Commerce Is Bad?
from the rationalization-for-noncommercial-restrictions dept
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Do we need more examples?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Form Of... missing the point and misunderstanding the topic!
Form Of... incomprehensibility, also missing the point, and horrible grammar!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Shape Of... Something kinda oozey
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh wait...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
...Maybe they are the same person...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
way to troll !!!!.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
See, here's the difference... we're having a humorous exchange at your expense. We're not trying to 'cause maximum disruption and argument' because we don't really care what you have to say in response.
See how that works?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
...
See, here's the difference... we're having a humorous exchange at your expense.
So you're freely admitting to trolling with registered names. Kind of proves the point about registered names.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just to recap, darryl accused us of trolling... I say "no we're not"... and you say "so you admit to trolling"... I had to check to see if you were the same AC that accused me below of a reading-comprehension fail. It appears you're not, so I'll recommend without derision that you re-read my post and try again. Then, feel free to explain how this says anything about registered names? Good or bad. Go ahead, I'll wait... might be even more entertaining than darryl.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
We don't want them either, you keep them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Who's daddy's little douchebag?
Who's daddy's little douchebag?
Oh, looks like we gotta burp the baby! *pinches AC's cheek*
Uh oh... AC made a stinky poo!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Awww... Says little Jay from behind *his* secret identity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I have a profile you can check. That's not a secret identity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I have a profile you can check. That's not a secret identity.
*laughs even harder*
Sure it is. Telling whoppers like that, no wonder you don't want to post your true identity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
With ACs, you all hide within a great, blurry blob of people who cannot be distinguished from one another. If I think you're a particular AC, I can try to call you out, but you'll just say "No! That was the other AC... not me!" Those little snowflakes help, most of the time, but only within a single thread.
So, when an AC comes in here and blasts his or her mouth off, we call them out for cowardice (hence the C part of AC). When I say something, I stand behind it with a trackable identity. Just because I don't want you personally showing up at my door in real life, does not mean that this is not who I am.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, you see, believing stuff like that is the problem with registered accounts that makes them worse than no accounts at all. People who don't know any better start believing that the names uniquely represent individuals.
"Jay" may easily post things that no one will "call him out" on by simply using different names. Same person, different names. And there are a great number of people who won't even stop to consider that it may be the same person because the names are "registered". He can even argue or agree with himself and people will think it is different people because of the different names. It's called "sock puppetry". For example, how do I even know that "Gabriel Tane" isn't another name for "Jay"?
And, although rare, it can work the other way around, too. Multiple people can use the same name to build a fake persona that no one of them would have the time to maintain by themselves. This is sometimes used by corporations that hire multiple people to pretend to be just one.
When I say something, I stand behind it with a trackable identity.
Umm, no, like I explained above, you don't. I have no idea how many different names you're using, so you aren't trackable at all. Of course, if you are using multiple names you sure wouldn't want people to think about that possibility, now would you? In fact, you'd probably start shooting off your mouth claiming that fake names somehow make people trackable instead.
Just because I don't want you personally showing up at my door in real life, does not mean that this is not who I am.
Nobody said that does, either. But neither does it mean that you *are* who you say you are and claiming otherwise is dishonest. In fact, the more someone here tries to claim that these registered names uniquely represent individuals, the more I suspect they are lying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think that was an intentional demonstration of how one person can post under different "names" and how little they mean. Of course, that point went right over your little pointed head.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's why it's much better to use registered accounts if you're going to use sock puppets. The gullible are much more like to believe that you're actually different people and your address snowflake won't show up. Registered accounts are the sock puppeteer's favorite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Considering that when you go look at the history of my account and can see the fact that I've been posting for years (with a couple of notable gaps), I think my identity is established to the satisfaction of most of everyone else here. If someone creates their own account with the name Gabriel Tane, puts up the same picture, and makes posts the make him sound like the worst person in the world, a simple click into the accounts will see that there are two separate people at play.
As far as me posting under separate accounts so I can say things that won’t come back to bite me? Yeah, I could do that if I wanted to. But I have personal integrity. I don’t really care if you believe me on it or not. My initial point that started all this was: it’s really easy to be a troll when no one is ever going to be able to prove you said it. If I say something around here, you know who said it. My purpose is not to prove to you whether or not I’m lying. I’m proving to you that I take the opinion of a registered person more seriously than an AC.
