Just tyo throw this out there, not all people are social creatures and I'm not reffering to the antisocials. Ahsbergers and those with social anxiety disorder and people on the autism spectrum may shy away from social situations or prefer to remain more anonymous for their own personal reasons. Just a thought.
we are all a product of society. accountability is something that has been ingrained into our minds since we were little. it is an expression related to our social power structure. of course a high powered man like zuckerberg wants accountability or whatever on the Internet. The law is on his side, being a rich, powerful person. As the law shit is brought more and more into the Internet, the internet becomes more and more a tool for those which the law is there to serve. And thats not me and you
11. But turning away surely won't help develop us either. The first step to changing behavior for the better, is to acknowledge the current mistakes. I'm all for the staring-contest - as for the other gaze, I am ITS void and enigma. If I can be affected, so can the other gaze. It's just a matter of whose will is the strongest. ---
This has turned into a rather elaborate comment as you no doubt see, forgive me for it! haha
10. This in contrast to when there is a real identity. Pseudonyms and internet-profiles are somewhere between these extremes.
Finally, yes not all speech is harmless and in order for it to be addressed properly there needs to be some form of accountability/identification. But I don't think the very act of expression harmful speech is necessarily bad. Yes, the void does stare back and can affect us in our studies.
9. So this is where I disagree with your 'greater amount of harm' suggestion. With greater anonymity also comes less credibility. That's why people eventually add an identity to their remarks and get supporters. The greatest harm to the status quo comes from anonymity, the greatest structural support of the status quo comes from adding the identity. The other side of freely speaking when anonymous, is that it diminishes credibility and remarks are just as easily ignored.
8. But the rapid and massive platform of the internet creates reinforcement for those sharing ideologies, which encourages them to add their identity to their remarks. From this, we get bigotted twitters and obnoxious, prejudiced bloggers who willingly post their name and photo alongside disgusting remarks. It's when the two come together, when people start openly identifying with their preconceived notions, that we perhaps get the most authenticity.
7. I already said this on ZJ's video, anonymity is no longer a prerequisite for expressing ones ideology. The internet has created the largest platform of communication where we can have BOTH identity as well as the most dissociative distance. Like you say, there is not much threat in my knowing the
name of someone who lives on the other side of the world.
6. It is a remark you've most likely heard a million times before.. also from 'anonymous'. If there was authenticity at this level, why is the anonymous' comment so often exactly the same - often even using the same words and phrasing across comments? Because it is not what people are ''really'' thinking, it is a reiteration (/regurgitation) of a common view FROM WHICH they start thinking.
The axioms, the preconceived notions, the ideology and prejudice.
5. Not what they are truly have 'come' to think, but rather they voice the original axiom from WHICH they start forming their authentic thoughts. Perhaps you get my point: they aren't authentic here either, but rather voice the underlying ideology or preconceived notion that colors all their other authentic thought. So paradoxically, there is perhaps even LESS authenticity at THIS level! Yes, have you never noticed that the 'anonymous' never has a rich, diverse and multivariant viewpoint?
4. Thereby allowing people to speak from their fundamental beliefs. However, here comes the twist - these beliefs are of course not created in a vacuum. They are still created throughout ones lifetime, with environmental (and other) factors. erhaps a bit Lacanian, but still - here's the thing: more often than not, when anonymous.. people tend to be voiceboxes for some ideology or another.
3. I'd argue here that there are still 'display rules (DR)' that inhibit authenticity - generally speaking: the more face-to-face (roundness), the more DR matter (accountability). And that's where social DR interfere with authenticity - especially if you disagree with someone and there has been no platform created that removes
the DR (like in a debate). This is precisely what anonymity does, it removes the DR - especially on the internet, which additionally dissociates and is a fast medium.
2. Moving on, I'd agree with you on how you state that text dissociates and is in a ''vacuum'' - in quotation marks for now as I agree with your use here, but will add a different use later. You say that text is more 'flat' and speaking face-to-face is more 'authentic'. You seem to posit authenticity here as a negative correlate to 'flatness'. But is flatness/roundness really correlated to authenticity? I get your point, but let me approach it from a slightly different angle.
1. Hi Ashley, some interesting points in your response. A few things I'd like to remark upon. First, permit me to answer the second question directed to ZJ, as well - not on her behalf, but on my own. I agree, I don't think there is much difference between anonymity in other media and communication on the one hand & specifically the one the internet on the other - in essence.
Hmm. Several points here I disagree with, but for now I'll focus on the biggest one:
Just so know you, I had a roommate that could use your first and last name to find out EVERYTHING about you. So unless that name is an alias, it is more than "just a name.
In the field of information security, reputation is considered to be a much more challenging topic then identity. But, most of the protection one enjoys when they've revealed their name is simply a benefit of being one of the herd (safety in numbers); that loss of anonymity is widely considered to be a significant liability should some malicious entity choose to single someone out.
In contrast, the announcement by the EFF that they would like to see more Tor servers is also very interesting.
Depending on the uniqueness of the name (and the presence of other identifying features, like location, photos, schools, etc.), a name *can* provide a way to track down a person’s address, phone number, email address, etc.
Bottom line seems to be, there are some cases for anonymity and some where people must be accountable. The trick it seems and the crossroads we are experiencing is being able to identify when each is appropriate. Zuckerberg opted for laziness and basically is saying, "Since I can't ferret it out, let's just do away with it". As the owner of the the world's largest social network, he needs to grow up, take responsibility and deal with it or let someone else and get the F' out of the way. IMHO
You just cant have anonymous accountability! Its impossible!! Whats next sharia law? There needs to be someone there to actually have a democratic and fair account of what is happening.. Societies that refuse to accept this will fail! Here is an example a school teacher holds you back a grade when you didnt really deserve it.. Then later on he says that you dont deserve the best job at a retail store ..because he deems you stupid.. He is now the judge of the town you are in? Is this fair?
@HezaaZee I tend to feel like blogging/social networking is fairly benign for the most part and so being anonymous/pseudonymous (The distinction seems rather irrelevant for the points I'm trying to look at) is pretty alright.
(cont'd) Let each site set their own rules about accountability based on the kind of community they want to build. We can call out ignorance via dialogue without needing to know where the ignorance exactly came from, and set the example to others that this is not acceptable. Also, you'd be surprised what Anon can drag up about you with very little info about you. It has its uses, and if a site feels its valuable to their goals, I don't question that. I can, however, choose to participate or not.
You introduced me to Zinnia and for that I thank you! I've been on the net since my childhood and I do think anonymity shows us the darkness of humanity, but it shows it to us in a kind of amplified, fun-house mirror sort of way. People can say things just to provoke a response when they think there will be no consequences, and we can't tell the motivation for their hatefulness. At the same time, net without anonymity, imho, destroys a huge part of what makes the net great. (cont'd)
Zinnia Jones is one of my favorites... she's extremely beautiful and intelligent and only speaks about subjects she knows well, which is just about everything... you're also one of my favorites too for the same reasons... thanks for sharing your ideas with us...
I think the "need" for anonymity only arises in truly oppressive states. But in a truly oppressive state I doubt anonymity would be allowed. So maybe any attempt by government to eliminate anonymity is a sign of a shift to an more oppressive level.
In less oppressive states anonymity serves less purpose. It only serves people's need to be ass holes. And I think we can all deal with that. Only those that stand to make a profit by eliminating it (Zuckerberg for example) have a reason to care.
Your idea at the end of this video, that those with more influence should have less anonymity and vise versa, is interesting. How would their power/influence be carried over to an anonymous post?
I've always thought that people with little or no influence are basically anonymous (not literally, but in effect).
I wonder if removing people's ability to post content anonymously would really be removing the perceived power of anonymity?
you 2 hit a good subject.. so what is with a name? a rose still smells sweet even if you call it an onion. Keep it up you two.
StarDeShine 1 month ago
Why did you "like" the Rick Perry commercial "Stronger"?
iamindefinite 3 months ago
Just tyo throw this out there, not all people are social creatures and I'm not reffering to the antisocials. Ahsbergers and those with social anxiety disorder and people on the autism spectrum may shy away from social situations or prefer to remain more anonymous for their own personal reasons. Just a thought.
CateyCz 4 months ago
Your eloquence is always a breath of fresh air.
fionamickunas 4 months ago
Young man, I hope you get some help for your problem.
Pizuzuzimmer 5 months ago
I still can't pronounce the word LOL
littlebit19801 5 months ago
we are all a product of society. accountability is something that has been ingrained into our minds since we were little. it is an expression related to our social power structure. of course a high powered man like zuckerberg wants accountability or whatever on the Internet. The law is on his side, being a rich, powerful person. As the law shit is brought more and more into the Internet, the internet becomes more and more a tool for those which the law is there to serve. And thats not me and you
boshea8498 5 months ago
As I do with many other issues, I find it hard to focus on this because there are more important things to focus on.
