7 ms·

I still remember the days when almost everyone on Internet forums used pseudonyms and closely guarded their identities. It was even taught in schools not to rev

I still remember the days when almost everyone on Internet forums used pseudonyms and closely guarded their identities. It was even taught in schools not to reveal who you are online. Google, FB and other tech giants changed the norms around this completely for most Internet users. Once these platforms realised it was easier to monetise their users, and control abuse when dealing with real identities, they pushed hard for verified accounts (e.g. Google Plus) even though this is antithetical to the founding ideas of cyberspace. Today we have two Internets, one where anonymity is still possible but you can reveal your true name if you want (e.g. HN), and another of walled gardens with verified identities. The UK government is proposing to enshrine the fully identified concept of the Internet into law. While this will prevent some abuse it's a sad reflection on how some of the early values of cyberspace have been lost, where people could be who they wanted to be, and freely discuss topics they might not wish to have associated with their real names forever. Politicians whose main interaction with the Internet is through their Twitter accounts just don't get that.

ehutch79 5y ago
It's a matter of scale i think. In small communities, you're not really anonymous in the same way as on facebook. You might only be known as DataDog213 on some forum with a hundred members, but the people there know you and who you are as a person. In facebook groups with thousands of members with no real bar or entry, you're really anonymous and no more distinctive than anyone else if you don't make yourself stand out. (By bar of entry, I mean things like even finding the site in the first place)
- smorgusofborg 5y ago
  I'm not really seeing that difference in requirements. Most of the forums were trivial to find in all sorts of Google searches, allowing thousands of people to create a new unique account, and then get banned for violating the pinned rules about asking a question by one of the <100 users that could be recognized as being a repeated chat mate on the one forum. Many of those obsessives on one forum would never be findable somewhere else where they might not have been an expert. I find it a bit sad that thousands of people are on FB using their real names and turning person who says stupid things about several different hobbies into a permanent part of their own fairly permanent identity and I don't actually see how it helps anything. But maybe people who don't find it creepy see something I don't.
  - ehutch79 5y ago
    I don't know about you, but Facebook is trying to feed me groups I should join every visit. Huge difference. Also... google hasn't existed the entire life of the web.
- stjohnswarts 5y ago
  Isn't this in reverse??? A lot of people on Facebook know who I am. I was in TONS of forums and no one had a clue who I was in real life and my accounts weren't connected with anything other than a made up email for "confirmation" purposes and promptly deleted.
  - thrashh 5y ago
    I think a more exact description is: On social media groups and public posts, you are named but you are nobody to everyone else. On forums, you are unnamed but you gather a reputation and become somebody. (And on HN and Reddit, you are both unnamed AND a nobody.) And I think it’s because on forums, it was a combination of (1) a smaller community and (2) you had an avatar and sometimes a signature, which made every post of yours memorable.
kbos87 5y ago
Honest question in good faith - Why should we hold true to some past ideals of technologists 20 or 30 years ago? I think it’s pretty clear at this point that the notion of the web as a self protecting organism that naturally rejects misinformation and stops bad actors is completely wrong. I don’t know that I’m 100% in favor of what is being proposed here (partly because I expect there are likely nefarious reasons why governments are pushing it so hard.) But I also think you can’t ignore that misinformation from anonymous actors has pushed democracy to the brink of collapse, and “that wasn’t the original idea of the web” isn’t the best rebuttal.
- cudgy 5y ago
  Interesting that democracy is “to the brink of collapse” due to individual people expressing their thoughts on technological platforms. Either this is an exaggeration or maybe there are other reasons for the “collapse” like bad actors in government (not regular citizens) providing false information and trying to manipulate the citizens.
- tpxl 5y ago
  You also can't ignore that this will not help stop misinformation in any way.
  - kbos87 5y ago
    Facebook, TikTok, Instagram are a literal cesspool of misinformation that often gets its starting energy by being shared, upvoted and commented on by fake accounts. I don’t think “in any way” is fair.
    - StockHuman 5y ago
      Verified, authentic, checkmarked and vetted people still post false, misleading, or otherwise deliberate propaganda all the time. Truth claims from popular users fuel the fire of public opinion, whichever way the wind may blow. Dare I say I don't think insistence on authentic identity will improve things.
- 5y ago
Calvin02 5y ago
I'm curious, why do you think that these requirements won't spread to the rest of the internet? I doubt the proponents of this law would create a "loop hole" by allowing other sites to maintain "anonymity" (in quotes because there's no real anonymity on the internet for almost nearly everyone). Also, you seem to be making two contradictory points: 1) Facebook and Google pushed hard for verified accounts 2) Some parts of the internet make it optional to reveal your true name Verified accounts, as I understand them, on the social platforms are only for people who publicly want to build a brand around their identity. While people have to use a "real name" on Facebook and Google, there's nothing requiring to get verified.
- hyper_reality 5y ago
  > I'm curious, why do you think that these requirements won't spread to the rest of the internet I didn't say that, I only said that we currently have two Internets, but that there has been a shift towards the walled gardens of identified accounts over time. The proponents of the law probably would end up creating loop holes just because their main beef is with the big tech firms, and it would be challenging for a single country to enforce legislation on the rest of Internet. > Verified accounts, as I understand them, on the social platforms are only for people who publicly want to build a brand around their identity. While people have to use a "real name" on Facebook and Google, there's nothing requiring to get verified. We may be getting mixed up with the meaning of "verified", I'm talking about accounts where the platform has associated you with your RL identity through some method, not just the process to get a public blue tick. And, while there may be nothing formal requiring verification, there are many reports of people suddenly getting locked out of their accounts and being required to provide ID or at least a phone number shortly after registration. In fact a phone number is a pretty widespread requirement and it's getting harder to obtain a phone number that's not linked to your identity in some way. I don't see the contradiction in what I wrote, I have simply pointed out trends, not absolutes.
ghaff 5y ago
>I still remember the days when almost everyone on Internet forums used pseudonyms and closely guarded their identities. It really depended. For Usenet, many people were posting from their work or university accounts and their names and affiliations were often on display. And real names were also often common on local BBSs where people would even get together in real life. Random forums (and certainly anything to do with warez/cracking/etc.) that's doubtless true.
reaperducer 5y ago
I still remember the days when almost everyone on Internet forums used pseudonyms and closely guarded their identities I still remember when everyone on the internet was fully open about their identities. When you posted something online, you'd always use your real name. Often you'd also include your work and/or home address, work and/or home phone number, and where you worked with job title. I'm not saying that's better than what we have now. Just pointing out how the 'net has whiplashed from one extreme to another in a very short time.