As for claiming an identity is dishonest… Sounds like you have an issue with trusting anyone. No matter what proof someone could give you, it can always be called into doubt. I could have someone show up to your door and claim to be me in real life and you’d never be able to prove either way. So that argument really does wind its way into absurdity. Let me flip it around for you… what kind of proof would satisfy you? If nothing will ever satisfy you that anyone has any identity online, then why are you even here? We’re all just faceless “them”s to you and nothing of what we say would have any value at all.
My original point stands: someone with an account is an individual that creates a history of themself... AC's are all part of a nameless blob that can be tracked only in individual threads by the snowflakes (as long as they keep posting from the same IP).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, duh, that they're probably the same is kind of obvious, isn't it? You really missed the point being intentionally made, didn't you?
Considering that when you go look at the history of my account and can see the fact that I've been posting for years (with a couple of notable gaps),
Umm, so? So you've been at it for a while? Big deal.
I think my identity is established to the satisfaction of most of everyone else here.
You can think what you want, but you've just insulted the intelligence of "most of everyone else here".
But I have personal integrity.
Because you say so, huh? I see very few commentators claiming that they don't also. But I guess you're "special".
I’m proving to you that I take the opinion of a registered person more seriously than an AC.
You can take them however you want. But if you start go around claiming the comments of registered users can all be tracked, then you're lying.
As for claiming an identity is dishonest… Sounds like you have an issue with trusting anyone.
No, claiming that fake identities are true is dishonest. And, no, I don't have an "issue", I'm just not stupid. Sorry.
Let me flip it around for you… what kind of proof would satisfy you? If nothing will ever satisfy you that anyone has any identity online, then why are you even here? We’re all just faceless “them”s to you and nothing of what we say would have any value at all.
You seem to have some weird belief that the validity of a statement is all about who's making it rather than the content. I suppose maybe that makes the world easier for you to understand. I mean, you just have to pick out who you like and don't like. It's easier than thinking, right?
My original point stands: someone with an account is an individual that creates a history of themself...
An unreliable, potentially skewed and unbalanced cherry-picked one. You could probably make anyone look like a saint by cherry-picking what's in their "history". Just what you want, eh?
AC's are all part of a nameless blob that can be tracked only in individual threads by the snowflakes (as long as they keep posting from the same IP).
Actually, even that may not always be true. If they happen to be using the VPN provider, for example, they will have the same snowflake even if they are different people. IP addresses do not identify individuals, despite what you or the RIAA/MPAA may claim. And neither do registered names track everything someone posts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wow, awesome analysis little snowflake 3. I know that sometimes it's really hard to keep up with the conversation but let's get you up to speed.
In the past, I've contended that copyright is a socio-economic barrier to trade. Unless you have the money to fund it, copyright is meaningless to you.
Through the power of Google, you can see that this argument is something I believe to be the center of the copyright wars. Personally, seeing as how copyright is a barrier to entry, I feel it should be removed. I look at copyright enforcement as unneeded where competition brings better results along with other benefits to consumers.
Hell, I can communicate to others in different languages. I'm not hiding who I am behind the AC moniker. You can view my posts anytime and see if it adds up to how I believe. If something is inconsistent, as Gabriel points out, I would get called on it. I also pull up past arguments so I don't have to write as much. I get lazy too.
In no way do I hide my identity. I am someone that stands out as a unique part of the community. The same as Gabriel Tane, Zot-Sindi, Dark Helmet, Capitalist Lion Tamer, Chrono S. Trigger, Nicedoggy, Nina Paley, Rich (take your pick), or any other person, with a profile or not, that doesn't hide behind the Anonymous Coward standard. Hell, even some of the detractors and naysayers add to this site by adding a name to their viewpoint.
Ootb actually has some good points even if most of them are off the wall. darryl's criticisms help sharpen the viewpoints that argue against him. We know of staff's belief in patents, but at the very least, we can add a "face" to what he believes.
So say that I hide my identity. I'll laugh harder and harder. I haven't hidden who I am at all. You just haven't been paying attention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh yeah? What's your full legal name and address of residence?
Yeah, that's what I thought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What's yours? Don't bother answering, I don’t' really care (see above)... I'm just wondering if your money can go anywhere near your mouth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Huh? I'm not claiming a real identity. (Unless you really believe that I'm the Queen of England. Then, OK, here's "my" website http://www.royal.gov.uk/HMTheQueen/HMTheQueen.aspx just to "prove" my identity. Happy now?)
Like that character in your icon says, "stop being stupid".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wow. Ok, I wasn't asking for your identity. I was putting you to the same standard you would put on others because I know you wouldn't meet it. That’s called hypocrisy. And your refusal to even establish an identity here with a regularly-used name tells me that I don't need to take you seriously. If you had valid points to make and wanted to make them with conviction, you'd give others the ability to view your statements as compared other statements you've made. Otherwise, you're a one-trick pony who just wants to be heard.
Now, I read below where someone calls Jay out on weighing a point based on who said it instead of its merits… I know you’re about to go there, so let me stop you. EVERYONE weighs the value of a point they’re hearing based on who says it. Every point. If Al Gore says the world is ending, and a large contingent of educated, experienced, and established scientists say otherwise… who are you going to believe? Same thing around here. If Jay says something about copyright, and I go read his history to see if it sounds like he knows what he’s talking about; and Darryl says the exact opposite (whom I can’t verify his history, but I have read quite a bit of his… contribution), guess who I’m going to believe is more likely to have a valid argument. The trick is to do both… which most of the commenters I read do (in my opinion)… they see who’s making the statement and then check the accuracy and validity of what’s written. But I’m not going to waste much time verifying if Darryl is right or wrong… sorry, but history is against him.
And yes, I could be wrong… Jay could be pulling something out of his ass and I could catch him in it. But guess what… the next time Jay weighed in on something, I’d have that bit of datum to give him some new doubt. See? That’s what having an identity here does. It helps us establish the history and context against which we weight the value of a statement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you truly can't see the difference between someone who admits to hiding their identity and someone who claims that they aren't not being willing to expose themselves, then your comprehension is below my level to explain it to you.
I was putting you to the same standard you would put on others because I know you wouldn't meet it.
No, admitting that you're hiding your identity and claiming that you aren't are completely different. They are not "the same standard". (They say the best liars always convince themselves that they're really telling the truth, even when it's obvious to everyone else that they aren't.)
Jay could be pulling something out of his ass and I could catch him in it. But guess what… the next time Jay weighed in on something, I’d have that bit of datum to give him some new doubt. See?
I don't see how if he was posting under a different name at the time. See? And that's why I think you're full of it. I am, however, amused to see you sinking your credibility under your Gabriel label. Time to nym shift?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Umm, he didn't claim to not be hiding his identity. Reading comprehension fail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Silly made up names don't really add anything at all, unless maybe you're trying to judge comments based on who made them rather than their content, which I suspect is your actual motivation.
By the way, I think I recognize your writing style from some other comments. Just how many names do you have here, anyway?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Send in the next wave....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Send in the next wave....
Yeah, like AC's can't have "profiles" too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So making an attack on someone for hiding behind a name would have been better directed at me.
Nice try thou.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Neither is mine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Prostitution.
No one said it had to include sex.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Prostitution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Prostitution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Prostitution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Prostitution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Prostitution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Prostitution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Prostitution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Prostitution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Prostitution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Prostitution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Prostitution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Prostitution.
How can you have an economy without people trading goods and services?
Would not the 'oldest job in the world' be FINDING SOME FOOD TO EAT?
Do you think there was no economy before there was money ?
Do you think a group of cave man hunters who had to work together to kill a big animal do so because they were expect a cash bonus, or money as payment for services ?
Do you think that hunting party went back to the wifes and children and SOLD them the meat they caught ?
Who was exploited in that economy ? (except the animal they killed to eat ?)
cave man days, someone might be good at finding food, and another person might be good at making clothes, so one says to the other, "if you get me food, I will make you clothes", that is an economy.
The guy who gets the food (the hunter) goes to the clothes maker and says "I need some new clothes", and if the clothes maker say "but I do need food right now but I need material and thread", the hunter cannot provide that, so the hunter could go to the person who makes material and threads and ask them if they need food.
Then one day, someone said, I need food, but in exchange I will give you this paper that says you can exchange this bit of paper for equivalent value.
If you give that paper to someone they can come back to me and I will give them food in exchange for it.
That is what an economy is, it is not about the exchange of money it is about the exchange of goods and services that have been valued and is traded as money not as the original goods.
So the hunter instead of giving his food to the clothes maker, he sells his food for it's value, and he can give that money to the clothes maker (even is she does not need food) she may need something else.
So if everyone works by the same system, you can gain the benifit of various goods and services, without having to directly find that specific supplier.
Money itself has no value, the value in money is what it represents. You cant eat money, but you can exchange money for food.
You cant live in money, but you can exchange money for a house.
You cannot design, build and program a computer, but you might be a very good truck driver, so you get paid for driving a truck, and you use that money to pay for someone else to build a computer for you.
the person who builds a computer might not be able to drive a truck, so he uses the money he makes from doing what he is able to do, and uses it in exchange for goods and services.
This is pre-school economics, no wonder the US economy is in such a poor state !!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Prostitution.
Without an economy, you ain't got sh-t.
With an MBA, you have someone who can manipulate numbers to make anyone happy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Prostitution. well said + 10
As clearly Masnick has no idea...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How about this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How about this?
Commerce is me trying to make money
Competition is you trying to make money
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How about this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How about this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How about this?
Competition is everyone exchanging money for goods and services and goods and services for money.
Commerce is me and YOU trying to make or exchange money.
Competition is me and YOU trying to make or exhange money.
Competition is you or me trying to provide the same service or goods for LESS money.
competition is commerce.
I am constantly amazed at the level of misunderstanding of even the most basic of concepts and idea's. Are you all really that shallow ?
if this is the level of understanding of the majority of Americans then really I have to say you deserve everything you get, and have received, and is clearly why you're economy is totally screwed.
Do anyone here understand what debt is ? and what it means ?
It means you are living beyond your means, you are spending more than you earn, as a country !
and not just a little bit, freaking 10's of Trillions of dollars !!.
what do you do with that borrowed money? you spend it on imported goods !!! so you GIVE IT BACK to the people who lent it to you.
No only do you spend far more than you earn, you spend it on depreciating goods, and spend it by giving it back to the countries that lent it to you in the first place.
What is going to happen when those countries, say "OK, now give it back!"
you would say "we cant we dont have it, we spent it all".
"then we want whatever you have of equivalent value"
"we have sent our independent assesors around, and they have assed New York State, to be the same value that you owe us, therefore we'll take that, thanks".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't get it.
What I don't get is who said commerce is bad?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe I'm dumb
Or am I looking too deeply and this is just a simple gag comic "Durrr, the aminal things is studum"
If it's the latter... I don't understand why you're doing it on this site.
If it's the former, I would like to thank you with a 95 mph fist for taking the 'modern art' approach to editorial cartoons, so that only the 'high and cultured' can understand your point about the inherent irony of... I don't know, living in the same universe as Flava Flav?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@ AC's for posts 63 and 64
I'm not going to keep defending myself against two(?) AC's who apparently just have a problem with believing anyone about anything. You seem to think that just because these statements are online, they suddenly fail to meet some standard of identity. Why single out ‘online’? There is no way that you can ever be sure that the person talking to you face to face is who they claim to be... in either identity or personality. There is no way for anyone in this existence to even know if anyone else even exists and is not all just a hallucination. So why is the layer of 'online' any different?
When we meet people, we make judgments about them based on what they say and do. When I come here, I see someone's tag that says "Jay", I know that whatever statements follow that tag may not represent the 'true person' who's typing them on a keyboard. That doesn't matter tho, does it? I'm only interested in his identity in the context in which I experience it.
Does he say things here that he may not say to his mother in real life? Probably. Does that matter to me since I'm not his mother? Nope. The 'person' of Jay exists only in this realm and his attributes are given by those who perceive him. If he's just a figment that was created by someone who has other personalities, that's fine. The "man behind the curtain" is not Jay.
As for me holding less value for people who don't have an account... perhaps I wasn't clear. When I see an AC posting two lines of insult with nothing to add... and I can't go back and see if they actually said other things in the past... they're a troll. I see people like DH post zingy one-liners all the time, but I know he's just being pithy... I have seen him post fully thought-out posts before; thus, not a troll. However, I don't automatically devalue what an AC says just because they're not registered. I have seen many ACs come here with some truly informed and insightful points of view.
Past the one-liners… when a person here makes a statement that amounts to a ‘stand’ on something, I can take that stand more seriously if I can see that he or she has made similar stands in the past. It lets me know that they are sticking to their guns and not just trolling.
