

Hacker News and pseudonymity - bootload
http://geekfeminism.org/2010/06/10/hacker-news-and-pseudonymity/

======
TomOfTTB
As crazy as it sounds I’d actually like to make the case for a lack of
civility.

Civility is an artificial construct designed to preserve personal
relationships. You want to say ‘X’ but instead you say ‘Y’ because your
relationship with the person in the conversation is as important to you as the
ideas being exchanged.

But HN isn’t necessarily like that. HN is supposed to be about the ideas
themselves. So as long as someone’s expressing actual ideas (as opposed to ad
hominem insults) I’m not sure I see the need for civility.

Moreover there’s a reason not to have it. When I post on HN I’m trying to
convince people to adopt my opinion. Knowing how passionate people are about
the opinions that oppose mine is a helpful in formulating a strategy to defend
my own thoughts. It’s an indicator of not only how ingrained the opposing
ideas are but also tends to give insight on whether the opposing ideas are
based on rationality or emotion.

So the vitriol actually serves a purpose that civility does not.

I realize a lack of civility can chase some people away and that’s probably
the only good argument for it. But if we all just got over it and accepted the
internet as an uncivilized place I think we’d be taking a step forward in the
exchange of ideas.

~~~
frossie
The problem with vitriol is that it becomes performance art. A review trashing
a movie is a lot more entertaining than a civil one; but people can forget
that the real issue is how to see a good movie.

Why should I be more likely to adopt your opinion because you are driven to
anger to express it? I don't know you. Your anger holds no reference point for
me and therefore is of little value. Your best way to convince me is to make
sense.

Exchange of ideas is hardly incompatible with civil discourse.

~~~
dejb
In the case of HN I don't see a problem with vitriol being rewarded more than
politeness. Generally it seems there is already a strong bias towards civility
in terms of voting. Just as insults don't add to the discussion neither does
apologising for merely disagreeing with a point of view.

------
ugh
You know those discussions you sometimes have in the evening with friends?
Confidentiality is implied when having them. Google makes it hard to make that
happen on the web as soon as your real name is attached. You need anonymity if
you want to make that happen.

That’s my case for anonymity.

~~~
jasonlotito
How does that apply to a place like HN? What's the common case for anonymity
here? Sure, I'll accept the occasional exception, but what's the benefit for
anonymity?

~~~
HeyLaughingBoy
I have a pretty uncommon name. Google reveals a total of about six people
online with the same first & last names. For the most part, I don't care if
people know who I am, but I occasionally make statements that I may not want
my employer knowing about and I really don't want to have to watch everything
I say.

\----

As an aside: I'm not big on meta posts, but would you guys stop downvoting
jasonlotito, please!!! Whether or not you agree with him, he is asking
intelligent questions and is furthering the discussion. Your downvotes are
actually inhibiting the process.

~~~
Qz
I'm in the same boat. Near as I can tell I am the only person with my first
and last names. If you put just my first name into facebook's search box I am
one of only two people that show up. Googling first-and-last returns only me.

------
by
I restate a previous comment I made on the subject which agrees with this
position.

This article

<http://www.computorney.com/anonarticle.htm>

concludes that "anonymity in cyberspace is a fundamental underpinning of
democracy".

In 1995 the Supreme Court struck down an Ohio law that required the disclosure
of personal identity on political literature.

[http://lcs.www.media.mit.edu/people/foner/Essays/Civil-
Liber...](http://lcs.www.media.mit.edu/people/foner/Essays/Civil-
Liberties/Project/supreme-court-upholds-anonymity.html)

~~~
billswift
But that is a political point (which I agree with by the way) that has no
bearing on whether it would be beneficial for HN or any other particular forum
to ban anonymity.

------
alextgordon
And how exactly would you "verify" someone's name anyway? Ask them to scan in
their passport? I doubt many, least of all here, would transmit sensitive
documents to a website just so they could register an account.

~~~
gizmo
Typically via creditcard. Pay a symbolic amount (e.g. $5) to create an
account, allow at most 1 account per credit card.

I don't like the idea of verified accounts either, but if that's the price we
have to pay to keep our discussions civilized I'm okay with it.

