I have regularly wiped my Reddit account, come back for a bit, notes the toxicity and blatant bias and wiped it again.

Within my circle of friends I no longer really discuss current events or politics. Once a pastime of challenging our beliefs and opinions has kinda just….stopped. And most are pretty moderate and more just burned out from the toxicity of others that we prefer not to engage it even in a relatively “safe” quarters because well, even some of our peers that traditionally have been level headed are less so and you never know who you will offend now.

For the most part I really only pull information now from RSS feeds. I no longer even seek out discussion. I just try and get a high level overview and call it good.

There’s a part of me that wants to discuss these things. But yeah, many are just over the top. I was discussing daycares with some colleagues at work over the “water cooler” and where we sent our kids. I mentioned the one we used because someone asked how it was. I gave them a rundown of my experience and someone else said the owners were “deplorable” and “advertised on xyz radio” and they were probably brain washing my….get it…3 year old. I told them I’m not huge on applying politics where it’s irrelevant if it’s not affecting the product. And that was it, everything went cold, and I ended up getting asked by my boss what I said.

My kids are not even aware there are other people in this world with the same name yet, and I offended someone by just mentioning a daycare center. And it’s a death by a thousand cuts, I’ll just pull back more I suppose.

I believe that if I do run for office that the things I’ve written here, in the context of today, will be dug up and taken out of context then. But I need to develop my thinking somewhere, and oddly enough this site has the most civil discourse I can find.

I don’t want to give up my anonymity and I don’t feel right now is the right time.

Right now, candidates are pigeon holed into two extremes, so I’m ok waiting on the sidelines and learning and reading more. I think what you bring up, and the cost of running for office (e.g. it could screw up your career if you’re targeted with a smear campaign) definitely limits the pool of candidates.

It’s definitely a sacrifice, especially if you lose. It turns you into a lightning rod, has the potential to ruin about half of your relationships, could wreck your career, and puts your anonymity and personal security in jeopardy. But I appreciate the opportunity that being born in this country gave me. And I feel a responsibility to do my part to provide those opportunities for the next generation and those who want to come here from around the world.

People who are worried about this kind of thing can always email us to rename their account and/or to redact identifying information. We don't want anyone to get in trouble from anything they posted to HN. While we don't delete entire account histories (and take some heat for this), we do care about protecting users, handle these requests every day, and there's nearly always something we can do.

And its important to recognize that the stores I refuse to patronize, and those I do that hold views I dislike, are probably not given the same distinctions by others, even those with ideals like mine.

But the core point should be we can have a calm, rational discussion on it, and leave with the understanding that your thoughts and views are not 100% my thoughts and views, and that's ok as long as neither of us hold views promoting violence or hatred.

I've never met a person in my life I 100% agreed with about everything. Not my mom, not my dad, not my sister, or my wife .

Talking and finding commonality is more important and necessary than finding reasons to dislike each other.

I raise fewer issues in work, am less willing to engage in debate with everyone, and am transitioning to treating the Internet with ephemerality (throwaway...), mostly read-only.

Perhaps this is a win for those that seek to control speech.

I suspect this may be part of it. And it may also be maturity or changes on my end too. Im much less apt to scream into the void. Im more aware my opinions dont really mean anything to others and so I filter much more. In some cases out of politeness, in others to avoid negative reactions or less than desirable outcomes.

I will say that my observations of people being notably more galvanized in their opinions, less open minded and more aggressive in attacking those they disagree with, even if its a passive aggressive attack and not one based in seeking retribution, have probably accelerated these more "isolationist tendencies" that I have seen develop within myself.

"democratization" does not exist in social media. Algorithms designed to maximize profit rule what people read and watch. It's not a meritocracy, and you even can buy credibility of you want. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dum0bqWfiGw)

So, be careful on thinking that no rules means that everybody has the same opportunities.

So, if anything, the issue is with those algorithms, or specific platforms.

The problem with the argument is that the assumption is that the economy will just happily stand still and you only buy the things you truly want. We keep our money because there isn't anything we want to buy. The irony behind that is that businesses would become increasingly desperate to sell products to you which means they will increasingly attempt to manipulate you and convince you that you really want these products. After all, the business takes away your valuable appreciating "money" while only giving you a non appreciating consumer good. It is inherently a coercive relationship.

