perfectly well what he was up to. Murdoch only got into trouble when the PUBLIC found out what he was doing.
But today the state wants to know, and generally knows, where everybody is all the time and what they're doing.
It's the only way the state and its toady supporters can hold onto power. Rupert Murdoch isn't in trouble because the police, politicians or any other element of the stste found out what he was doing. They all knew perfectly well what he was up to. Murdoch only got into trouble when the PUBLIC found out what he was doing.
I use this name on here and avoid certain personal details as I came here to mainly use the watch forum and talk about high ish end pieces. I'd rather not have my name googled and a picture of me with my Rolex flash up next to it. Why ask for the trouble.
That and times have changed. Prospective employees only have to enter my name into google to find out about me and I'd again rather not let them know from the jump I'm on forums talking BS with a bunch of other slackers.
Its not so much about being anonymous more about not volunteering personal information to all and sundry.
That and times have changed. Prospective employees only have to enter my name into google to find out about me and I'd again rather not let them know from the jump I'm on forums talking BS with a bunch of other slackers.
Its not so much about being anonymous more about not volunteering personal information to all and sundry.
The problem with the internet is that once it's out there, it's out there indefinitely and accessible from anywhere on the planet.
Whilst most of the issues I discuss online will be pretty trivial, occasionally I will drift into family matters or other areas where I'd prefer that my children / step-children / wife can't just Google my name and immediately see exactly what's been said because it's not constructive. If they want to go hunting then they'd probably get there, and I don't think I've said anything I wouldn't stand by face to face.
I guess it's the same logic as not wanting a transcript of my conversations with friends in the pub to be mailed back to my wife - there's no secret affair or love-child, but it's a private conversation and I'd rather it stayed that way.
Whilst most of the issues I discuss online will be pretty trivial, occasionally I will drift into family matters or other areas where I'd prefer that my children / step-children / wife can't just Google my name and immediately see exactly what's been said because it's not constructive. If they want to go hunting then they'd probably get there, and I don't think I've said anything I wouldn't stand by face to face.
I guess it's the same logic as not wanting a transcript of my conversations with friends in the pub to be mailed back to my wife - there's no secret affair or love-child, but it's a private conversation and I'd rather it stayed that way.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff