I'll Put My Name On This Piece Declaring It Idiotic To Argue Against Anonymity Online
from the that's-just-wrong dept
This happens every few months -- whenever there's a flare up of "bad behavior" on the internet. Some genius thinks he can solve everything by just "getting rid of online anonymity." The latest to step into this well trodden, widely debunked, canyon of ridiculousness... is Lance Ulanoff over at Mashable. He seems to think that he's the first person to seriously consider the idea of doing away with online anonymity, and it only serves to show that he's barely thought through the issue at all. First off, it's simply wrong to associate anonymous comments with trollish comments. Yes, some anonymous comments are trollish, but most are not. And, in fact, many trollish, harassing comments come from people who have their real names attached to them. This has been studied widely, but Ulanoff doesn't even bother to look for evidence, he just goes with his gut. The largest single platform for harassment online... has been Facebook, which famously requires "real names." That hasn't stopped harassment, and nor would it do so on Reddit.Ulanoff completely brushes off privacy concerns, by misunderstanding them. Completely:
Please, please, spare me all the privacy arguments. I know that each and every one of you is terrified that if your real names appear anywhere online, a cyber-crook will start wearing your identity like a cheap suit. Of course, you often forget that you’re sometimes complicit, in some fashion, in the crime: Answering phishing attack emails, using terrible passwords, not shredding your snail mail. Granted, sometimes the cyber thievery happens when hackers scoop up tons of private data on a third-party server.Preventing cybercrime is not the main reason why people like to remain anonymous online (again, if that were true, why would anyone be using Facebook?). Many people have really good reasons for wanting to be anonymous online, having to do with not revealing details of their personal life. Want to have a discussion about surviving rape? Maybe you don't want to blast that out to the public. Hell, want to have a discussion about being stalked online? Perhaps not the best thing to put your name out there in public, right? Or what if you're criticizing a boss? Or whistleblowing? Or questioning anyone who has authority to make your life miserable?
Yes. This all happens. And I still want to end online anonymity – even if it does leave us a little more exposed online and, though not my objective, destroys Reddit.
Ulanoff lives in a privileged world where apparently he can't ever imagine needing to speak truth to power (this is a reporter?!?) or where he might want to be able to discuss things personally without everyone in the world knowing about it. Lucky him. Most of the world is not so lucky.
We need to shut down online anonymity and stop confusing it with privacy. The answer to protecting yourself online is not to be someone else and please do not talk to me about online identity as if it’s some fluid thing to be protected. If you officially change your name, your address, your email, your phone number, please, by all means, change it online. “FunkyDawg” is not your identity. It’s a handle.Again, this is because you're in a position of privilege where you don't need to go in search of people to talk to about how your parents beat you. Or you don't need to find a community to talk to about coming out. Or about finding a new job. There are all sorts of reasons why anonymity matters, and Ulanoff doesn't seem to have considered any of them. And they're not just the "extreme" cases of rape or sexual orientation or things like that either. There are lots of reasons why people might not want to reveal their personal interests or hobbies. What if all of your co-workers are staunch Republicans and you secretly support Hillary Clinton? What if you don't really want the world to know that you are the world's most knowledgeable expert on the TV sitcom Taxi? It could be anything. Maybe you like steamy romance novels and you think your friends would make fun of you for that. Maybe you think hockey is a stupid sport, but all your friends are really into it. Not everyone's life is an open book, nor should it be. There are lots of reasons we don't reveal everything about us, and it takes quite a lot of ignorance to assume that just because you happen to live in a comfy situation where your life is an open book that everyone else's should be as well.
On virtually all of my social accounts, I am “LanceUlanoff.” Granted, I’ve built a tiny online brand around my name, but I’ve also found this transparency much easier to manage than a bunch of random handles and identities. It also keeps me honest. I am accountable for the things I post on Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram.
Even if sites like Reddit continue to allow members to hide behind screen names, they should know, in the Reddit system, who they are: Full name, age, birthdate and maybe even address. If Reddit does this, it will not only cut down the number of attacks, it will likely scrub Reddit of much of its disgusting, hateful and racist content. It might also help the site, assuming it survives, monetize more activity than it is now.Again, this is a total myth. Facebook has much of that info and yet all sorts of hate and attacks happen on Facebook all the time. Ulanoff can't seem to get over his initial conflation of "anonymity" with "bad behavior." There is some overlap in the venn diagram, but it's nowhere near as complete as he seems to think it is. Also, if Reddit has that info, then it's at risk. Notice all those hacks and data leaks lately? How safe will the woman seeking help to leave her abusive husband feel knowing that some hackers might leak her name and address at any moment?