We are not done thinking. Because we know little of the world we live in.
So let me give you something to think about, this is not an idea meant to be taken as truth. Because your personal growth is important.
This is a response to your bit that started around 3:00
What if ''society'' is something that right now, is creating these and larger issues?
keep the gears turning
~Jkun~
Jkun 6 months ago
11. But turning away surely won't help develop us either. The first step to changing behavior for the better, is to acknowledge the current mistakes. I'm all for the staring-contest - as for the other gaze, I am ITS void and enigma. If I can be affected, so can the other gaze. It's just a matter of whose will is the strongest. ---
This has turned into a rather elaborate comment as you no doubt see, forgive me for it! haha
kasitera 6 months ago
10. This in contrast to when there is a real identity. Pseudonyms and internet-profiles are somewhere between these extremes.
Finally, yes not all speech is harmless and in order for it to be addressed properly there needs to be some form of accountability/identification. But I don't think the very act of expression harmful speech is necessarily bad. Yes, the void does stare back and can affect us in our studies.
kasitera 6 months ago
9. So this is where I disagree with your 'greater amount of harm' suggestion. With greater anonymity also comes less credibility. That's why people eventually add an identity to their remarks and get supporters. The greatest harm to the status quo comes from anonymity, the greatest structural support of the status quo comes from adding the identity. The other side of freely speaking when anonymous, is that it diminishes credibility and remarks are just as easily ignored.
kasitera 6 months ago
8. But the rapid and massive platform of the internet creates reinforcement for those sharing ideologies, which encourages them to add their identity to their remarks. From this, we get bigotted twitters and obnoxious, prejudiced bloggers who willingly post their name and photo alongside disgusting remarks. It's when the two come together, when people start openly identifying with their preconceived notions, that we perhaps get the most authenticity.
kasitera 6 months ago
7. I already said this on ZJ's video, anonymity is no longer a prerequisite for expressing ones ideology. The internet has created the largest platform of communication where we can have BOTH identity as well as the most dissociative distance. Like you say, there is not much threat in my knowing the
name of someone who lives on the other side of the world.
kasitera 6 months ago
6. It is a remark you've most likely heard a million times before.. also from 'anonymous'. If there was authenticity at this level, why is the anonymous' comment so often exactly the same - often even using the same words and phrasing across comments? Because it is not what people are ''really'' thinking, it is a reiteration (/regurgitation) of a common view FROM WHICH they start thinking.
The axioms, the preconceived notions, the ideology and prejudice.
kasitera 6 months ago
5. Not what they are truly have 'come' to think, but rather they voice the original axiom from WHICH they start forming their authentic thoughts. Perhaps you get my point: they aren't authentic here either, but rather voice the underlying ideology or preconceived notion that colors all their other authentic thought. So paradoxically, there is perhaps even LESS authenticity at THIS level! Yes, have you never noticed that the 'anonymous' never has a rich, diverse and multivariant viewpoint?
kasitera 6 months ago
4. Thereby allowing people to speak from their fundamental beliefs. However, here comes the twist - these beliefs are of course not created in a vacuum. They are still created throughout ones lifetime, with environmental (and other) factors. erhaps a bit Lacanian, but still - here's the thing: more often than not, when anonymous.. people tend to be voiceboxes for some ideology or another.
kasitera 6 months ago
3. I'd argue here that there are still 'display rules (DR)' that inhibit authenticity - generally speaking: the more face-to-face (roundness), the more DR matter (accountability). And that's where social DR interfere with authenticity - especially if you disagree with someone and there has been no platform created that removes
the DR (like in a debate). This is precisely what anonymity does, it removes the DR - especially on the internet, which additionally dissociates and is a fast medium.
kasitera 6 months ago
2. Moving on, I'd agree with you on how you state that text dissociates and is in a ''vacuum'' - in quotation marks for now as I agree with your use here, but will add a different use later. You say that text is more 'flat' and speaking face-to-face is more 'authentic'. You seem to posit authenticity here as a negative correlate to 'flatness'. But is flatness/roundness really correlated to authenticity? I get your point, but let me approach it from a slightly different angle.
kasitera 6 months ago
1. Hi Ashley, some interesting points in your response. A few things I'd like to remark upon. First, permit me to answer the second question directed to ZJ, as well - not on her behalf, but on my own. I agree, I don't think there is much difference between anonymity in other media and communication on the one hand & specifically the one the internet on the other - in essence.
kasitera 6 months ago
@MegaTress1 lol @ MRAs...you run the fucking world, what more rights do you want?
icecoldbath 6 months ago
Hmm. Several points here I disagree with, but for now I'll focus on the biggest one:
Just so know you, I had a roommate that could use your first and last name to find out EVERYTHING about you. So unless that name is an alias, it is more than "just a name.
