
The Real Name Fallacy - maxt
https://blog.coralproject.net/the-real-name-fallacy/
======
vog
The real name discussion is as old as the Usenet, maybe even older. I find it
strange to see it re-appearing again and again every few years for almost
decades.

Back then, the consensus was roughly:

1\. If a community accepts pseudonyms, it is polite to use either your
realname or an obvious pseudonym.

2\. If a community places high value on realnames, either use your realname or
a realname-sounding (i.e. non-obvious) pseudonym.

3\. Unmasking someone's nonpublic realname, or other private information, is
generally considered impolite if not aggressive, regardless whether the
community places high value on realnames or not.

Has anything substantially changed since then?

~~~
stupidcar
Yes.

People using real names on Usenet did not usually face a serious risk of being
harassed and endangered in real life by an army of trolls: E.g. having their
address, phone number and other private details stolen and publicly
disseminated. Having armed police raid their house because someone has made a
bogus 911 call. Having their utilities and back accounts cancelled because
someone rang up using their details. Having the same harassment happen to
their friends, relatives and colleagues. Etc.

And this is without considering people living in countries with oppressive
governments, where using their real name could see them arrested, beaten and
imprisoned.

Basically, the stakes are a lot higher for a lot of people. For many,
preserving anonymity isn't a matter of "politeness" — it's a matter of
personal security. It can literally be a matter of life and death.

~~~
pc86
If you could die using your real name on an internet service, you are much
better off not using that service at all, _especially_ if they require that
you use your real name.

Use of a particular service or website is not a human right. If your
particular situation is such that it's unsafe or you need to violate
TOS/regulations/laws by using a service... don't.

~~~
virgil_disgr4ce
> If you could die using your real name on an internet service, you are much
> better off not using that service at all

Classic. "I'm not at risk, so we need not change anything. Your behavior is
therefore at fault."

> Use of a particular service or website is not a human right.

Of course not. Would you say that being able to freely live your life without
threat of death (as you most likely already do) should be?

Allow me to extend your conclusion:

\- People harass me at the laundromat because of my appearance, to the point
where I fear for my life. "Don't go to that laundromat ever again." OK, I'll
now have to go 30 minutes out of my way every time I need to do laundry. And
suppose that this other laundromat is no different?

\- People shout threats at me at the grocery store. "Don't go to that grocery
store." Or, better yet, maybe I should just perfectly change the color of my
skin and facial features to match theirs, so that the problem is solved!

I know you guys are going to hate this, but this attitude is _precisely_ what
is meant by "white privilege." Please let me know if I am misunderstanding
your attitude, or what you think about this.

~~~
pc86
> _Classic. "I'm not at risk, so we need not change anything. Your behavior is
> therefore at fault."_

I'm sure you meant to say "Classic strawman:" because that's not at all what I
said, or meant. Please actually respond to what I said and not whatever
argument you heard other people make.

I think it's demonstrably true that if using Facebook is an acute risk to your
life, you are better off not using. That doesn't mean you're _at fault_ if you
use it and someone kills you. But it doesn't mean that Facebook needs to
change its real name policy. It means you need to weight the pros and cons of
why you want to use Facebook and why using it could get you killed, and
whether you're willing to risk that.

> _Would you say that being able to freely live your life without threat of
> death (as you most likely already do) should be?_

Yes.

But that doesn't mean that it's a right to do things that could engender
threats to your life. A Tutsi has an inalienable right to live in Rwanda
without fear of persecution or death. A Tutsi does _not_ have an inalienable
right to use Facebook (nor does anyone). If you're a Rwandan Tutsi, and you
use Facebook, you should understand the risks. You _should_ be able to use
Facebook without fear or persecution or death but it's not a right any more
than it's a right to have an email address or drive a particular type of car
or eat a certain food on a certain day.

They're separate issues and it's Facebook's decision whether or not they want
to require real names. To make that the issue ignores the fact that people are
being killed because of their beliefs, or because they're transgender, or
whatever the actual problem is.

> _People harass me at the laundromat because of my appearance, to the point
> where I fear for my life. "Don't go to that laundromat ever again."_

Well no, my response would be "Call the police." There are a lot of things
that could happen from there. If it's actually harassment and the police
address it, potentially problem solved. If it's actually harassment and police
do nothing, that's a related but separate issue, and yes I would say that not
going there again is the smart move. You have a right not to be killed and you
have a right to wash your clothes but you don't have a right to wash your
clothes in that specific laundromat at that specific time.

If it's not actually harassment then it depends what's actually happening. A
group of teenagers pointing at laughing at you is uncomfortable and wrong but
probably not harassment. A group of rough looking guys in a bad part of town
staring at you will make most people feel uncomfortable but is also not
harassment.

> _People shout threats at me at the grocery store. "Don't go to that grocery
> store."_

Call the police.

> _this attitude is precisely what is meant by "white privilege."_

I know you are going to hate this, but why is it the first person to bring up
race is usually someone saying that something is offensive or privilege? I
tend to agree that a certain level of privilege exists in the world and some
of it has to do with race but Facebook's real name policy is a piss poor
example of it.

~~~
ubernostrum
_Call the police._

Call the _police_? You don't have enough proof, and shouting death threats at
people isn't "harassment" anyway, it's just "free speech", so just grow a
thicker skin already, and stop encouraging the death threats to be sent to you
by being out in public like that!

 _You have a right not to be killed and you have a right to wash your clothes
but you don 't have a right to wash your clothes in that specific laundromat
at that specific time._

Nice how you seem to have started to realize your logical conclusion was "but
you don't have a right to wash your clothes without the threat of being
killed", but tried to avoid it.

 _I know you are going to hate this, but why is it the first person to bring
up race is usually someone saying that something is offensive or privilege?_

A while back I criticized the "politics" "detox" on HN by saying that there
are a lot of people who don't have the luxury of just saying "I'm tired of all
this, I'll take a week off from it". They don't have that luxury because
they're going to be bombarded with hate, and probably harassment and threats,
no matter what they do.

Meanwhile there are a lot of other people who _can_ simply take a week off:
they _don 't_ face that constant bombardment, nobody will try to follow them
around and keep forcibly exposing them to it, etc. This is what's meant by
"privilege"; the people who can treat this as just something tiresome which
can be safely ignored for a week are fundamentally living in a different world
than the people who will be followed and threatened by it no matter what
(because, let's face it, there are dedicated ragemobs out there which don't
care if somebody stops reading one site, or going to one laundromat -- they'll
track down phone numbers and home addresses and keep coming).

Getting the people who "take a week off" to understand that this is something
unique to them as a class, something that others can't just do whenever they
want, something that really is a luxury compared to the way others are forced
by our society to live, is often very difficult, because when you live in that
protected bubble you often are completely unaware of its existence. _You_
don't face that kind of treatment, after all, and you think of yourself as
average, so on average that kind of thing must be very rare or perhaps greatly
exaggerated. Dragging people out of that bubble and making them confront the
fact that no, it's not rare and no, it's not exaggerated (if anything, it's
often understated), and yes, there are very clear patterns, based heavily in
race and gender, which consistently appear to determine who gets the luxury of
the bubble and who doesn't, is very hard, but necessary.

~~~
logfromblammo
I'd say that everybody has a natural right to not fear malicious harm while
engaging in any form of everyday commerce or public discourse.

In situations like the hypotheticals described, I would also say that the
local authorities have lost their mandate to govern, and that those subject to
the adverse conditions are ethically justified in securing their own safety by
any means at their disposal, including against those (former) local
authorities, if necessary, _while still engaging in everyday commerce and
public discourse_. Making everyone stay home to stay safe is not an acceptable
option. Living your life is more than just avoiding an untimely death.

You _do_ have the right to do business at a laundromat without the threat of
being killed, but it is not the owner of the laundromat that has the ultimate
duty to provide the illusion of physical security there. If a state exists, it
is the state's duty to make you feel safe anywhere in public, provided that
you do not yourself act unlawfully.

No government upholds that duty perfectly, however, so a certain measure of
responsibility for one's personal safety will _always_ fall upon the
individual. And in order to safeguard the benefits of trade, a certain measure
will always fall upon the business owner who wishes to keep their customers
(and unpurchased property).

Facebook has chosen, perhaps wrongly, to implement its policies such that it
is easier (and cheaper) to hold misbehaving individuals accountable after the
fact than to protect innocents from misbehavior before it happens. This is a
business decision, and it reveals by its failures that state authorities are
not effectively investigating and prosecuting criminal harassment to the
extent necessary to make people feel safe, and in the worst cases, it is the
state authorities themselves that are harassing identifiable individuals.

~~~
adrienne
In fact, in the United States of America, the Supreme Court has ruled _several
times_ that police do not have a duty to protect citizens from crimes. For
instance: [http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-
pol...](http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-
not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html)

~~~
logfromblammo
Quoting from a cousin post that I wrote:

> _The police aren 't there to protect_ you, specifically. _They are paid to_
> enforce the law, _as directed by their superiors._

Those people who say " _Just call the police._ " have likely never _actually_
called the police (in the US).

~~~
adrienne
Yup. Agreed. Wasn't specifically replying to you, but to the "call the police"
people.

------
CM30
I think this is probably the key takeaway from the article here:

> Designers need to acknowledge that design cannot solve harassment and other
> social problems on its own.

Trying to remove anonymity will not 'fix' trolling and harassment. After all,
a lot of people simply don't care what others think of them, know they're too
far away to be affected (in most cases) or just have nothing to lose to begin
with.

What can 'fix' trolling is evenhanded, firm moderation of a community site.
There are tons of forums and wikis and other such sites out there which do
well here, because they simply lay out clear rules for participation and ban
people for being scumbags and breaking said rules.

Facebook and Twitter struggle with this, partly because it's impractical to
manually moderate a site with so many users and partly because their model
doesn't really allow it. And maybe in part because they're very clearly
inconsistent with who gets banned for saying what (like say, banning more
conservative accounts than liberal accounts for trolling). Which itself
undermines confidence in the site's rules.

So yeah, the key to an online community without harassment isn't removing
anonymity, it's having clear rules in that place and enforcing them equally
regardless of a member's status or political views.

~~~
syshum
>Trying to remove anonymity will not 'fix' trolling and harassment. After all,
a lot of people simply don't care what others think of them, know they're too
far away to be affected (in most cases) or just have nothing to lose to begin
with.

While that is true, many times what person A considers to be harassment, the
person that is harassing them does not consider it to be harassment at all.

This is not to say the person is not being harassed, although I have seen many
examples of people claiming to have been "harassed" but when I view the
twitter history for example I do not consider it to be harassment. That said
often abusers do not self identify as abusers for example a Wife beater does
not believe they are abusing their victim.

>>Facebook and Twitter struggle with this, partly because it's impractical to
manually moderate a site with so many users and partly because their model
doesn't really allow it.

Facebook and Twitter struggle with this because they refuse to create the
clear rules for participation you stated other sites do. They proclaim to be
"Free Speech" platforms welcome to "All Ideas and discussion" while creating
mushy and lose rules that are highly subjective and makes enforcing those
rules problematic.

