Its not that free speech platforms are destined to fail, its anonymity. You're not responsible for your words. That's why these fail.
Notice I use my real name here on this website. Not a pseudonym. Whatever I say here, I would say to you in front of your face. Same as I do on Facebook and Twitter and Reddit and the other areas I post. I've always used my real name. I'll always use my real name.
We don't require anyone to take responsibility for what they say, so they say anything they want. Combine with this an entire zeitgeist of people who feel disconnected and alone, and its a recipe for attention-seeking behavior.
And on the converse, sometimes its taken too far, with people losing their jobs for things that clearly meant in jest (Justine Sacco) or for clumsily worded communication. Call-out culture needs to die. SJW culture needs to die. One-up culture needs to die. We have to start giving people the benefit of the doubt.
"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." -Cardinal Richelieu, c. 1600 (attributed to, anyway)
Given the political climate we're in and the complete intolerance to anything but the most milquetoast pablum in Silicon Valley these days, it's a brave or foolish person who posts anything online under their real name these days.
This may have been true at one time, but in the age of Youtube videos and live broadcasts being a popular vehicle for all of the above, I don't think folks care anymore about anonymity.
It's a toxic race for attention and engagement to either a.) generate revenue, b.) acquire some taste of "fame", or c.) both. Being anonymous plays a role in some corners of the internet, but the ones that are contributing the most to the cultures you mention above don't depend on anonymity. They're being perpetuated and propped up by very knowable online identities, and I highly doubt the folks doing the propping think they're safely anonymous.
Anonymity plays a big role in supporting the public figures who "represent" toxic ideas.
Since those anonymous supporters might at best amplify the message or at worst do raids to their public figure's enemies.
"Taking responsibility for what you say" often equals being attacked or ostracized for deviating from the Correct Opinion. Anonymity is often required for freedom of expression.
Give a person a mask and he'll tell you the truth, and all that.
> Give a person a mask and he'll tell you the truth
Rather, give a person a mask and they'll tell you whatever will most further their own goals, be it truth or falsehood. If only the complete absence of accountability were sufficient to ensure truth.
Except that bluntness is not useful truth in opposition to pleasant lie.
Majority of times it is euphemism for "insulting by making untrue statements, literally lying to get back at someone, exaggerate to vent own negative emotions".
Even if bluntness only equals useful truth for a minority of times, it is still worth it.
Truth is a rare and important commodity, much like gold is. You would not throw away a mineral that has "only" a few per cent gold as useless, only because non-gold forms the bulk of it.
My point is, the most valuable insights regarding myself and my behavior came from people who were willing to be blunt with me. I would be a worse person today if I never heard some of the observations that made me swallow hard and even get angry.
I used to use my real name, until my boss told me my HN comments showed up in his Cortana results when all he wanted to do was search for my email address in his personal contact list. A decent person will feel at least a little bit like a creep searching for someones name on Google to dig up personal details about them, but when all that info just comes along with their email address, it just doesn't sit right. My boss even felt compelled to tell me it happened, not because he saw anything bad, but because he felt like a creep just getting the info like that. Then I started thinking about all the Windows users in the business world that might get the same results under the same conditions, and I just don't need everyone I interact with, across the country, knowing, for example, I'm an atheist before they send me a request to add a new question to a web form.
Agree, we simulated the real world communities but left out the safeguards that real world communities have against bad behaviour. All turned in a simulation where you can do whatever you want without consequences to you but with consequences to others. It's bizarre.
I don't think its only anonymity, distance plays a big role too. There are virtually no consequences to disrespecting and/or harassing somone in some far away jursidiction.
Actually as far as anyone else is concerned you're still using a pseudonym. We can't verify your real name nor do we actually know it since you use an abbreviation.
> you being encouraged to use your real name? Again, the question of whether anonymity emboldens trolls is not the force of that article, it isn't about their behavior, it is about yours.
> "But merely 'branding anonymity as bad' isn't going to stop the cyberbullying misogynists." You are correct, which is why the spokesperson for this crisis is Amanda Hess. No one is trying to stop cyberbullies, there's no point, they don't shop and no one wants to look at them. Hess has entirely misunderstood what the medium wants. The whole game is to get women-- not the cyberbullies, not criminals, but the consumers-- to voluntarily give up all of their privacy, while paying lip service to privacy at home-- knowing full well women that women will pay money not to have the kind of privacy they have at home. Voluntarily exposing yourself makes you a targetable consumer and targetable consumable. Is it worth it?
Notice I use my real name here on this website. Not a pseudonym. Whatever I say here, I would say to you in front of your face. Same as I do on Facebook and Twitter and Reddit and the other areas I post. I've always used my real name. I'll always use my real name.
We don't require anyone to take responsibility for what they say, so they say anything they want. Combine with this an entire zeitgeist of people who feel disconnected and alone, and its a recipe for attention-seeking behavior.
And on the converse, sometimes its taken too far, with people losing their jobs for things that clearly meant in jest (Justine Sacco) or for clumsily worded communication. Call-out culture needs to die. SJW culture needs to die. One-up culture needs to die. We have to start giving people the benefit of the doubt.