The association that everybody seems to make between anonymity and cowardice is ridiculous. If somebody was a famous phisicist for example, and came here, everybody would shy away from disagreeing with him or even be too shy to express something that may sound stupid. It'd have a chilling effect on the discussion. If the same person came anonymously, he could still say all the same things, but the merit would be in the argument alone, not in the authority of his name. Anonymity is good for discussion.
This makes sense in all the sciences except, I believe, social science theory. In it, there is considerable rationalizing. It is not considered a "hard" science. In fact, I find that professors in the hard sciences hold a usually subtle or hidden contempt for their social theorist academic brothers. That is even though social theory has a mass of data at its disposal to work with. The data comes from the investigative work of the archeologists, animal behavioralists, anthropologists, geneticists, and even, sociologistists. Interpreting it all is a sort of playground where few can even find a clear consensus.
Various Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Did not know you had a blog though so not that. House locations are easy if someone pays property tax.
Being anonymous allows less inhibition when it comes to free speech. The content of free speech is able to expand its range, when being anonymous makes it harder to pin something on someone. Being anonymous can also allow one to disagree, with a group that one has dependency on, without fear of political repercutions. Some things need to be said, but conflict of personal interests can cause one to shut up, unless there was a way to ensure personal security. For example, to say anything against evolution, even with rational arguments, can lead to slander and stereo-typing. This is one of the cornerstones of the atheist religion and will be defended even with threats. Being anonymous, you can say what you wish to say, while personally staying out the the reach of company politics. But on the other hand, being anonymous, also makes one subject to generic stereo-typing, since the anonymous lack a rea lidentity. So what is being said against a stereo-type group, can sometimes be assumed to be true of a faceless anonymous. You can not meet them in person to rule things out. But what is in a name? There is a fable called Rumpilstiltskin. In this fable a miller, to appear more important, tells a lie about his daughter able to weave straw into gold. The king hears of this and orders his daughter to his castle to spin gold. She is locked up for three days. During that time a impish creature appears and spins the gold in exchange for some of her personal possessions. On the final day, she runs out of things to give him, so they make a deal that she will give him her first born if he will help her pass the gold test. She marries the king and when their child is born the imp comes for his collection of the child. She doesn't wish to give up her child and offers other things. The imp finally makes a new deal and says if she can guess his name in three days the bet will be off. The queen sends someone to spy on him, who hears the imp say his name. She says the name and wins the bet. Rumpilstiltskin has his magical power, but only as long as he is anonymous. This magic impish power is a two edged sword, since the power of anonymous can be good or bad, waeve gold or create extortion. The subjective power of calling his name (real idenity) ends the projection, taking away this imaginary power. The reaction by people to an anonymous person is often overalayed with their own impish projection, which can feed the anonymous through how everyone reacts. The anonymous Rumpilstiltskin can weave straw into gold or he be a real prick depending on individual projection. But once his name is said, his subjective power depotentiates. The whistle blower can play the projected hero when anonymous. We may envision the strong will person or whatever our image is of a hero. But as soon as his name is said, other factors, will the projected hero dynamics. Instead of an impish archetype he is an individual without impish power. The idea of a troll, creature who lives under bridges, is a fairey tale projection of the mind stemming from being anoymous, since you can't know the person well enough to get a real picture of them. They become an archetypical imp.
There's even a song for this thread. Go figurePlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Age of Rage - Corroded
Yeah reverse directories work well . I tracked People down this way many times . My sub contractors get blown away . They don't understand How I do it . If they didn't show up on my job when they were suppose to be there and it was important enough to me I would track em down and go to the job they were at and say why are you not at my job. There eyes would bug out of there faces and they would say " How the hell did you find Me ??? I didn't tell them there buddies and some not so buddies told Me were to find you . I don't know , people like to tell Me things . I don't know why that is ? It makes them feel better I think . Or maybe they are just dying to tell someone and I just happen to listen to em. Once they started they tell everything they know . Me dad taught Me this . He said get with your peers that know and are successful cause they want to tell you how they did it . Ask and you shall recieve
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/08/30/google_plus_anonymity_ban/ Which brings out the whole reason behind this push for getting rid of anonymity of the past few months: There's money to be made.
I wouldn't like to see a web without anonymity. For one thing anybody that feared reprisal wouldn't speak out without the protection of anonymity, so it would be a much poorer place. Next, putting your real identity out there for other to use and take advantage of is very bad personal security practice. Why do you think ID theft is becoming big business.
well, I know I piss people off left and right on the internet WAAAAAAY more than I do in real life. Apparently asking questions pisses people off. And I really hate to read through long long long copy and paste posts. so I don't and I confuse easily (or maybe its just certain posters here who always have me saying 'wha???')
Actually I think it's your obnoxious avatar that pisses people off.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I think we have to make a distinction between two types of anonymity. 1) Separation of actual identity information (name, address, SS# etc) with username. This is the default on the web and is fairly important. 2) Separation of online identities. This is a bad thing IMO, and is effectively the loss of connection between a user's posts and a user's _online_ identities. In any community it is essential to build relationships, and maintaining a strong relationship between a username and a user is essential. (Which is why sock puppets are such a pain in the butt.)
If a person has more than one personality it only fair that each personality has it's own forum ID and being referred to as a sock puppet is offensive.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
But what if they want to be known as SockPuppet? What do you have against puppets, anyway? But seriously, on another forum I moderate, sock puppets and names used to get around bans are a moderately annoying problem.
Yes I can see how sock puppets might be annoying. Especially if someone and their puppet is ganging up on you. Under those conditions it's nice to be able to ID them and make their relationship public knowledge (how embarrassing) caught with your sock puppet in hand.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
