

Reddit has the killer social network feature: anonymity - RandyRanderson
http://garthontech.blogspot.ca/2013/08/reddit-has-killer-social-network.html
This blog describes how reddit is the solution to facebook fatigue.
======
angersock
This is why the most interesting OC on the 'net seems to come from the swamps
of 4chan and reddit (and SA and YTMD and the like).

There is very little to gain (other than targeted advertising and srs bznz)
from giving up anonymity online, and if you make friends somehow you can
always coordinate out-of-band.

I'm really sad that so many places want me to integrate my gmail or my real
name or my birthday or whatever other bit of personal info I claim into their
registers.

We're still recoiling from the NSA stuff: why the fuck should we accept
companies that want to do the same things to us?

EDIT:

I'll go one step further. An author I'd read in some scifi story or something
similar had suggested that the mark of our era was the relentless pursuit and
shaming of hypocrisy. The idea was that, having embraced moral relativism and
given up any attempt at judging people on a cultural basis, nerds and soon the
rest of people flocked to the last bastion of the judgemental: chiding others
for doing something other than what they'd preached, or saying something
different at different points in time.

Without anonymity, it can be very difficult to conduct useful intellectual
discourse, especially if you aren't strong-willed enough to deal with trolls
and jerks who say "But aha! Yesterday you claimed A, but today B; which is
it?".

~~~
berntb
>> the mark of our era was the relentless pursuit and shaming of hypocrisy.

You must live on a different planet than me. :-)

Let me take an example I saw this week:

I have some Eastern Europeans with different opinions in my Facebook. One
upset discussion right now is about why Russia gets so much criticism for
homophobia these days.

They assume it is an old Cold War prejudice, since the whole Middle East and
much of Africa are something like a factor of ten worse.. And they get almost
no media cover. Including the immigrants (at least in Sweden), which have the
same opinions.

It might be some unspoken racism from the left wing (not expect better of the
primitives), but it is probably just hypocrisy -- harsh criticism of an
external example as a way to get everyone on the same page.

I'm all for tolerance and acceptance of the gay community, but I seem to be
quite unusual in being equally shocked by hypocrisy and double standards as by
homophobia.

Even if you use double thinking in a good cause to spread tolerance in a
group, it clouds your analytic capability in the group. That is a bad thing.

~~~
stygianguest
This is not hypocrisy and has nothing to do with the cold war. Quite to the
contrary: we hold Russians to a higher standard than Saudi Arabia. Like we
hold the USA to a higher standard than either country in regards to privacy.

~~~
berntb
If totally different standards for different people/countries regarding
intolerance is neither hypocrisy nor racism -- what is it?

My theory above is that totally different standards for different parts of the
world really is political propaganda to the citizens of the country where the
media writes.

Do you have another explanation?

(To take another example -- even with a _Palestinian description_ of Israel,
the Sudan atrocities were a thousand times worse. My local leftwing media
(more or less all local media) complained many times more about Israel,
anyway. And never about that Israel was criticized every year in UN but Sudan
very little. How many thousands of times is reasonable for different
standards?)

Edit: Note when I wrote that immigrants, even citizens now, in Sweden is
criticized much less.. Not even that is neither racism nor double standards?!

~~~
rjd
Its got a mythos as the last frontier of Europe, of hard country and hard men,
enduring under dogs ... down trodden but never giving up.

Emerging from each massive injustice with a new culture rich from strife, from
the cossacks to beauty hidden within the works of the communist era. And the
sadness of what totalitarian rule did to a people trying to build an equal and
fair society, the people who died for others, and eventually all in vein.

It resonates as a country to admire, a people to admire, the mystique of its
history and taste of its asian influence. And despite that its a foreign
place. London to St Petersburg is closer than LA to New York, at times Russia
has been part of Europe.

The double standard for me and many of friends (whom I talk history with it)
is one of love, sorrow, and admiration. When the illusion of the Russian
mythos breaks and the reality of human condition seeps through you get held to
that standard. Not one of a distant problem, a stranger in a strange land, one
of a friend.

~~~
berntb
Are you a Turing Test program that misunderstood and went off on a tangent?
(That would explain a lot on HN, recently.) Or are you just trying to change
the subject?