So let’s back all the way back up to the root... What is your problem? Am I a liar because I have a registered account? Am I a liar because I maintain that the history of my account establishes that I am who I represent myself to be here? Seriously... the length of my history only proves that "I've been at it for a while"? Really? That sounds like the beginning of an argument with a tinfoil hat who is going to answer anything I say with "or IS it?!?" and wait for the ominous music.
If you don't want to trust people online, that's your call. I don't take anything I read online as gospel... but being able to look behind a statement and see that the person making it has a history of making intelligent and informed statements about the same topic tells me that they're not just some trolling asshat trying to stir up a flame war.
I don’t really care if you believe my honesty or not. I don’t care if you think I’m stupid for putting value in a history behind statements made in the past by an online identity. You’ve already proven to me that you’re both simply argumentative… you do make some good points that if someone were so-inclined they could be very dishonest and manipulative online (gasp of surprise), but your opinion of me at this point matters precisely nil. I will continue putting value where I see it. If you mind is set so that just because you imagine a dishonest act, you feel that everyone else MUST be doing it, I pity you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @ AC's for posts 63 and 64
Two? Look at the snowflakes. It looks like a lot more than that to me.
When I come here, I see someone's tag that says "Jay", I know that whatever statements follow that tag may not represent the 'true person' who's typing them on a keyboard. That doesn't matter tho, does it? I'm only interested in his identity in the context in which I experience it.
How many people are behind the "Jay" account?
The "man behind the curtain" is not Jay.
Because you say so?
When I see an AC posting two lines of insult with nothing to add... and I can't go back and see if they actually said other things in the past... they're a troll.
When I see someone pretending that registered names uniquely identify posters... they're either dishonest or ignorant or both. And quite possibly a sock puppet troll as well under other names.
What is your problem? Am I a liar because I have a registered account?
Straw man. Nobody is saying that and it is dishonest to suggest that they are.
Am I a liar because I maintain that the history of my account establishes that I am who I represent myself to be here?
You are either ignorant or dishonest if you claim that registered names here uniquely identify individuals.
Seriously... the length of my history only proves that "I've been at it for a while"? Really?
Seriously. I've seen sock puppeteers (on Usenet for example) outed after several *years*.
Really?
Really.
That sounds like the beginning of an argument with a tinfoil hat who is going to answer anything I say with "or IS it?!?" and wait for the ominous music.
Ah yes, if anyone doubts you, just call them a tinfoil hatter.
I don’t really care if you believe my honesty or not. I don’t care if you think I’m stupid for putting value in a history behind statements made in the past by an online identity.
Anyone who puts faith in those identities is naive, at the best. But you're free to do so if you like. However, if you start going around claiming that those "identities" are unique to individuals, some of us who know better might challenge you on that.
You’ve already proven to me that you’re both simply argumentative…
Heaven help us that anyone would dare doubt you.
you do make some good points that if someone were so-inclined they could be very dishonest and manipulative online (gasp of surprise)
Sock puppetry online has been proven uncountable times. It's not just something that "could" happen.
I will continue putting value where I see it.
And I'll reserve the right to continue to call out BS where I see it.
If you mind is set so that just because you imagine a dishonest act, you feel that everyone else MUST be doing it, I pity you.
There you go again, trying to pretend that sock puppets are "imaginary". Such ignorance causes me to pity *you*.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: @ AC's for posts 63 and 64
That might be trickery on the part of those "two" or three snowflakes. Since no one except Mike is able to look at IPs, the ways of changing your snowflake are as easy as logging off and logging on a computer.
"How many people are behind the "Jay" account?"
I find it hilarious how my account is so important in this context. I've established myself and so has Gabriel as two separate entities. There's only one person and unless you know my password, you don't have access to my registered account.
Good gracious, on another site there are *three* Jays running around. Two have an account, and a third is mainly posting anonymously. But people have found ways to differentiate between the three of us. Hell, I disagree with one of them and it's a battle of the Jays.
"When I see someone pretending that registered names uniquely identify posters... they're either dishonest or ignorant or both. "
So it's understood. Between the thousands of people that use Reddit forums, 4chan, Escapist, political forums, religious forums, gaming forums or anything else, you can't figure out a person's online persona through the words that they use. Got it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: @ AC's for posts 63 and 64
Doesn't matter. "Jay" is an online entity. How many people are in my head behind "Me"? More than one, if you count the various moods, attitudes and masks I don in the different aspects of my life.