"
VioletDrow 6 months ago
In the field of information security, reputation is considered to be a much more challenging topic then identity. But, most of the protection one enjoys when they've revealed their name is simply a benefit of being one of the herd (safety in numbers); that loss of anonymity is widely considered to be a significant liability should some malicious entity choose to single someone out.
In contrast, the announcement by the EFF that they would like to see more Tor servers is also very interesting.
TesserId 6 months ago
zj is a guy
ROBOOT103 6 months ago
Depending on the uniqueness of the name (and the presence of other identifying features, like location, photos, schools, etc.), a name *can* provide a way to track down a person’s address, phone number, email address, etc.
csoki631 6 months ago
i find this video hard to masturbate to
kelloggcerealxoxo 6 months ago
Bottom line seems to be, there are some cases for anonymity and some where people must be accountable. The trick it seems and the crossroads we are experiencing is being able to identify when each is appropriate. Zuckerberg opted for laziness and basically is saying, "Since I can't ferret it out, let's just do away with it". As the owner of the the world's largest social network, he needs to grow up, take responsibility and deal with it or let someone else and get the F' out of the way. IMHO
Dollfan 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You just cant have anonymous accountability! Its impossible!! Whats next sharia law? There needs to be someone there to actually have a democratic and fair account of what is happening.. Societies that refuse to accept this will fail! Here is an example a school teacher holds you back a grade when you didnt really deserve it.. Then later on he says that you dont deserve the best job at a retail store ..because he deems you stupid.. He is now the judge of the town you are in? Is this fair?
seenote0 7 months ago
Comment removed
seenote0 7 months ago
law inforcment can't nesicerily acess information on you baced on a name. There are like 3 or 4 people in my area with the same name as mine.
jawj4291 7 months ago
@HezaaZee I tend to feel like blogging/social networking is fairly benign for the most part and so being anonymous/pseudonymous (The distinction seems rather irrelevant for the points I'm trying to look at) is pretty alright.
icecoldbath 7 months ago
(cont'd) Let each site set their own rules about accountability based on the kind of community they want to build. We can call out ignorance via dialogue without needing to know where the ignorance exactly came from, and set the example to others that this is not acceptable. Also, you'd be surprised what Anon can drag up about you with very little info about you. It has its uses, and if a site feels its valuable to their goals, I don't question that. I can, however, choose to participate or not.
xTenshiko 7 months ago
You introduced me to Zinnia and for that I thank you! I've been on the net since my childhood and I do think anonymity shows us the darkness of humanity, but it shows it to us in a kind of amplified, fun-house mirror sort of way. People can say things just to provoke a response when they think there will be no consequences, and we can't tell the motivation for their hatefulness. At the same time, net without anonymity, imho, destroys a huge part of what makes the net great. (cont'd)
xTenshiko 7 months ago
Zinnia Jones is one of my favorites... she's extremely beautiful and intelligent and only speaks about subjects she knows well, which is just about everything... you're also one of my favorites too for the same reasons... thanks for sharing your ideas with us...
take good care and PeaCe2U...
Kensho
IChoseTheRedPill 7 months ago
I think the "need" for anonymity only arises in truly oppressive states. But in a truly oppressive state I doubt anonymity would be allowed. So maybe any attempt by government to eliminate anonymity is a sign of a shift to an more oppressive level.
In less oppressive states anonymity serves less purpose. It only serves people's need to be ass holes. And I think we can all deal with that. Only those that stand to make a profit by eliminating it (Zuckerberg for example) have a reason to care.
tarahille 7 months ago
Your idea at the end of this video, that those with more influence should have less anonymity and vise versa, is interesting. How would their power/influence be carried over to an anonymous post?
I've always thought that people with little or no influence are basically anonymous (not literally, but in effect).
I wonder if removing people's ability to post content anonymously would really be removing the perceived power of anonymity?
tarahille 7 months ago
Hey kid, how are things going?
falsepride 7 months ago