If the only measure of social platform success is $. I'd say the true measure is adoption and the existing players are not on such strong fortifications by that measure. The existing platforms are begging to be disrupted by non-profit or benefit corps. It's not like you would need FB's salary budget to build a more healthy social platform.

I've seen this with Diversity and Inclusion.

You can't openly be against it or suggest that the bar was lowered for someone. So instead it's discussed behind closed doors, and you hear things like "You know X is here for the right reasons. He went to Y and is Asian so you know he's qualified".

Else you end up like the cancelled MIT lecturer.

Social media companies are fiefdoms whose real customers are other companies and individuals with large piles of money that want to use it to sway public opinion for profit or power.

YouTube et al. had no problem taking plenty of Mercer money to promote things like Brexit and other content that shifts focus away from those in power to other working class individuals. All someone with enough money has to do is pay to run promoted content on the platforms and it will be disseminated instantly to billions of eyeballs.

Social media platform owners and operators regularly remove content that might rock the boat. They already know that governments will pull the kill switch on them should real unrest happen, because it's happened countless times before. That's bad for revenue, so they play ball with people in power.

Meanwhile, the enlightenment was specifically when a wide variety of viewpoints started getting published.

Basically it's just tagging everyone like the sheep that we are. Terribly scary for anyone who isn't already brainwashed.

Yes, this is a good point. But in my mind this is more of an incidental convenience, not the primary reason.

>Meanwhile, the enlightenment was specifically when a wide variety of viewpoints started getting published.

Exactly! And when was it easier than now, or even possible, to get access to practically the whole variety of viewpoints? Everyone can now play an active part in the conversation with barely any barriers at all.

There are barriers. What people will actually see are mediated by algorithms that favor certain styles of presentation and types of content. It takes a fair amount of knowledge to not just make a point, but make it in a way that will gain traction rather than being shouted into a void. That knowledge comes from refinement and practice. It's why everyone on Twitter starts to sound the same once they get a big follower count. The likes and shares are actually training them to talk about certain things and certain ways through a reinforcement loop.

Censorship is here and a big deal.

I know that this is very unpopular opinion but there are very few cases where anonymity is useful. The rest is mostly useful for the abusive ones.

Instead of banning people and removing content, I would prefer losing anonymity.

I actually think that we can have the best of both worlds. What if we remain anonymous to the discussion parties but guaranteed linked identity to the systems that host us? If someone does something very bad, the identity could be revealed, i.e. doxxed. This way, many can self watch their behavior and remain anonymous.

So when the time comes and you post something objectionable or the mods flag you, the system can present you the option to remove your last post and lock your account OR override the mods, keep the content and reveal your identity.

It’s a shame that the current norm of dealing with people on the internet is to remove their content and lock them out. In my opinion, everyone should be guaranteed right to speak. If the the thing they do is illegal, punish them through the legal system but don’t silence them.

I would like to see evidence to back up your claim - evidence that supports the extension of this idea from the real world to the internet, because you don't get that for free.

Moreover, I can think of far more examples of retribution causing harm in the real world than doing good. Bullying in school, being fired for whistleblowing, being jailed or executed for wrongthink in China, getting slammed with jail time for uncovering criminally bad security on some website, losing your job because a mob on Twitter saw a doctored video of you doing something they didn't like...

Are all of these "very few cases where anonymity is useful"?

> What if we remain anonymous to the discussion parties but guaranteed linked identity to the systems that host us?

That still enables every most of the above abuses - which also happen to be the worse ones.

If you don't have even the potential for anonymity on the internet, then you get suppression of speech by tyrannical governments.

> If someone does something very bad, the identity could be revealed, i.e. doxxed

This reads as an ad for mob justice - and even if it weren't, this mechanism would absolutely still be exploited to that effect.

Perfectly nice people turn into psychos when they interact with people online. Observe kids playing games in real life, they are very rarely as vulgar or sadistic as on online games.

A walk even in the most crowded places is much nicer experience that an anonymous online place.

Oh and yes, the very few cases where anonymity is useful are exactly that kind of cases(whistleblowing, journalism targeting powerful figures etc.). These are rarities and are valuable but %99 of the discussion on the internet are not about these and I suggested a mechanism for anonymity anyway.