~~~
younata
Personally, I'm of the opinion that we downvote comments that aren't
civilized. I think that has proven to work fairly well.

~~~
jasonlotito
Flag uncivil comments. Downvotes should be applied to comments that don't add
anything to a discussion. Never downvote because you disagree. If you respond
to a comment, upvote the previous comment, as whatever it said sparked you to
add something, which is hopefully constructive.

That's my take on comments, flags, and upvotes.

------
drtse4
Sorry if i'm going a "bit" off-topic, see disclaimer at the end. Remove
pseudonyms to improve accountability and quality of comments... it doesn't
work that way on the internet, anyone could use a fake name and the only one
that care about accountability are the one that have been treated harshly (in
their opinion). No correlation to quality exists imo.

And i agree, using pseudonyms is the only way to maintain confidentiality when
for example you want what you say to remain inside a certain community. In my
case, while i have no problem with the HNers knowing who i am (and would be
also quite happy to meet some of you), i don't see why someone googling my
name should know that i post here, none of their business.

Disclaimer: I skipped the original "scary job hoppers/HN lack of
civility/untested ideas to improve civility" querelle, because not being
american i don't have a clear view of the job market there and discussion
about lack of civility turn out to be pretty useless usually ("it's the
internet,baby." it's usually the conclusion). Now i've spent 20 min or so
reading marks' posts and some comment here... What i can add 10 days or so
later? Not much :)

Generalizing in that way/posting useless rant will always attract a lot of
angry comments, it's correct and it's also to be expected. And no, there is
definately no loack of civility on HN. Philk sums it up in a good way in his
post: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1401113>

------
bootload
Response to _"Some Tips to Improve the Civility on Hacker News"_ ~
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1400867>

------
brianwillis
Since switching to using my real name on Hacker News my comments have:

1) Gone down in quantity.

2) Taken longer to write, as I think harder before pressing the "add comment"
button.

3) Become more "sterile" for lack of a better word.

4) Frequently been abandoned.

There's two sides to this argument. On one hand, I'm reluctant to express
half-formed opinions that could potentially make for interesting discussion,
because I don't always want to be judged against those opinions for the rest
of my life. On the other, is the wisdom of XKCD 137 (<http://xkcd.com/137/>).

------
Jun8
I thought _I_ was getting the raw end when people downvoted like crazy my
posts about Facebook, sort of defending them in the latest privacy debacle.
People send personal hate mails on HN?

------
fleitz
"A site which requires real/verified names is automatically flagging itself as
a potentially/probably unsafe space for women, or for anyone else at risk of
harassment, violence, job discrimination, and the like."

Facebook seems to be doing fine with pseudo requiring real names. I haven't
seen any data indicating that Facebook has increased the number of victims of
violence.

I know it's not popular to think this way but statistically you're far more
likely to be victimized by someone you know rather than random person from the
internets. Most people who have the resources to fly across the country to
victimize someone have better things to do with their life. However, I still
worry about Jay and Silent Bob showing up at my door at any moment.

The problem is that guy gets beat up by forum poster is far more newsworthy
than guy gets beat up at bar. And thus we optimize our risk profile around the
uncommon.

~~~
mattdw
> _Facebook seems to be doing fine with pseudo requiring real names. I haven't
> seen any data indicating that Facebook has increased the number of victims
> of violence._

Of course, Facebook gives everyone access controls - and witness the fuss when
the boundary shifts between private and public. I would assume the piece you
quote above is referring to public and/or open online spaces.

And yes, you _are_ more likely to be victimized by someone you're acquainted
with - but that doesn't mean they'll already know the information now tied to
your real name.

(See also current problems with adopted kids being contacted on Facebook by
birth parents who, in many cases, are legally supposed to have no contact with
them.)

------
RiderOfGiraffes
Much of the discussion here is about how you should be judged by what you
write, not how you write it. I thought I'd mention an experiment I ran across
a while ago.

<http://neil.fraser.name/news/2005/08/20/>

------
mtkd
I anticipate these very same arguments will be used very soon by western
governments.

------
c00p3r
Pseudonyms are good for a various reasons. Most of people, for example, are
biased towards foreign names or a certain nations, even if they don't aware of
it.

Also, some people may be biased towards their own natives (because of
remarkable combination of ignorance, selfishness and nationalism) or whatever,
and a nickname helps them to feel like a some sort of a different person.
Everyone are playing their games anyway. =)

And, last but not least, exposing real names in a content which will be
indexed by google is not a good idea for various reasons. Someone may don't
like to show up or broadcast his presence on a certain site.