Where as the sites you describe are normally subject matter sites so it is
somewhat easier to define a more ridged rule set.

Facebook, twitter, and to a lesser extent Reddits problem is it impossible to
be both a "Free Speech" platform and a censor... These are mutually exclusive
concepts

~~~
CM30
Reddit definitely suffers from the free speech and social acceptableness
clash. That's in part because the site was founded specifically on the
assumption that it would allow freedom of speech, without realising that
'true' freedom of speech is basically 'anything goes if it's legal, social
norms and rules be damned'.

It's why they're struggling with communities like The Donald and had a lot of
previous issues with the likes of Fat People Hate. Because they realised that
their original philosophy doesn't really scale well and puts off more
'moderate' users, yet also realise a large portion of their audience joined on
the promise of freedom of speech and go ballistic if things get censored.

~~~
syshum
Reddit suffers because people in general do not believe freedom of speech is a
right.

I disliked the Fat People Hate subreddit, you know what I did... I did not
visit the Fat People Hate subreddit.

The communities I join and participate in on Reddit are moderated well and do
not suffer from the problem, if you do not like what is talked about on The
Donald, don't go there, not that hard.

The problem is people do go, get "offended" then complain or raise hell
because the mere existence of speech they dislike is what they want to end.
This is not Freedom of Speech, but censorship.

Reddits Original model is the correct one, Allow Communities to form on the
platform, and if people do not like the content of those communities they can
unsubscribe, or avoid them.

~~~
CM30
I agree with you here.

However, Reddit and similar platforms usually can't operate under this logic.
Why? Because they need to make money to stay online/keep operating. And
unfortunately, that means content that alienates advertisers (like a lot of
the more controversial subreddits) ends up actively hurting their revenue
stream.

They could try and get round this by monetising in other ways (micropayments,
subscriptions, purely donations, etc) or by looking for ad networks with real
low standards, but those methods likely wouldn't pay enough to keep them
afloat.

It's why in the long run, I suspect the answer to the problem isn't a
centralised platform that hosts a lot of different communities, but a system
that connects individually hosted communities into a 'network' of sorts with
similar features to Reddit.

That way, you can have both controversial and non controversial 'subreddits',
with the latter paying their own hosting bills and the former either doing the
same thing or getting subsidised hosting by the network owner.

It also shuts down any future attempts at censorship by not giving the company
running the service any way to edit what happens on any one community.

~~~
syshum
This is one of the problems with Standards vs Platforms

Usenet vs Reddit

IRC vs Slack/Twitter

etc

I believe the internet is harmed by these Platforms in general and we should
go back to Decentralized Standards for communications vs For profit Platforms

------
wfunction
Thing is, if I had to guess, I would say Facebook doesn't attempt to make you
use your real name to make the community better in the first place. That's
almost certainly just its pretext for everyone who's willing to fall for it.
Most likely, it does that to make sure it can identify you globally and
uniquely for commercial/advertising purposes. Think about how much more
valuable your online identity is if you go solely by Jon Doe rather than by
foolover123, bar456fudger, and nighthowler789?

~~~
blauditore
I doubt this, since Facebook doesn't seem to care much about fantasy names.

They get most interest data about you from within FB (what pages and posts you
like etc.) and from pages across the internet you visit through like buttons
embedded there (even without clicking them). So there's a lot of relevant meta
data directly linked to your account and no need for them to know your real
name.

~~~
thanatropism
Last time I tried to create an alt account they insisted on a phone number,
though.

~~~
blauditore
That's more about uniqueness than using your real name.

Spam and fraud accounts are a rather big problem, and this is one way of
raising the barrier for creating those. And yeah, Facebook surely has other
motivation too, like not having your metadata scattered across multiple
accounts.

But I still don't see how knowing your real name would make a strong
difference to them. I have quite a few FB friends that use obvious fantasy
names (mostly for privacy reasons I think), and they don't seem to be banned
or forced to change it.

~~~
mattnewton
As other people and myself have said elsewhere, they buy information from many
personal information brokers, and this data (presumably) wants a real name to
be linked. They can't know that fake names are fake in all instances (and have
gotten a lot of backlash by trying to do so), but there real name policy would
have a real effect on their ability to link offline data to your online
profile so they can better sell your eyeballs to advertisers.

------
Phait
I think that this overall push towards eliminating anonimity and trolls from
the internet can only have negative outcomes. Sure, nobody will ever be
offended again, but at what cost? And who are these easily offended people for
whom we're sacrificing freedom of speech?

It baffles me how nobody sees a parallel with 1984, here, and it's not the
usual cliche claim. From: >do not say anything against someone To: >do not
think anything against someone The step is incredibly short.

Moreover, how are we supposed to have true bipartisan information if we can
only see one side of the coin because the other one would require to talk bad
about someone?

I can see every dictator of the world smiling, as proposals like this are
being considered throughout the world.

~~~
Cthulhu_
Nobody's claiming that nobody will ever be offended again (straw man); the
idea / theory is that by using real name, there'd be less anonymous trolling.

Offense might become even worse when it's not done anonymously though. Then it
becomes a real person kicking a target's shins. Can be good (the argument
improving, becoming more of a critique than just brainless insulting), can be
bad (the offender not giving a fuck).

Linus has been offending people for a long time without using a pseudonym. But
he knows what he's talking about, and is not ashamed of himself for the
language he uses / has used.

~~~
type0
> the idea / theory is that by using real name, there'd be less anonymous
> trolling.

> Offense might become even worse when it's not done anonymously though. Then
> it becomes a real person kicking a target's shins.