ehutch79 5y ago

It's a matter of scale i think. In small communities, you're not really anonymous in the same way as on facebook. You might only be known as DataDog213 on some forum with a hundred members, but the people there know you and who you are as a person. In facebook groups with thousands of members with no real bar or entry, you're really anonymous and no more distinctive than anyone else if you don't make yourself stand out. (By bar of entry, I mean things like even finding the site in the first place)

smorgusofborg 5y ago
I'm not really seeing that difference in requirements. Most of the forums were trivial to find in all sorts of Google searches, allowing thousands of people to create a new unique account, and then get banned for violating the pinned rules about asking a question by one of the <100 users that could be recognized as being a repeated chat mate on the one forum. Many of those obsessives on one forum would never be findable somewhere else where they might not have been an expert. I find it a bit sad that thousands of people are on FB using their real names and turning person who says stupid things about several different hobbies into a permanent part of their own fairly permanent identity and I don't actually see how it helps anything. But maybe people who don't find it creepy see something I don't.
- ehutch79 5y ago
  I don't know about you, but Facebook is trying to feed me groups I should join every visit. Huge difference. Also... google hasn't existed the entire life of the web.
stjohnswarts 5y ago
Isn't this in reverse??? A lot of people on Facebook know who I am. I was in TONS of forums and no one had a clue who I was in real life and my accounts weren't connected with anything other than a made up email for "confirmation" purposes and promptly deleted.
- thrashh 5y ago
  I think a more exact description is: On social media groups and public posts, you are named but you are nobody to everyone else. On forums, you are unnamed but you gather a reputation and become somebody. (And on HN and Reddit, you are both unnamed AND a nobody.) And I think it’s because on forums, it was a combination of (1) a smaller community and (2) you had an avatar and sometimes a signature, which made every post of yours memorable.