But if we want to avoid dealing with assholes, lets have excellent block tools. There might be issues with trolls on Signal, but I have never meet any because I only interact with my family.

Kids are actually rarely vulgar or sadistic when playing online as well. The toxicity of online gaming communities is a self-reinforcing feedback loop. The toxic kids find a home and either drive all the nice kids out with their toxicity or prompt the nice kids to adapt and internalize toxic ways of engaging. It's not an inherent feature of kids themselves and plenty of online games that were explicitly targeted at children have been perfectly fine without epidemics of griefing or abuse as long as they constrain kids to playing within their own friend-groups rather than against strangers.

Most of the foulest people are actually adults with jobs or surly teenagers. The kids are fine.

Removal of anonymity will help to settle this one.

Please notice how I don't simply propose removal of anonymity as using real name in your online image. I am proposing a way to lose anonymity in exchange of overriding the management when you have a collusion.

When people are assholes on the road I just want them to get away from me and leave me alone.

This just isn't true. It makes the assumption that what you will be shamed or punished for saying is completely in line with what is right. No way is that the case, whether you are talking about drugs, gender and sexuality issues, unpopular political ideas, or a host of other things.

Your argument is no different from those who claim that only those who have done something wrong care about privacy. It's wrong.

I also suggested a mechanism to stay anonymous as long as you are not causing problems. If you need the anonymity, simply go that route.

And who decides what constitutes "causing problems?"

While the vast majority of us (at least I hope so) would agree that violence and murder focused on a particular ethnic, religious or other group is a "problem," most other things have much less widespread support.

I have some fairly unpopular ideas, as well as some that are more readily accepted.

Should I be doxxed for expressing the thought that all drugs should be legal? For complaining vociferously about the business models of big social media companies?

In fact, it doesn't really matter what position I take on pretty much anything (vi vs. emacs, vanilla vs. chocolate ice cream, pandemic policies, etc., etc., etc.), there are those who will disagree -- sometimes with respectful argument/discussion, sometimes with hyperbole and personal attacks, and depending on the topic, even with violence.

There are some places in the US where criticizing Trump could get me ostracized, beaten or killed. And yet other places where taking the opposite position could have a similar effect.

The hundred or so Hong Kong journalists and activists that are sitting in jails for advocating that the government adhere to its own constitution are there because they were "causing problems."

And so I'll pose my question again: Who decides whether or not you, I or anyone else is "causing problems?"

I am proposing a right to overide management in exchange of giving up your anonymity when you have problem with the management of the platform if you think that you still want to participate in that platform.

I'm proposing a system where platforms lose their ability to censor people if the people in question are ready to bear the personal responsibility of their actions.

It is an interesting idea. However, there are some serious issues with that approach:

1. The old adage, "If it's connected to the Internet, eventually it will be hacked/compromised," applies, potentially exposing the links between accounts and the identities of those who operate them en masse;

2. The business models of most of the big platforms rely upon knowing who you are, so they can pretend that they can "target" advertising effectively. As such, those platforms would never go for such a solution;

3. I go back to the question I initially asked you -- Who decides when someone is 'causing problems' that would trigger the requirement that one give up their anonymity? If the management of a platform is controlled or influenced by governments or powerful special interests, important conversations would likely be stifled by such policies.

I'm all for cryptographic mechanisms (providing data integrity/non-repudiation) to identify individual actors (cf. stuff like this: https://pgp.key-server.io/ ) and validate that they are who they say they are.

However, forcing folks to use their "legal" identities to do so is a big mistake, given the propensity of others to harass and verbally/physically attack those with whom they disagree.

Giving centralized platforms the ability to force doxxing if they don't like the content of a particular post is problematic at best, and life-threatening at worst.

Oh BTW, it doesn't have to be a legal identity, I think. It could be some kind of identity that you build, it costs something and can be identical across platforms. The "costs something" doesn't have to be money, something that forces you to have just one practically. The NFT folks advocate for something like that. It could be a Instagram account with substantial number of followers(this one is problematic). Basically, something hard spawn without effort and consequences, something that you built on over time and you don't want to risk it by being a dick to someone.