If you completely ban pseudonyms, the trolls will just impersonate other
people. The effect is that it will be even more harmful for personal well-
being for both those who get trolled and those who get to be impersonated.

------
syphilis2
One of the great benefits from an online alias is being able to build
relationships in a community while retaining the ability to cease (and resume)
that contact at any time. The alias may as well represent its own individual,
with minimal risk to the underlying user(s) as to its reputation. It's a huge
relief and a boon to expression to be able to communicate without worrying
about the reputation of a sole "real name".

~~~
Twisell
And this is actually even more reflecting of real life interactions. In all
the activity circles you go IRL most of your acquaintances know only your
first name.

Only people you really bond with usually known your last name.

So why on earth should every person you talk to online should be provided your
full name and possibly start stalking you?

~~~
doppel
Taken even further, even in real life you are likely to have different circles
of friends and colleagues - it is likely that you behave differently for each
group (knowingly or unknowingly), because they each have an established way of
behaving, mannerisms, etc. Just think of an inappropriate joke that one group
might find hilarious and another would be appalled by.

The internet is no different, except we are now expected to behave in a
singular way in a group conversation of 500 people.

------
rocky1138
The internet was better when we were all anonymous. It felt like we could do
anything, be anyone. The world was ours.

Then social media came and destroyed that dream.

Consider the difference in mood between the idea of creating a metaverse in
the 90s/00s to creating one now.

One is the freeing experience of Second Life or Active Worlds and the other is
that widely circulated image of a large crowd, all wearing GearVR headsets
while Mark Zuckerberg strolls past[1].

[1]
[http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/02/22/16/3173A1BA0000057...](http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/02/22/16/3173A1BA00000578-0-image-a-4_1456157766857.jpg)

------
Pica_soO
The Real Name Fallacy is social nostalgia- if we all could go back to the
village, then everything would be good?

The solution for this and fake news, would be chains of trust. I do not trust
my government, i do not trust my media, but i know two or three guys, i would
trust too know. If these guys vouched for the guys vouching for the knowledge
i see to be true, i would trust that.

In return, i can fade the crack-pots opinions with a filter, based upon a
similar chain of trust.

But this system would need to be decentralized, it would need to allow to
withdraw this trust in an instant. Centralize this, and the inherent distrust
breaks free time after time again.

~~~
vog
_> But this system would need to be decentralized_

Back in the times of Usenet, this already existed: The client-side (hence
decentral) "Scorefile" and "Killfile".

~~~
NoGravitas
I so often wish that web fora, social media, etc., all worked on a common
protocol like a modernized Usenet so that we could use our choice of clients
and have useful features like scorefiles.

So much ink has been spilled about how Facebook's algorithm chooses what to
show you, but imagine having complete control on the client side over both the
algorithm, and the parameters tuning it. We used to have this, the only thing
stopping it now is bad incentives.

~~~
marcosdumay
That's RSS.

Too bad it was a mess of half-articles, intro paragraphs, fake submissions,
and a very rare full article mixed in there somewhere.

~~~
vog
Although there is some truth in this, this is not the full picture.

I believe that Usenet has been replaced mainly by mailing lists, not by blogs.

Having long-text conversations through blogs is possible, but mailing lists
and (what's left of the) Usenet are better suited - the same way as IRC and
instant messangers are better suited for chats than email, although you could
chat via email as well.

------
aestetix
Been at this battle for a few years. Check out
[https://nymrights.org/](https://nymrights.org/) (and
[https://nymrights.org/nymrights-info-flyer/](https://nymrights.org/nymrights-
info-flyer/) for the info flyer)

------
some1else
Facebook hate groups are real (anti-immigrant, anti-lgbt, ...). They're
getting better at skirting the rules, so there's no way to disband them. I'm
seeing dozens of such groups form for a country with a population of ~2
million (Slovenia). I think the mentality those bubbles breed is even more
dangerous than Twitter harassment. Instead of manifesting itself in bullying
and conflict, it's nurturing the different flavours of toxicity in nicely
compartmentalised jars.

I can't agree with the author's statement, that design itself is not primarily
responsible for a solution, as it is instrumental in enabling such an
environment in the first place.

~~~
Cthulhu_
And being anti-immigrant or anti-LGBT is their right; it's freedom of speech,
which extends to freedom to hate. Lots of people hate Trump, that's their
right to have. There's a line drawn when it becomes harassment or incitement
to violence (then they veer towards becoming a terrorist organization).

~~~
hashmal
I feel like today this freedom profits more to awful people than to the good
of society.

~~~
CM30
Well not really. Freedom of speech is meant to protect all views, including
those other people might find wrong, abhorrent or against social norms. This
can easily be both a 'good' (in the case of say, a pro gays right campaigner
in a conservative theocracy) or 'bad' (in the case of a Neo Nazi in Germany)
thing.

But your view kind of sums up in a nutshell why freedom of speech is a hard
battle. Because it's all too easy to only see 'horrible' people and views
benefiting due to them being the type of views people would want to ban if
freedom of speech didn't exist.

It's the same kind of problem Tor advocates have when arguing that privacy and
anonymity are rights people should have. Because people only see the drugs,
crime and illegal porn and think that privacy is only something 'bad' people
need.

Either way, both freedom of speech and privacy benefit everywhere, yet get a
bad rep due to people only seeing the negatives they allow rather than the
people and rights they may save.

~~~
DanBC
> Freedom of speech is meant to protect all views,

Too often one person's freedom of speech is a megaphone used to drown out some
marginalised group.