kbos87 5y ago

Honest question in good faith - Why should we hold true to some past ideals of technologists 20 or 30 years ago? I think it’s pretty clear at this point that the notion of the web as a self protecting organism that naturally rejects misinformation and stops bad actors is completely wrong. I don’t know that I’m 100% in favor of what is being proposed here (partly because I expect there are likely nefarious reasons why governments are pushing it so hard.) But I also think you can’t ignore that misinformation from anonymous actors has pushed democracy to the brink of collapse, and “that wasn’t the original idea of the web” isn’t the best rebuttal.

cudgy 5y ago
Interesting that democracy is “to the brink of collapse” due to individual people expressing their thoughts on technological platforms. Either this is an exaggeration or maybe there are other reasons for the “collapse” like bad actors in government (not regular citizens) providing false information and trying to manipulate the citizens.
tpxl 5y ago
You also can't ignore that this will not help stop misinformation in any way.
- kbos87 5y ago
  Facebook, TikTok, Instagram are a literal cesspool of misinformation that often gets its starting energy by being shared, upvoted and commented on by fake accounts. I don’t think “in any way” is fair.
  - StockHuman 5y ago
    Verified, authentic, checkmarked and vetted people still post false, misleading, or otherwise deliberate propaganda all the time. Truth claims from popular users fuel the fire of public opinion, whichever way the wind may blow. Dare I say I don't think insistence on authentic identity will improve things.
5y ago

Calvin02 5y ago

I'm curious, why do you think that these requirements won't spread to the rest of the internet? I doubt the proponents of this law would create a "loop hole" by allowing other sites to maintain "anonymity" (in quotes because there's no real anonymity on the internet for almost nearly everyone). Also, you seem to be making two contradictory points: 1) Facebook and Google pushed hard for verified accounts 2) Some parts of the internet make it optional to reveal your true name Verified accounts, as I understand them, on the social platforms are only for people who publicly want to build a brand around their identity. While people have to use a "real name" on Facebook and Google, there's nothing requiring to get verified.

hyper_reality 5y ago
> I'm curious, why do you think that these requirements won't spread to the rest of the internet I didn't say that, I only said that we currently have two Internets, but that there has been a shift towards the walled gardens of identified accounts over time. The proponents of the law probably would end up creating loop holes just because their main beef is with the big tech firms, and it would be challenging for a single country to enforce legislation on the rest of Internet. > Verified accounts, as I understand them, on the social platforms are only for people who publicly want to build a brand around their identity. While people have to use a "real name" on Facebook and Google, there's nothing requiring to get verified. We may be getting mixed up with the meaning of "verified", I'm talking about accounts where the platform has associated you with your RL identity through some method, not just the process to get a public blue tick. And, while there may be nothing formal requiring verification, there are many reports of people suddenly getting locked out of their accounts and being required to provide ID or at least a phone number shortly after registration. In fact a phone number is a pretty widespread requirement and it's getting harder to obtain a phone number that's not linked to your identity in some way. I don't see the contradiction in what I wrote, I have simply pointed out trends, not absolutes.

ghaff 5y ago

>I still remember the days when almost everyone on Internet forums used pseudonyms and closely guarded their identities. It really depended. For Usenet, many people were posting from their work or university accounts and their names and affiliations were often on display. And real names were also often common on local BBSs where people would even get together in real life. Random forums (and certainly anything to do with warez/cracking/etc.) that's doubtless true.

reaperducer 5y ago

I still remember the days when almost everyone on Internet forums used pseudonyms and closely guarded their identities I still remember when everyone on the internet was fully open about their identities. When you posted something online, you'd always use your real name. Often you'd also include your work and/or home address, work and/or home phone number, and where you worked with job title. I'm not saying that's better than what we have now. Just pointing out how the 'net has whiplashed from one extreme to another in a very short time.