No, because it's a distinction of the difference between ourselves and our online persona's. You completely missed the point on that. "Jay" is an online persona of the person sitting somewhere with a keyboard. Just like I'm a "different person" at work than I am at home, so too are we all online. When I review what "Jay" has to say, I look at him as "Jay" (an entity made up of what he has said in the past), not the person with the keyboard.
So anyone who decides to establish a history of what they have said is a stupid liar? Wow.
Bullshit. Direct bullshit.
”Umm, so? So you've been at it for a while? Big deal.” - Accusing me of dishonesty
”No, claiming that fake identities are true is dishonest.” - Accusing me of dishonesty (because I believe that these identities are true for our online personae)
”An unreliable, potentially skewed and unbalanced cherry-picked one. You could probably make anyone look like a saint by cherry-picking what's in their "history". Just what you want, eh?” - Accusing me of the dishonest act of only believing what I want to when I read thru a user’s history to bolster someone’s believability
”When I see someone pretending that registered names uniquely identify posters... they're either dishonest or ignorant or both. And quite possibly a sock puppet troll as well under other names.” - I don’t even have to try to explain how that’s accusatory
no, just anyone who continues on the argument that everyone is a liar who's trying to decieve everyone else.
Ah, yes... the "we know better than you" because we've been around. Right. Because I know for a fact that you didn't just turn on your first computer a week ago and this is the very first conversation you've ever had. Hmm... would be nice if I could verify that you actually have experience any of that, huh? Or should I believe it "just because you say so"?
And I never claimed that the identities are unique to an individual. I stated that when I see an identity online, I look at that identity as a unique entity online. I don’t care if the entire writing staff of the New York Times is typing for “Jay”… in the online realm, Jay is an entity unto himself. What or who he is ‘in the real world’ does not change that identity.
Anyone who doubts me is free to do so. But when you keep just saying "nuh uh! you're wrong!" no matter what I say? Yeah, I don't put much value in what you have to say unless you have something to back that up.
Have you been so scarred by sock puppetry that you see it in every nook and cranny?
Which is certainly your right... good thing you can just say "I don't believe you" when you encounter an instance when you're wrong.
I never said that sock puppets are imaginary. I even agreed that it could and does happen. I'm saying that not everyone with an account is a sock puppet. Nor is everyone who believes that there is validity behind online identities.
Look, I'm not going to convince you and you're not going to convince me. You'll never believe me when I say that I have one online name that I use everywhere I go. You'll never believe me when I say that anytime I have posted anonymously, it was because I didn't realize I wasn't logged in, and immediately claimed those comments to roll them into my history. You'll never believe me when I say that when I came back from an absence, and realized that somehow some of my comments had wandered, I spent HOURS going through and claiming them into my account so that I could convey an accurate depiction of who I am online.
And I don't care.
Nothing will convince you that there are some people online that are honest. You’ll just see sock puppets everywhere you look.
I know I said last time that I wasn't going to keep arguing. Now that I've had my say, I'm done. Feel free to pick apart what I say, take it out of context, and/or just ignore my point and attack me as a dishonest fool. I'll even let you have the last word so you can 'win'. Everyone else around here who values my opinion will continue to do so based on the fact that they know that it’s me saying it and they can verify that I am sticking to my convictions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: @ AC's for posts 63 and 64
So what's you beef with Anonymous Coward?
How about this: "I stated that when I see an identity online, I look at that identity as a unique entity online. I don’t care if the entire writing staff of the New York Times is typing for Anonymous Coward… in the online realm, Anonymous Coward is an entity unto himself. What or who he is ‘in the real world’ does not change that identity."
I'm also reminded of the news a while back that the US Government is running so many sock puppets (using the military) that it is looking to buy specialized software just to manage them all. I guess I it must be hard to maintain a large number of fake persona, complete with individual personalities, histories, etc. (especially with different "information officers" working on different shifts running them at different times, and so on). Doing that on a large scale, I can see how they'd need software for the purpose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: @ AC's for posts 63 and 64
Gabriel's right, your a tinfoil hat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @ AC's for posts 63 and 64
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110218/02143213163/more-hbgary-federal-fallout-government -wants-to-buy-software-to-fake-online-grassroots-social-media-campaigns.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]