None of this, by the way, should hamper “Free Speech” on Reddit.Yes, actually it will. A ton. Because all those people who would like to feel comfortable discussing things in such settings will go away. The Supreme Court itself has made it clear that anonymity is a key part of free speech. Ulanoff should familiarize himself with some of its statements, such as:
Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.And yet, Ulanoff ridiculously thinks that he's the one protecting people from an "intolerant society" because he's too ignorant and too privileged to recognize all those people who rely on anonymity.
Oh, and then he closes it out with his own, incorrect, definition of the First Amendment:
I know that most of the members who hated Pao and wanted her out were angry about the necessary changes she was making and they often decried her actions as an attack on free speech. Sorry, but, in my book, hate speech does not equal free speech.In your book it may not, but under the Constitution it does. That does not mean, of course, that Reddit needs to put up with hate speech. That's a decision for the company to make on its own. But Ulanoff's argument here is so confused as to be laughable. It's like a high school student who just discovered these issues and didn't bother to do any research before spouting off his opinion.
The facts are pretty clear: anonymous speech is incredibly important in protecting free speech, mostly in protecting people from harassment or risks. It is a key tool that allows people who are facing difficult situations to find each other and discuss. On top of that, most content from anonymous individuals online is perfectly reasonable and fits within community norms. Finally, requiring real names has never been shown to adequately limit trollish behavior. So Ulanoff is spouting off an idea that puts more people at risk, limits communities that need such connections the most and does nothing to actually stop trollish behavior.
If, however, these Reddit members really believe it is their right to harass, spew hate and post their insane ideas about various races, then do it without the mask of a user name. Put your real name and photo on the site. Stand up for what you believe in, you bastards.Again the ignorance and the privilege shine through. Ulanoff can't imagine a world in which anyone would say something anonymously unless they're being a "bastard." You'd think that someone who has spent as much time online as Ulanoff apparently has would at least know enough to do some basic research, or at least talk to some people who actually do rely on anonymity every day.
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
Filed Under: anonymity, community, free speech, lance ulanoff, names, trolls
Companies: reddit
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
One of the bastards here...
I enjoy political discussions, but I don't generally enjoy being confronted by my friends/family/coworkers on my political views.
I'd like to continue doing this in private, during my spare time, during work breaks, etc. I'd like to not be harassed or "educated" by friends and family on their personal views and how they conflict with mine.
I also don't want to enter my personal details into every website I might read or comment on.
I don't have either a facebook or twitter account (and probably never will)... The few accounts I do have are extremely barren, as I refuse to put any material on them that might be controversial or open me up to a rash of bullshit that I don't want or need.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nametags in public
Want to go to a coffee shop with some friends and talk about the latest Star Wars? Better bring your name tag so everything you say is correctly ascribed to you by all present.
Want to go wander around the farmer's market, talking to vendors about their products? Sorry, full name tag required so if you say something mean about someone's product, everyone will know who said it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wow, way to start off with the victim-blaming.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That's not an argument that would carry any weight with Lance Ulanoff, seeing as how he uses the exact same argument as "she shouldn't have gone out in public dressed like that" rapesplainers:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chilling effects of forced identification
For personal reasons, I absolutely and immediately reject any community where "real names" are a requirement to join, regardless of whether I expect to post anything sensitive in that community. For that reason, I have no Facebook account, no Google+ account, etc. I would sadly, but without hesitation, abandon any community that switched on such a policy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I don't want to sound like I'm defending Ulanoff, but...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Registration isn't always easy
Screen ID: Bill
Taken. Maybe Bill37?
Screen ID: _Bill
Taken. Maybe _bBill05?
Screen ID: ____________Bill
Screen ID too long.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: nametags in public
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I very seriously think this guy will be getting any tips from anonymous sources anytime soon and if he does I doubt he'll stand up for their right to remain anonymous, This guy is not a reporter I'm not sure what he is exactly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Chilling effects of forced identification
Do I have other accounts under some other plausible-sounding "real name"? Maybe. Maybe not. You don't know, and neither do they.
*I put the name in quotes since I have no way of knowing whether it's his(?) real name, to point that out and thereby underscore the fatuousness of his(?) position.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I don't want to sound like I'm defending Ulanoff, but...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Registration isn't always easy
Just think how easy it would be when everyone's online name is something like:
Ferris_Bueller_1313_Mockingbird_Lane_Mockingbird_Heights_8675309
You could have the same login everywhere and nobody else could have used it!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I don't want to sound like I'm defending Ulanoff, but...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I don't want to sound like I'm defending Ulanoff, but...
And even douchebags like Trump have a right to anonymity under the first amendment, or else none of us do.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
::Goes on to mention Reddit 32 more times in a 900-word diatribe::
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Registration isn't always easy
[ link to this | view in thread ]
My coworker would tell this reporter that protecting his troll-harassed fragile ego is nothing compared to protecting your wife from a potentially homicidal maniac.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Registration isn't always easy
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I originally read that as, "well trodden, widely debunked, crayon of ridiculousness" and thought it made just about as much sense as this guys arguments.
Now I want my own "crayon of ridiculousness".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
/b/ was the internet hate machine was at before Reddit decided to join the fun...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
If not, after seeing this, perhaps someone will take the initiative and sign up for him.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: One of the bastards here...
What if you changed your position on a few issues.
Should would be nice to be crucified for it later am I right? Nothing like being marched off to the pits for something you once believed in but not longer do.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
er, Sorry.
*blush*
I won't apologize to Rightscorp, but I should probably make a point of being extra considerate to the horse they rode in on.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The most common reason why anonymity is good
But the best reason for anonymity is much simpler and more common than that. It lets us do online what we have always been able to do in real life: to be able to interact with different groups of people in relative isolation.
Without being able to have this sort of isolation, all anyone can safely do is engage in the type superficial "public speak" that you have to do whenever you are speaking in front of a wide mix of people.
Anonymity allows people to speak their true thoughts on any topic. Get rid of anonymity and you get rid of a tremendous amount of valuable exchange of ideas even on topics that aren't particularly controversial or sensitive.
I've maintained multiple online identities for decades for this exact reason.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I don't want to sound like I'm defending Ulanoff, but...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I'm glad there's anonymity on the internet to protect me from hot headed, retaliatory, individuals such as Mr Ulanoff.
The Supreme Court sums it up best.
"...to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society."
Mr Ulanoff's intolerance is shining through like the sun.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Real Reason
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Of course the other thing proponents of "let's ban anonymity" forget, is that pen names and stage names have been around for centuries. Ever hear of Samuel Langhorne Clemens? You probably know him better as Mark Twain. James Oliver Rigney, Jr,? Much better known as Robert Jordan. How about Eric Arthur Blair? Probably not, but I'm betting you've heard of his pen name George Orwell. Joan de Beauvoir de Havilland? More widely known as Joan Fontaine. Marion Morrison? You've probably heard of him by the name John Wayne. Norma Jeane Baker? Marilyn Monroe. Publius? Depending on the specific work, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay.
In short, people have been using different names than their real one for a wide variety of reasons - including privacy - for centuries. This is not something new and different. Unsurprisingly people who say we should do away with anonymity online are seldom interested in discussing this past of obscuring identities. Probably because it would undermine their position to have to try and justify why this celebrity gets to use a pseudonym, but John Q. Public does not.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This sounds familiar, as in the only real reason the left wants non-profit issue advocacy groups to reveal their donors is for retaliation purposes.
If I can make an anonymous comment, shouldn't I be able to make an anonymous donation?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
When an internet troll, spammer or flamer posts something that is detrimental to my community, I ban their account, can their IP address and ban their email address.
What's so hard about that?
Anonymity is a good thing but getting rid of anonymity doesn't make internet trolls go away. If they want to cause trouble for your site, they can simply "make up" or create a name out of thin air. Anonymity will never go away, trolls will just create a made-up real name such as Davin Matthews or John Davenport and you would never know the difference.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
NOT Victim Blaming
Oh, now do one about rape victims, murder victims, hit-and-run victims and mugging victims.
"Put your real name and photo on the site. Stand up for what you believe in, you bastards. " - Lance Ulanoff
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
-Lance Ulanoff
The word virtually when used in this manner is what is known as a weasle word. I hope this helps.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The Real Reason
-Lance Ulanoff
"Not the only possible reason."
