5 ms·

just because you know somebody's name, doesn't make them honest either, if it did politics would be a whole different ballgame.

true_religion 15y ago
It does mean that their lies can be tagged back against them. A name, a "real name" has a certain irrevocability to it.
- Foolness 15y ago
  Not necessarily. I don't know of an official term but it's some form of authoritarian fallacy. The fallacy that tagging back to people's name is in some way a key to preventing anything. Like if you ban something and there's enough demand, government agencies would somehow be able to distinguish between who are criminals and who are accidental criminals and that their regulation will serve the needs of the good guys. Tagging identities can at most link back traces to a "guy". Doesn't mean it would ever scale to lie detection. Especially when one considers the virtue of lie detection as not being a zero sum game. A liar can use a pseudonym and not a real name and he can just as be caught. A better liar can acquire a fake "legal reality" real name and he can be just as hard to catch. Even in minor cases that only require modding, the name is not as important as a "history" and a history will always be there with things like IP addresses. The need for a real name is just an assurance to satisfy the fears of those who are looking less for solutions and more at assurances that an unknown environment like anonymous internet would work closer to the proximity of reality that are more known to us even though in reality, our understanding of reality is just as false. We can totally live in a world (especially for urban areas) where our next neighbors are terrorists and we wouldn't know any better even if we are friends with them and know their names. (Which is not to say they are but the issue of names is fueled by our fear of the unknown and media and service providers banking on our fears to justify such identification procedures.)

true_religion 15y ago

It does mean that their lies can be tagged back against them. A name, a "real name" has a certain irrevocability to it.

Foolness 15y ago
Not necessarily. I don't know of an official term but it's some form of authoritarian fallacy. The fallacy that tagging back to people's name is in some way a key to preventing anything. Like if you ban something and there's enough demand, government agencies would somehow be able to distinguish between who are criminals and who are accidental criminals and that their regulation will serve the needs of the good guys. Tagging identities can at most link back traces to a "guy". Doesn't mean it would ever scale to lie detection. Especially when one considers the virtue of lie detection as not being a zero sum game. A liar can use a pseudonym and not a real name and he can just as be caught. A better liar can acquire a fake "legal reality" real name and he can be just as hard to catch. Even in minor cases that only require modding, the name is not as important as a "history" and a history will always be there with things like IP addresses. The need for a real name is just an assurance to satisfy the fears of those who are looking less for solutions and more at assurances that an unknown environment like anonymous internet would work closer to the proximity of reality that are more known to us even though in reality, our understanding of reality is just as false. We can totally live in a world (especially for urban areas) where our next neighbors are terrorists and we wouldn't know any better even if we are friends with them and know their names. (Which is not to say they are but the issue of names is fueled by our fear of the unknown and media and service providers banking on our fears to justify such identification procedures.)