~~~
VLM
So you claim its "political propaganda to the citizens of the country where
the media writes" and ask "Do you have another explanation?" and he responds
that its "the mystique of its history and taste of its asian influence".

Not seeing a problem here?

~~~
berntb
I gave another example. It is easy to give more examples of the hypocrisy I
talked about -- without Russia.

Edit: Not that it is relevant, but I've liked most every Russian I've spoken
to more than five minutes. And Putin scares me when he limits press freedom
and organized crime gets integrated with the police.

------
buro9
I'm working on a hosted forum/community platform, and the feedback we received
when asking customers (site admins) and users was strong, and unequivocal:
They want to present themselves as an alias and not have their interactions
with their interests be tied or related to their real identity.

When asked why, various reasons were given:

People view their hobbies and pastimes as a sanctuary from real life, home,
family, a safe space, and they don't want that safe space ruined by being
forced to use real identity.

People distinguish themselves in ways that their real identity might not
allow. Their work or social position might not grant them the ability to
express themselves fully as an avatar in an online world, or as someone into
tap-dancing, but a constructed alias allows them to immerse themselves more
fully.

People fear that engagement in their interests/pastimes will lead to them
being judged by future employers/partners/others.

Aliases allow people to really engage with their interests, and from that it
becomes more likely that the experts in a community will congregate and share
information. That the value for a community is realised.

And if you need to cite an example of that: Hacker News

For all this, the downside is that you have to have ways to deal with trolls
and spammers that do not use the very easy and simple mechanism of "who are
you?". That's harder to do, and so you either allow it (4chan) or you create
complex flagging/reporting/moderating layers. The really interesting part for
me is how active/engaged and in-your-face that moderation is, or how invisible
it is, and where the line of transparency is (the more transparent the easier
to game, the less transparent the harder to trust).

tl:dr People want anonymity so that they can share freely, but the price you
have to pay is managing spammers and trolls.

~~~
superuser2
I don't see anyone arguing against pseudonyms for forums, internet
communities, or anything else that's separate from your real life. Hobbies are
indeed sacred.

Google's stance with Google+ is pretty clear: this isn't the place for
internet lives and internet friends. This isn't a forum, or Reddit, or HN, or
any of those things. It's a place, like Facebook, for people's real identities
to engage with each other.

------
zmmmmm
Actually it is not anonymity that makes Reddit (or HN) successful. It is
_pseudonymity_. You still have an identity, and the identity has value -
karma. It is just disconnected from your biometric, "real life" identity.

The desire to protect the value of the pseudonymous identity is a powerful
motivating force for making positive contributions. In many ways it is even
more motivating than for your real life identity, because your real life,
"biometric" identity is so precious that you will almost always favor low-zero
risk contributions which are incredibly boring.

If Reddit was only anonymous it would be a horrible failure.

~~~
bluefinity
4chan is anonymous. Last I checked, it wasn't a horrible failure, and in some
ways actually works better, since there's no "karma whoring"[1].

The Japanese equivalent of Reddit (2channel) is enormously successful,
possibly even more so than reddit, and it's anonymous.

[1]: [http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/karma-
whore](http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/karma-whore)

~~~
djent
Easier to read, all around better source of information:
[https://encyclopediadramatica.se/Likes](https://encyclopediadramatica.se/Likes)

------
adambratt
While there have been some good points brought up here, I think the author
misunderstands what the purpose of Facebook is.

Facebook is not in the same category as Reddit. Social network used to be a
very specific category of website, now almost every consumer facing website is
a social network. Reddit is a content creation and discussion community,
basically a centralized version of the forums and bulletin boards of
yesteryear. Facebook is a photo, link, and life sharing network.

If I'm sharing pictures of my family and friends, I'm giving up anonymity by
default. The whole point of Facebook is to give an online pin board of what is
going on in my life, who I am as a person, and what I think and I enjoy. It's
the online identity of my human self.