- SpamUBigTime
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: nametags in public
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Chilling effects of forced identification
This idea that a username isn't "real"? Is a noob concept. Back when we were logging into local bbses on black screened dumb terminals with green text, a username served to provide a bit of adjectorial info on the user. It provided extra context in lieu of, say, facial features, to what would otherwise be a jumble of nonsense syllables in an era when one's last name has no connection to one's profession. Your user name was a tidy bit of bespoke when making first impressions; it was part of our assertion that, regardless of how our parents had named us and society might categorize us and stereotype us as geeks, back when geeking was uncool, online we owned every piece of our identity.
I was real named on Facebook by some nasty little (anonymous, just roll around in that hypocrisy) troll, for who knows what reason. I refuse to surrender my identity for this decade's social network, because it is replaceable, has competitors, and, with its current appeal being largely to much older users, seems likely to be approaching the end of its lifespan. My user name? Non-negotiable.
Entertainingly, when I got on G+ as an early/ beta adopter, I did it with a professional name and my username. I also sent a long explanation to their feedback system regarding my use of a legacy name, because, while Facebook is trivial to me and seems likely to wane eventually, Google has far more weight and durability; life would get uncomfortable without them. They never replied....but they also made no moves against what remains my primary account. Last year they dropped the "real name" requirement entirely. And they've always done a great job of allowing compartmentalization, so your political comments can stay tidily within a target circle.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: One of the bastards here...
One reason for this, among many, is that as a Wikipedia admin, it's practically in my job description that I'm going to be pissing people off now and then. I enforce rules, and often enough am telling people that they, or their band, or their company, or their organization, etc., do not meet the requirements to have a page on Wikipedia. People do not like being told NO. And limiting their ability to track me back to my offline self just seems like a prudent way of handling things.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
thank you
[ link to this | view in thread ]
^^^^^^^
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The Real Reason
"This is a good counter argument to my post on Online Anonymity. (Still want the trolls unmasked, though.)"
https://twitter.com/LanceUlanoff/status/623185482386677760
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: nametags in public
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lance Ulanoff
Never heard an expiration date on that oath.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: nametags in public
Seriously though: let's just switch to government issued SIM cards with ICCIDs replaced with SSNs. Toss in an AR app so that we can all point our cameras at anyone else and see a detailed history, current employment, annual income, political party affiliations, religion, etc.
iKennzeichenFurSchutzheftlinge
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This is a reporter?!?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The only times I've been glad to be anon are those when I tell what I believe to be really, really bad jokes. And of course, those are the only ones that have ever gotten a funniest of the week.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: nametags in public
Take a picture with your smartphone, scan an image with a scanner, post it on the Internet thinking it can't be traced back to you? Someone can identify imperfections in the lens that can show up in the picture when analyzed closely.
Heck, I remember reading that some companies have previously purposely put unique identifying information within printers, scanners, and cameras that can uniquely trace a picture or printout to the specific device responsible when the print or image is analyzed closely.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
HIPAA.
Go ahead, Lance. Post your entire family's entire medical history online for all to see. Surely there's no need to hide that. Everyone has a medical history, after all. We're all just human. What could possibly be so special about yours and your family's? What have you got that needs to be hidden from the rest of your peers? This is just simple honesty and courtesy isn't it? Then we can discuss whether we have any need to keep secrets from each other, to keep the bad actors honest. That is, of course, assuming your family hasn't murdered you yet.
I'm amazed that a grown man (assuming LU is his real name, and he's actually male) writing stuff posted on-line in the 21st Century for all to see can be so lazy as to not bother to do any research whatsoever prior to spewing irrational, ignorant bullshit! What a lazy fool. AC above is correct. I expect he's going to wish he'd posted this drivel anonymously real soon.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike!!!
Damn has he not read the stories about people sending SWAT teams to peoples homes due to being angry over them winning games on xbox or playstation consoles, or even because they just want to scare them.
And there are so many examples of how people have been attacked by the mob when their identity has been spread all over the internet.