The government ID is a good one as the govt. acts as reliable identity provider with significant identification infrastructure but I don't like that much because a government can abuse it as they can generate ID's without significant effort.

Another piece to this that you haven't addressed is that in the environment you propose, once you've chosen to expose your identity, every single thing you've ever posted and will ever post is now de-anonymized.

>Oh BTW, it doesn't have to be a legal identity, I think. It could be some kind of identity that you build, it costs something and can be identical across platforms.

I'd note that's already the case. If you're pseudonymous and offend the powers that be on a particular platform, they can already ban/censor/block you.

Please understand that I am not attacking you, nor am I dismissing your thoughts. There absolutely is merit in exploring ways to combat abuse/trolling/sundry nastiness online.

Rather, I find your proposal unconvincing and likely unworkable. It would be way too easy to game such a system and it would impose serious consequences on anyone who might espouse an unpopular opinion -- even if that opinion isn't abusive.

I sincerely hope that we can find ways to limit abusive/destructive behaviors online, but given that we've been unable to do so IRL when one's identity is already known, that seems incredibly unlikely.

On the social interactions on the internet, you miss much of it. If someone says something controversial, they will be often censored through voting mechanisms, shadow bans and account removals.

I'm extremely annoyed from our lack of ability to express controversial opinions online. Contrary to the narrative, anonymous accounts don't actually say anything controversial if they are going to get any traction. They usually say something populist and rally people.

It also enables people who think alike to gather and re-enforce their opinions. There are no controversial opinions in online conversations, there are controversial clans that talk to each other and sometimes engage in flamewars when they encounter each other. Trump never said anything unpopular, name a person who you think is horrible but popular and that person never says unpopular things, that's how they are popular. The web has become popularity contests and the anonymity only serves for saying the popular opinions of one group when you are in another.

On every platform that I know, the most popular opinions are those who are promoted and the unpopular ones are hidden or buried, even here on HN is the same thing. You can observe how my truly unpopular opinion will get greyed out and sent to the botton of the thread, possibly collapsed and out of reach to the most so that the populist opinions on this platform can reign.

I want a mechanism where expressing controversial opinions doesn't punish your reach but because I know that this can lead to some horrible stuff(like the things in 4chan etc), I propose a way to put your reputation on the line to do it.

4Chan is an exception where controversial ideas are not buried but they have an issue with some people who are truly horrible.

As long as you don't talk about anything not following the official lines and/or the mainstream ideology, sure... there are many topics which are effectively banned and will get you punished one way or another for just mentioning them

Having everything you say attached to your name forever seems extremely icky (we both know that "banned" and "deleted" don't mean anything on the internet). In an hypothetical perfect world with hypothetical perfectly rational people why not, in the mess we live in it would be a nightmare.

I don't know why people feel entitled to say something without facing the consequences of it. If you don't believe in it enough to defend your position and put forward your reputation, you don't need to say it.

Why do you need to deceive people? Let's say, you are a racist and feel very strongly to say something about your opinions. Say it and win the argument and improve your life or say it and lose the argument and people can choose not to be associated with you.

That's a fair situation, what's not fair is to annoy people or maybe even harm them from another persona and then pretend that you are something else.

We also have to remember that internationally, the standards for what is acceptable speech is wildly different, so de-anonymization can literally cause people to be imprisoned and/or killed.

In my opinion, highly moderated forums tend to have their conversations reduced to low-value self-reinforcing memes/jokes/self-congratulations/hate-for-the-other-party.

But more importantly, there are certain truths that would go unspoken in a completely de-anonymous internet. ...and as forum providers consolidate ever-closer to governments, that class of illegal words gets larger.

That’s the one of the few rare cases where anonymity is important. Add whistlelowers etc. to the mix but these are edge cases that can have specialized mechanisms.

For many cases the default approach could be good enough though. Your identity will be encrypted in the system and when the moderators of a specific platform think that you are a trouble, they lock you and remove your content but they don’t know your identity. It’s up to you to unlock your account by revealing your identity.

So, you can simply post to places that are not hostile to you and you stay anonymous. Russians journalists can post to American forums for example.

It's not either/or. It's none/both.

Within friend groups, yes. On the internet I don't think it makes sense, simply because what is acceptable within different groups is so different.