[http://imgur.com/a/LKiRU](http://imgur.com/a/LKiRU)

~~~
Chris2048
Freedom of speech concerns censorship, it doesn't guarantee an audience, and
doesn't mean anyone can be forced to listen.

Do you have examples of freedom of speech used to disproportionately drown out
opposing views, i.e. "marginalis[ation]"?

------
lisper
Here's a data point: I was working at JPL when it instituted an internal
usenet newsgroup (this was the mid-90s) for discussing work-related issues. It
was initially anonymous to encourage people to speak frankly. Almost
immediately it devolved into a cesspool of insults and epithets. It was my
first experience with this phenomenon, and at the time I was shocked by it.
(Nowadays, of course, this sort of thing is just business and usual on the
internet.)

After a month or two it got so bad that management decided to remove the
anonymity. The tone of the group changed literally overnight, and people
started behaving in a civil manner. The sad fact of the matter is that if you
want human beings to behave, you have to be able to hold them accountable.

~~~
ameister14
There is also a difference between anonymity where no profile or pseudo-
identity is created and one where you have an identity that you carry with you
as you use a service or forum.

~~~
lisper
True. The JPL forum was anonymous, not pseudonymous (which made it very
confusing in addition to being a civility train wreck). Pseudonyms offer some
limited accountability because it allows people to ignore postings from a
particular source. But you still need some enforcement. For example, there has
to be some sort of cost associated with creating a new pseudonym, otherwise
trolls will just keep creating new ones.

------
teddyh
_Who is harmed by a "Real Names" policy?_

[http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Who_is_harmed_by_a_%22Rea...](http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Who_is_harmed_by_a_%22Real_Names%22_policy%3F)

------
tscs37
Real Names on the internet only create problems and the things it intends to
solve get shoved into a backroom and forgotten about.

Moderating the content is far more effective if done right. It's probably a
bit like IT security and should be thought of as such.

Real names are something you _can_ do but it's most likely on the same level
as whitelisting programs and hotglue-ing all unused ports shut. Even with all
that, a determined hacker will just use the office copier and the installed
OCR Text Recognition to infiltrate a microsoft office script. (DEFCON talk
that I recommend to watch).

There is no 100% safety from trolls and every defense measure also hurts legit
users in some way.

TL;DR Know your threat level. Real Names are not necessarily the thing you
want and most likely are very rarely and still won't be 100%.

------
ChrisNorstrom
I really don't want to say this but, the real names policy does help in terms
of trolling behavior for certain communities. When TechCrunch switched over
from Disqus to Facebook comments, the amount of trash and trolling was
immediately reduced and stayed at a minimum permanently. A lot of the media
outlets (Motherboard, Vice, NPR) who've disabled commenting altogether were
using Disqus. I've noticed media outlets that use Facebook comments seem to
still have commenting turned on.

I know anonymity in comment systems is as touchy a subject for internet
freedom lovers as gun rights are for people in high crime neighborhoods. Those
that hate them have already made up their mind and won't look at contradicting
evidence, those that love them have already made up their mind and won't look
at contradicting evidence. The truth seems to lies somewhere in the middle.

So "Real Names Policy" definitely has it's place. Maybe not everywhere, but
definitely in some communities.

~~~
NoGravitas
I voted you up in order to remove some of the downvotes you're getting,
because there's nothing wrong with the tone or level of documentation in your
comment.

However, you are also completely wrong. I'll produce two anecdata points.

Look at the Facebook comments on a local newspaper that uses them (e.g.,
thestate.com). Note that on any article that touches on a partisan issue or a
scandal, the tone and contents of the comments are vicious, personal, and
frequently harassing.

I admin a large-ish meme page on Facebook. The comments section is a wretched
hive of scum and villainy.

From what I can tell, some communities have better norms than others, in terms
of promoting civility, but the use of real names doesn't make a significant
difference.

------
KVFinn
In my experience it eliminates a particular kind of drive-by trolling, but
leaves the other kinds unaffected. Only constant moderation really keeps it
out.

~~~
TillE
Probably. I've definitely never seen a _good_ Facebook comments section on any
site. Nasty arguments and low-grade garbage. Real names simply don't stop most
people from being vile on the internet.

~~~
usrusr
Public Facebook comment sections on third party sites have the ugly effect of
self-selecting users to those who either really don't care at all about
appearances or who have that special level of righteousness that makes them
believe that any opinion they might voice would be universally applauded.
Those with a more balanced opinion tend to not put out their flag in a place
like that. It's a recipe for the perfect storm. Real names do stop most people
from being nasty on the internet, but that also makes them invisible, so that
only the unstoppable minority remains.

------
janwillemb
My real name doesn't uniquely identify me, because there are more people in
the world with the same name. According to some web searching, I have already
died a long time ago, I am a technical illustrator, I collect model trains,
etc. So a "real name" could be compromising even if totally unjust

~~~
draugadrotten
I am in the opposite situation. My real name is so rare that it uniquely
identifies me globally, as far as I know. I have angered a religious group
which is known for intimidation and even physical threats to critics. This
makes me very uncomfortable in using sites that demands "real names". I would
never sign up for Facebook, for example.

~~~
Chris2048
My girlfriend has a name so unique that I put it into google images along with
my town name (a capital city), and her picture shows up...

------
MaysonL
One of my relatives uses a pseudonym on Facebook because they were harassed at
school under their real name because they're gay.

------
webXL
If harassment is a social and cultural problem, then in my view, so is the
desire for anonymity, which is a natural byproduct that aids both sides.
Banning anonymity would negatively impact both sides. But who is harmed more?
And who is harmed more in the other scenario? The article just focuses on one
side of the former. Sure certain individuals need more protection if a real
name policy is enforced, but at least it's easier to identify and punish the
bigots.