Reddit is an open platform for all types of discussion and interaction at a
macro scale. What happens on Reddit will rarely if ever affect my actual day
to day life. The phrase "hive mind" is all too true when you consider the mass
amount of meaningless content there is. It's the brain vomit of millions of
people and that's what makes it awesome and interesting. For every thought or
idea I have, I can find someone else who agrees with me and someone who
doesn't.

Saying Facebook should learn from Reddit doesn't make much sense to me. Reddit
not a new concept or idea. Historically, social interaction online had always
been "anonymous" in one form or another. Facebook was the first truly
successful community that did away with usernames and forced people to use
their real names. To get a billion people to do that is an incredible feat.

In my humble opinion, Reddit is not revolutionary at all. The "moat" around
the site/business is not near as big as Facebooks. All it would take for a
Reddit killer to emerge is for a site to hit critical mass in terms of content
and provide a better more targeted form of curation to the user than
subreddits and karma. In contrary, Facebook has built a massive moat. Your
friend list, your photo history, your about page, your Facebook connected
sites and apps...this is a huge fucking moat. I'm not saying it would be easy
for a Reddit killer to surface, I'm just pointing out that it's more likely
than a Facebook killer.

I think it's important for us to recognize that Reddit's social network is not
Twitter's social network which is not Facebook's social network and to
understand this when making comparisons between them.

~~~
baq
> In my humble opinion, Reddit is not revolutionary at all.

This a thousand times. Reddit is a more user friendly, server-side usenet
without most of its hard to grasp features (but with css, which actually
matters way more than it seems with all those content: tricks.)

PS. I was on usenet for a couple of years, then slashdot, then reddit, then
here. Nothing of substance changed except a few abbreviations.

~~~
criley2
It's funny watching people poo-poo other's successes.

Spoiler: if you think reddit isn't revolutionary, or doesn't have a big
moat... put your skills where your mouth is and make something better and more
successful. "All it takes to beat reddit is..." really? Really?

It's easy for a layman to stand there and call reddit non-revolutionary.
(Note: I call you a layman because you can't even write the business name
'reddit' correctly... Yeah I bet your an expert on the business ;) )

We're all waiting for the reddit killer. Been waiting almost _a decade_. Digg
didn't last this long, and slashdot was never on top for this long.

Social networks turned over quickly until facebook, and link aggregators
turned over quickly until reddit.

It's easy to downplay someone else's achievement without being able to
replicate it or beat it yourself. Illusory superiority. I bet the people with
huge experience in reddit's field will be much more hesitant to downplay it.

~~~
mr-ron
There was nothing in his post about saying "I could do that". Only that the
improvements made from slashdot to reddit were marginal at best.

~~~
criley2
The improvements of Facebook over it's predecessors were marginal at best,
too.

~~~
mr-ron
so what?

------
espeed
Your ability to conceal your identity on Reddit, and in public forums in
general, is an illusion. Your identity can be revealed by your writing,
regardless if you use a nym or not.

Text analysis algorithms can detect and match you by your writing style and
reveal characteristics about your personality that you have no idea you're
leaking ([http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-
secret-...](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-secret-
language-code)). Even your use of pronouns provide clues. It's like your
fingerprint, or your gate
([http://www.cs.umd.edu/~chiraz/icpr02.pdf](http://www.cs.umd.edu/~chiraz/icpr02.pdf)).

"The Secret Life of Pronouns: What Our Words Say About Us"
([http://www.amazon.com/Secret-Life-Pronouns-Words-
About/dp/16...](http://www.amazon.com/Secret-Life-Pronouns-Words-
About/dp/1608194965/)), by Dr. James Pennabaker
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_W._Pennebaker](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_W._Pennebaker)).

~~~
DennisP
Seems like it'd be reasonably easy to run those same algorithms in reverse and
change your writing style to someone else's.