There is a very valid reason why reddit states very clearly just as you are about to comment that anyone who posts any identifying information or tried to get the mob to seek such details will be banned from reddit. The reason is that the reddit mob have on occasion hurt people that have absolutely nothing to do with whatever story people are upset about and some have been hurt very seriously because of their being identified as someone else.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Reason for anonymity? Female.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Chilling effects of forced identification
Google+ got rid of the "real name" requirement some time ago.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Registration isn't always easy
In fact I have several FB and G+ accounts (in several countries as well), just for the hell of doing what they don't want me to do.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Reason for anonymity? Female.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I totally can't have multiple identities.
I totally can't bypass your simplistic thinking and create a living hell within the parameters you want to impose on the world because Reddit must die in your viewpoint.
This is more of the ME TOO bandwagon, leveraging the hype of the moment to spout off stupid shit to get more clicks.
If I ever used my real name, lets look at what wouldn't have happened.
Prenda would never have had to sue to try and id me. Mainly because I do not have the resources to fight the litigious, I would have remained silent about the scourge of copyright trolling. They would have been able to keep going for lord knows how long.
I wouldn't have said a majority of the things I've said online, because I value my privacy.
I wouldn't be out, because I still have the fear that fscker with a ball bat will show up again.
I would have never been a published author. Gay erotica not exactly resume building material if you aren't pursuing that path.
I would stop following many of the stories I do now, because not being able to share my viewpoint or ideas would frustrate me to no end.
I manage multiple online identities for myself. I like to keep things in the right compartments, and avoid crossing the streams. My copyright "activism" might be frowned upon in some of the circles I move in, and its less hassle to be someone else than have to explain over and over why I told the (insert profession here, cause I've done it a lot) to go fsck themselves.
Now to hear the lawyers tell it, I am an evil troll.
Of course when pressed for an example it boils down to I said mean things about them online, and ripped apart the lies they tell their targets.
I often say I am a shitty poster child, but stupid thinking like this could have ended my activism before it started. How would that make the internet a better place?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: nametags in public
That is of limited value in identifying a person unless there is a database of owners with their address. Oh wait, many companies want owners to register for warranty purposes.....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Chilling effects of forced identification
Most people know me (and call me) by it. Including those at my workplace.
You can google it. You probably wouldn't find my homepage when looking for my given name, but you sure find it with my nick.
So yeah, I do have a problem with "real names policy", because actually, the name they want is much less identifying, does much less belong to me than my nickname.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Especially since having your real name attached makes it easier for your attacker to find, stalk, and attack you again if it's your own rape under discussion. Just sayin'.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Ah, so that's why I can't sign up on your website. Someone must have been on the T-Mobile UK network and/or using Opera Mini when they did (or a mod decided they had done) something to get banned. Screw you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Not necessarily and absolutely not in all cases. You should have the right to donate to causes you believe in without fearing losing your job or protesters showing up at my house.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Serious questions for Ulanoff
Do you leave your snail mail out on the porch for your neighbors to look through? Of course you don't, because some things you do, and some purchases you make, aren't anyone's business but your own, and you value your privacy.
Do you post your SSN, and all of your email addresses and phone numbers online? Of course not, because you value your privacy. Would you let your mother post her own info online? Of course not, because she values her privacy.
I look forward to your responses.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hey I'm LanceUlanoff(TM)
-The Real Lance Ulanoff
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Hey I'm LanceUlanoff(TM)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Hey I'm LanceUlanoff(TM)
Sincerely,
The Real Lance Ulanoff™©®
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Hey I'm LanceUlanoff(TM)
Now I know you're lying. First off, nobody trademarks their name except for celebrities. Second off, you can't copyright a name. For one thing, it's too short. For another, if you could copyright your name, then you could sue the parents of everyone with the same name even if (as is likely) they've never even heard of you. Too bad, so sad. Try again, anonymous troll.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hey I'm LanceUlanoff(TM)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hey I'm LanceUlanoff(TM)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bullshit
Thank God for Techdirt and common sense...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Last Word
“The Real Reason
The only real reason Ulanoff could possibly want to require registration of real names is for retaliation purposes. Who gives a rats ass if the person's real name is used or not....unless of course you want to spin up a retaliation offensive against that person thereby attempting to chill free speech through online reverse bullying. This is about as hypocritical as you can get. Again, there is absolutely no reason to know the real identify of a anonymous poster unless you had plans to retaliate or go after them. I guess Ulanoff isn't ready to show his cards on that one.