That said, I don't think pseudonyms should be banned in order to prevent
harassment, but where people go to discuss complex and sensitive topics, I
would expect to see more thoughtful responses from a Real Name vs.
a_guy_with_nothing_to_lose, barring a decent karma system.

------
EekSnakePond
Step -1.) Demand real name's to protect the childrens.

Step 0.) We did it! Everyone has to use real names now! Equality unlocked!

Step 1.) Put in someone else's real name instead of your own.

Step 2.) Troll as that person or use that real name to infiltrate that
person's social network

Step lulz.) Doxx brigade/morality police now target the wrong person.

Step 3.) Congratulations, not only did you not solve the problem you were
trying to solve, now your rules are a robust breeding ground to cause actual
social and economic damage to people YOU ALREADY AGREE WITH because "pixels
are feelings, too".

Step 4.) Hang your head in shame for such short-term thinking.

Step 5.) Downvote me because of tone.

~~~
PretzelFisch
so, make them prove their id. Sure it doesn't scale but now you would have to
actually steal someone's identity rather than just use a fake name.

~~~
EekSnakePond
Sometimes, I can't tell if the newer generation understands that Photoshop is
a thing or not.

Also, I'm pretty sure they have no idea that when you create a massive
repository of identities to try and protect the childrens, you're just
painting a huge bullseye on the back of it's database.

It's like people believe Russians hacked the election, but no one could EVER
hack a central repository of identities! Why, it's protected by good
intentions and saving the childrens! Oh hey, another 1 billion Yahoo!
identities got leaked...

------
saycheese
Many "real names" cannot even be used in the "real world" because systems
don't support it.

------
blauditore
I think it largely depends on the specific community and people in it. While
some try to use online anonymity as an outlet to say and do things they
wouldn't dare on Facebook or IRL, others seem to want a reality-like
reputation around their username/account. A large portion is probably caused
simply by community rules; just see /b/ and HN...

And to be fair, I've hardly ever seen serious insults on Facebook, but been
called dipshit on anonymous platforms regularly. But again, this could be due
to community standards.

~~~
Inconel
>I've hardly ever seen serious insults on Facebook

Every once in a while curiosity and boredom get the better of me and I visit
ESPN or some other mainstream news site that uses FB profiles for the comments
section and I almost always walk away shocked at the kind of comments people
are willing to post while directly linking to their real name and profile,
often containing their place of employment. Respectfully, if you haven't seen
serious insults on FB, or at least on sites using FB profile logins, you
haven't been looking hard enough.

~~~
dasboth
I've seen similar and can't help but wonder if at least some of those people
don't realise that's happening. Maybe they see the "login with Facebook" as a
convenience without knowing their names, jobs etc. will be visible. The rest
probably just don't care.

------
DelaneyM
The problem isn't just discrimination/harassment (though that's huge - I used
to use a male pseudonym on my github & stackoverflow accounts, and still do on
medium.) It's also just pragmatically impossible.

I have changed my first name legally three times.

I have changed my last name once.

I currently have different legal names in three countries, on my undergraduate
& masters degrees, and on my 401k, and none of those are the name I am known
by to my colleagues & friends.

What is my "real name"?

~~~
quirkafleeg
Frank Abagnale?

~~~
DelaneyM
Hah - if I'd changed my name so often for malicious intent, instead of family
& marriage reasons, it'd probably be much more rationally arranged.

Not having a canonical "real name" is a giant PITA.

------
mjolk
While I agree that expecting users to use real names is a bad thing, this
knocked the air out of me:

> In societies including the US where violence and mistreatment of women,
> people of color, and marginalized people is common, we can expect similar
> problems in people’s digital interactions [1] > [1] Sarah Banet-Weiser and
> Kate M. Miltner. #MasculinitySoFragile: culture, structure, and networked
> misogyny. Feminist Media Studies, 16(1):171-174, January 2016.

I reject the assertion that these issues are "common" in the US, even if
"violence and mistreatment" is broadly defined as people acting rudely on the
internet. A post by ESR was even flagged off HN because its message was that
he expected evidence to back claims of harassment, which is a microcosm of the
trend of "feelings > reality". This is absolutely ludicrous and I'm surprised
Mozilla is funding this junk.

Further, it's getting rather tiring that the US is always listed as an example
when countries/societies exist without legal protection for all races/genders
and where slavery and forced labor is still legal.

~~~
PhasmaFelis
> _I reject the assertion that these issues are "common" in the US_

On what grounds do you reject that? Do you have hard evidence that women and
ethnic/sexual minorities in the US are not at increased risk of violence and
mistreatment? Or are you basing this on "feelings > reality", as you put it?

> _Further, it 's getting rather tiring that the US is always listed as an
> example when countries/societies exist without legal protection for all
> races/genders and where slavery and forced labor is still legal._

The "I can't be bad as long as someone, somewhere, is worse" argument is a
classic excuse to get out of ever having to improve anything.

~~~
inlined
> The "I can't be bad as long as someone, somewhere, is worse" argument is a
> classic excuse to get out of ever having to improve anything.

Recently learned the awesome names for this fallacy. "Tu quoque"[1] is the
general name. Whataboutism[2] is the awesome term for its use in soviet
propeganda.

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque)
[2]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism)

~~~
mjolk
I don't think I was committing a logical fallacy -- I took exception to the
article author's attempt at establishing alleged certainty, especially using
relativistic terms.

In any case, based on your mention of learning new fallacy names, you'll
probably like this site:
[https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/](https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/)

~~~
grzm
I vouched for this comment as I didn't see anything particularly egregious:
looks like the included URI triggers some automatic down-voting behavior
(perhaps to encourage better discourse rather than calling out fallacies?)
Regardless, it's probably not worth including that link in the future :)

~~~
Chris2048
> encourage better discourse rather than calling out fallacies?

How is calling out fallacies not the best kind of discourse??