------
moot
That whole anonymity thing is overrated, IMHO. Who would ever argue for such a
thing?

~~~
rorrr2
Yet you are not using your real name.

~~~
LukeShu
thatsthejoke.jpeg

The username he used is "moot", the pseudonym of the long-anonymous
Christopher Poole, the founder of 4chan, and privacy/anonymity advocate.
Looking at his profile, he does appear to be the actual moot.

------
bambax
> _For some reason big companies are really into real names. Actual people not
> so much._

Totally agree with this, but I wonder why? Why does Google want me to use my
real name while _browsing_ videos on YouTube? Why do they care? It's a mystery
to me.

~~~
lazyjones
> _Why does Google want me to use my real name while browsing videos on
> YouTube? Why do they care?_

Because you're the product, not the customer - and you're worth more to them
the more they know about you, your habits, your inclinations etc..

~~~
Dewie
Thought experiment: let's say that anonymity was such an important thing to
the average Google user that they would decide to use alternatives if they
felt that their anonymity outside of their Google account was being
compromised. Could Google know enough information about you to correlate data
over a lot of your activities and preferences, but still make it so that you
yourself are anonymous to them and the outside world (with a high degree of
certainty)? If we are not their _products_ , then do they really need to know
enough information about _us_ to actually make a profile that is matched to
our real identities?

Obvious problems are, for example if they know enough stats about your
physical description to pinpoint you pretty accurately, and they also know
where you live, and there are only 10 other people that live in that place.
Even if they don't actively try to deduce your identity, it is very easy to do
so with the available information.

~~~
lazyjones
> _f we are not their products, then do they really need to know enough
> information about us to actually make a profile that is matched to our real
> identities?_

Yes, because they can get more information about you from other sources using
your real name.

------
VLM
The original article is a good solution to a small subset of the problems, as
relates to this direct quote "With this no one is risking real-life
relationships"

The problem is the somewhat larger set of problems containing that subset, and
also containing people perfectly willing to risk one of those apparently hated
"real-life relationships". Not talking about dating although that's an obvious
example.

One big problem is this whole topic in general is rife with people analyzing
their own situation and declaring their individual solution to be the
universal solution for all. One specific example of this, is looking at my
paragraph above, individuals are going to categorize different groups as
requiring, or not requiring, anonymity in a mostly unpredictable distribution.

The other problem is WRT "Pictures of Stolen Pets content" that the author
makes fun of, he needs to talk to actual users of the network, and examine the
above paragraph. I find it as boring as the author; however I know a lot of
people occasionally enjoy a calming, simple, meaningless experience. It
doesn't all have to be Shakespeare to be enjoyable, and setting the bar very
high is probably an excellent way to repel most of the casual users. The
advertisers and attention addicts are not going to like that, so if the
casuals leave, they'll leave. Which results in an empty service. How to work
around this spiral failure mode is unclear to me.

------
thewarrior
Well Quora does this. You can go anonymous for some answers. So is Quora the
next big thing ?

------
6ren
Not necessarily - if you verify your account with (your real) email, that can
be used to connect to the rest of your network.

I don't believe reddit is doing this right now... but the future is long.

(Of course, you can simply not verify, or use a fake email.)

~~~
astrobe_
Yes, indeed. I started to build my digital safe ~20 years ago ex nihilo. I
think it's still possible today. Build a second identity with which you can
really speak your mind. The funny thing is that your "real name" identity is,
as the OP points out, a bit less representative of your real-self than your
"fake name" identity.

------
lutusp
A quote: "For some reason big companies are really into real names."

Yes, and increasingly so. The reason? People are forced to be more serious as
well as more polite in their comments if they must post under their real
names. The primary reason for the juvenile atmosphere in many Reddit threads
is the fact that contributors mostly post anonymously.

Huffington Post recently changed its policy, now requiring commenters to post
under their real names:

[http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/22/tech/web/huffington-post-
anony...](http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/22/tech/web/huffington-post-anonymous-
comments)

Quote: "Arianna Huffington is fed up with the trolls."