~~~
grzm
I agree with you that identifying weaknesses or fallacies in an argument is a
good thing. What I am trying to express is that it can sometimes be reduced to
little more than name calling if not done well. Say, for example, I identify
what I believe to be a straw man. If my response is only "That's a straw man",
while it may be accurate, it's not very useful to the discourse. It should
include at least why I believe the argument to be building a straw man.

It can also lead to a desire to score points rather than to reach some kind of
mutual understanding (if not agreement), which also doesn't lend itself to
constructive discussion.

I hope it's clear that my explanation as to why that particular URI is banned
is just speculation, and not very strong at that. I can't think of a better
explanation, however.

For what it's worth, it looks like I'm not alone in thinking along these
lines:

 _citing a logical fallacy is often employed by those who are lazy and aren 't
genuinely addressing a given argument._

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7195076](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7195076)

For reference, a couple of other HN threads where this URI has been discussed:

\-
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5391743](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5391743)

\-
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5660078](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5660078)

~~~
Chris2048
The context in that first link is:

[https://web.archive.org/web/20140404202911/http://plover.net...](https://web.archive.org/web/20140404202911/http://plover.net/~bonds/bdksucks.html)

This adds a little more nuance:

1) LOGICAL FALLACIES ARE USUALLY IRRELEVANT OR CITED INCORRECTLY...

2) CITING LOGICAL FALLACIES IS USUALLY COWARDLY AND LAZY ... " Rather than
engage with the ideas in a text, it's much easier to skim through it trying to
spot a quick fallacy; and once a fallacy is found, a baloney detector can
safely ignore everything else. "

I wouldn't say this at all demonstrates the weakness in identifying fallacies.
Falsely identifying fallacies is not identifying fallacies (the fallacy
fallacy?); and nothing says that one fallacy invalidates an entire text; also,
I find there argument there weak, e.g "these people seem to have no other
opinions on the text" \- so what?

~~~
Chris2048
Also, I just read the section about the sexist skeptic. I find it deeply
flawed, many of the arguments are sound, and just because the author thinks
they are inappropriate doesn't mean they are - that's just the authors
subjective, emotive opinion.

~~~
grzm
I'm sorry, but I don't understand how this relates to pointing out logical
fallacies, which I understand to be the subject at hand in this branch of the
thread.

Are you perhaps responding to something (much further) upthread, such as here?

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13316770](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13316770)

If so, please respond there.

~~~
Chris2048
No, I'm referring to the content of the link above,
[https://web.archive.org/web/20140404202911/http://plover.net...](https://web.archive.org/web/20140404202911/http://plover.net/~bonds/bdksucks.html)

------
beat
I think a lot of the commenters on this thread would do themselves well to
read about Gamergate from women's perspectives, and learn about extreme online
harassment.

Real names make it a little harder for attackers to hide behind anonymity, but
a _lot_ easier for those crossing lines to find their targets.

------
kome
Very thoughtful article... we are having this debate now in Italy and this
would need to be translated.

~~~
LoSboccacc
do we? I'm out of the loop besides major news because there's almost no hope
left, so I missed it. who's pushing it this time?

~~~
kome
[http://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/premium/articoli/controlli-d...](http://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/premium/articoli/controlli-
dannosi-e-inutili-basterebbe-vietare-lanonimato/)

~~~
LoSboccacc
ugh, Mentana, tu quoque

I don't know where this "ministry of truths" resurgences come from but really
needs to be stopped. between this and Grillo promoting a 'randomized popular
college vote' to determine "The Truth", situation is increasingly scary for
freedom of speech.

------
LordKano
I have been using this pseudonym online for over 20 years. I have been using
it for so long that I have since found others who have started using it too
but there are far fewer of them than there are of people who share my actual
first and last name.

I am a member of a Facebook group that has over 60 members who share the same
first and last name.

So, it's more descriptive when I use this pseudonym than it is when I use my
real name. I'm only aware of about 3-4 people using this pseudonym but more
than 60 who use my real name.

------
bleair
I'm biased by empirical data - e.g. look at youtube comments (anonymous) vs.
amazon reviews (real identity owned by amazon).

Human nature demonstrates that a fraction of people really like to put down /
bully / see others suffering because they are personally unhappy (e.g. the
shock talk shows). Anonymity allows bullying behavior with no consequence.

More simply, why do people spend time and energy online "trolling" others.
Clearly a sizable portion of people like trolling others, though I don't
personally see why.

~~~
syshum
I often see this comparison, it is hardly "empirical data"

Leaving a product review is a completely different social activity than
commenting on a Video, videos that are often political, religious or other
personally controversial topic

Comparing YT comments to Amazon Product reviews holds no value at all.

It is telling that you dismiss actual research for your own anecdotal and
flawed observations to accept the idea that Real name Policies are a good
thing

------
EGreg
I wrote about this before as well, from a technical point of view:

[http://magarshak.com/blog/?p=114](http://magarshak.com/blog/?p=114)

------
babuskov
I like how Roblox register form tells new users NOT to use their real name:

[https://www.roblox.com/](https://www.roblox.com/)

------
upofadown
I think that in practice the problem comes down to preventing sociopathic
sadists from annoying everyone in complicated ways. The actual level of
anonymity doesn't really matter but there are classes of solutions that work
better without.

The only possible non-technical solution for that class of user would be to
track them down in real life and fine them. The possible abuse associated with
such a scheme make that sort of solution unattractive.

------
rudolf0
(This was a reply to a now-deleted comment.)

>Is there actually a widespread "life and death" issues here? There have some
very publicized cases, but I have yet to see any data that there this is a
significant problem beyond having the police called to your house or getting
bunch of pizzas delivered that you didn't order. That said, there are
definitely dangers with governments who deny basic human rights.

>The bank account issue is really more just about normal identity theft and
isn't really part of the topic either.

>I should add that things like "harassment" do not qualify here as those are
normal parts of everyday life anyway regardless if your personal information
gets revealed online.

>Are we sure we're not just participating in the typical online habit of
blowing regular issues into 10 alarm fires?

>beyond having the police called to your house

That's understating the danger of the situation due to the militarization of
US police (and also their duty to respond to what they think is a real
threat).

These "SWATing" attempts usually go like this:

"Help, someone's being held hostage at [X] address, they have rifles"

SWAT team arrives and kicks in the door, guns blazing, kills all your pets
[1], and might shoot you too [2]. So far there hasn't been a human death from
SWAT hoaxes, just animals and injuries, but it'll probably happen at some
point.

Is this a "widespread" problem? I don't know. In the communities I've been in,
it is, though it probably isn't for the Internet at large.

Even ignoring the risks of SWATing, though, there are so many people out there
who will try to find your personal information and make your life a living
hell on a daily basis due to online disagreements. I deal with such people on
a daily basis. Anonymity is absolutely critical and me to others who might
cross paths with sociopaths and "e-road rage" types.

[1] [https://archive.is/nu4Lv](https://archive.is/nu4Lv)

[2] [http://www.theblaze.com/news/2015/07/16/swatting-prank-
ends-...](http://www.theblaze.com/news/2015/07/16/swatting-prank-ends-
horribly-for-victim-and-he-has-the-injury-to-prove-it/)

------
bluetidepro
Does anyone have any good examples or resources that they can point to that
possibly show an online community switching one way or the other with
real/pseudonyms and the results that showed? Would be curious to see some
first hand data about the issue.

------
EekSnakePond
Thought experiment from 2,000 years ago.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_of_Gyges](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_of_Gyges)

Until the Internet can guarantee that I will not be targeted by petulant
ideological zealots obsessed with doxxing people to win online arguments,
Goons who infiltrate the State Department to steer it's considerable resources
against it's political enemies, social justice warriors who try to get people
fired because someone doesn't agree with Rachel Maddow, or state agencies who
scour my tax records to Al Capone me, I'll keep whatever anonymity I can
preserve, thank you very much.

EDIT: I'll happily deal with an endless torrent of honest deplorables who
occasionally troll every so often over politically-motivated psychopaths any
day of the week.

------
amelius
We should have better protection of our rights to be anonymous online when we
want.

BUT ALSO

We should have better methods to reveal our identity online in a guaranteed
way if we wish to do so.

Currently, both options are often non-existent or broken.

------
Dowwie
The article focuses on improving online behavior yet doesn't acknowledge
trust-- a key reason that user identity matters in online communities.

~~~
msabalau
Surely trust can be achieved through consistent identities which aren't real
names, or by allowing the option of (but not mandating) user names which are
real names.

------
pessimizer
The only reason using real names affects behavior is because people fear
retaliation, so the policy suppresses behavior likely to offend people and
groups with the known will and ability to retaliate. This, to the powerful, is
equivalent to improving behavior.

edit: what's the alternate proposed mechanism? There's no magic in a name
other than a method to track people and _hold them responsible._

------
Dowwie
This article cites many excellent papers. I highly recommend checking them out
before closing off the page.

------
yuhong
I dislike forced real name policies too, but I really would like some of the
problems with using real names to be fixed if possible.

------
donaldmorganjr
I am posting this with my real name. I agree with this article.

------
Paperweight
Can't ID'd and anonymous forums coexist?

------
swagv1
Facebook drank the Kool-Aid and failed.

------
robmcm
Wow a 5.6 MB background image...

It took me 13 seconds to load it on a 20 Mbps connection. And there we are
worrying about how many Kb our JavaScript libs are.

~~~
sundvor
That's completely nuts. Tried to upload it* to
[http://compresspng.com/](http://compresspng.com/) , and after what seemed
like a few hours (Australian upload on cable is 100x slower than the download)
I got a 72% reduction in size to 1604kb. That is, an identical image if you
absolutely must insist on that quality.

Without having a checked, I'd venture to say that a 200-300KB jpeg would look
very close and more than good enough for the purposes of the article header.

*) [https://blog.coralproject.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/hat...](https://blog.coralproject.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/hats.png)

------
danmoz
Real names is one thing, but I'd really like to see a "real age" system on the
internet. That would make ignoring trolls -- who I suspect are frequently not
old enough to drive -- a much easier task.

It would be more akin to real life, if a 14 y/o tried to bully us in the
street we'd laugh them off, but when they're anonymous on the internet it
doesn't seem to occur to us that we may be dealing with a child.

~~~
wfunction
In theory at least, you're supposed to look at what is being said rather than
who is saying it...

Not at all claiming I always do that myself, but some food for thought.

~~~
danmoz
That's true, but I'm thinking of situations where there is no context other
than pure abuse. I wonder if Charlotte Dawson would have taken her own life if
she found out that the majority of trolls telling her to kill herself were
kids living in their parents basement.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlotte_Dawson](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlotte_Dawson)

~~~
aw3c2
What makes you think that they were kids? I highly doubt that.