Well put. I've been posting under my real name since the days of Usenet,
twenty years ago, when anonymous posting was almost universal. Now it seems
the rest of the world is catching up.

~~~
throwaway2048
Sorry, but the idea that real name policies are all about improving discourse
is nothing but a load of self serving bullshit from the companies that push
it. They (and their advertisers) stand to benefit massively the easier people
are identified and profiled.

~~~
ars
Tell me something - would you say the sentence exactly like that in person?
(Not to close friends, but people you only sort-of know.)

Or would you tone it down a bit? I hope you get my point.

~~~
fosap
I'm not the person you addressed, but I would. And just a single glimpse at
facebook (or twitter or a newspaper comment column) shows people will show
horrible, socially absolutely unacceptable behavior on the internet, even if
their real name is attaced. I think facebook has worse manners than reddit.
The believe that real names would increase the quality of the content or the
manners is IMO back up by nothing but wishful thinking.

------
jeanbebe
There is a place in the market for anonymous social networks. Checkout racut.
(racut.com)

From the site -

racut is designed so you can be anonymous as you want. Choose a profile
picture, craft a witty bio, and you're on your way.

You don't have to tell us where you went to school, what your favorite color
is and if you're in a relationship.

------
vph
It's a bit naive to think Facebook doesn't care about people. Broadly
speaking, there are introverts and there are extroverts. Introverts love
Reddit, 4Chan, etc. for their anonymity. Extroverts love Facebook, Twitter,
etc. And those in the middle belong to both.

------
Mahn
How about we let Reddit be Reddit and facebook be facebook?

------
idexterous
And it has "downvote" button

~~~
smtddr
So does HN, but you need 500 Karma before the downvote button appears.

~~~
adamnemecek
I'm assuming that he's comparing it with FB.

------
shmerl
So does Diaspora.

------
amerika_blog
Without trolls, the internet would be a barren place.

Oh wait, maybe not :)

------
ghostdiver
Anonymity is for geeks

------
yuhong
I am not a fan of real name policies, but anonymity should not be a long term
solution if possible. Better solutions should be sought.

~~~
bandushrew
You can take my online anonymity when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.

With a few very carefully selected exceptions, there is absolutely no upside
for me in being recognised online, and there is a _lot_ of possible downside -
from being 'targeted' for advertising, to having my habits tracked, to being
hounded and hunted in real life by people who have nothing better to do.

All the reasons for wanting to take my anonymity away come from people who
have something to gain by doing so.

I do get it - you would rather not have anonymous people posting on your
website, fine. You get paid more if you can provide identified 'consumers',
thats awesome.

Nothing in it for me though.

~~~
rtpg
you seem to feel strongly about it, so I'll ask you: what's the downside to
targeted advertising? I've honestly never figured it out, and honestly if I'm
going to have ads shoved in my face, I like it better when it's for things I
might actually want.

Not trying to be snarky

~~~
bandushrew
There are a bunch of things, lets see whether I can summarize them:

(1) I dont want to be advertised to at all, if I want something - I will go
looking.

(2) I dont want my browsing habits in the hands of third parties, they should
be between me, the browser and the remote server. Its creepy.

(3) Targeted advertising doesn't work - having crossed the rubicon, invaded my
privacy, tracked my habits and carefully curated the extensive data they have
collected on me - they then advertise something to me that is almost, but not
quite, exactly unlike anything I need or want to buy.

(BTW, 90% of the 'targeted' advertising isn't targeted at all, because
limiting the number of people who see my ad based on my guess at their needs
and preferences is just dumb. Its WAY better to advertise to everyone and let
them sort it all out.)

------
arikrak
One of the reasons Facebook beat MySpace was because Facebook insisted on
real-names.

(See Quora for more discussion [http://www.quora.com/Facebook-1/Why-did-
Facebook-succeed-whe...](http://www.quora.com/Facebook-1/Why-did-Facebook-
succeed-where-MySpace-and-Friendster-did-not) )

~~~
RandyRanderson
So you have to login to fb or g+ to see this... hilarious!

