> Some argue linking real identities to online accounts will reduce, well, all negative activity.
I don't think anybody is arguing that it will reduce all negative activity, just some.
I don't think anybody is arguing that it will reduce all negative activity, just some.
Seems like it's either a data breach waiting to happen or makes it much easier for the worst to dox and target people.
I think the pro-real-names position would argue that it is net negative for society for people to have this ability, we should only be saying aloud what we are willing to put our reputations behind.
I don’t agree with this position, but afaik that’s the position.
But, yeah, there are exceptions and corner cases to everything. I believe the fundamental idea is that "real" life didn't used to be like that, nor is it today. You just don't see the stuff you see online happening at the corner store. And the difference is that it's people you might see again, or can call the police on, or just recognise as fellow humans.
The problem of anonymity sometimes being required also isn't entirely new. There have long been guarantees (or attempts at such) of anonymity for situations where the need for it was generally acknowledged. In one such case, the organisation even adopted it as their name: Alcoholics Anonymous.
The people doing the harrasment do so under their own names.
people would avoid getting mental help, support groups, religion questions, sexual health, etc if they worried it would be easy to be exposed.
As far as I know, this hasn't been confirmed by anyone other than the dev themself yet. The personal information is also not in the archive, so someone (4chan staff or archive staff) did their job. We'll have to wait and see for the truth of that case, if it ever comes to light.
However I also agree with gp(?) swatting and similar is a problem.
I've experienced these things from internet things - resulted in knocks on the door, 'certified letters' - and pics of my house posted online with people on said blog asking others to drive by and honk.. I'm talking three separate incidents by two or three different people for different reasons - all from internet.
luckily for us it was more nerve racking that people were trying these things and nothing aside from the knocks became an issue - well one of them cost me a business relationship now that I think about it.
Mmm. In some cases terribly dangerous things to their health, like being gay in a country that forbids it. Or criticising a government that forbids it. Or saying something that only becomes illegal or publicly reprehensible after the fact.
The real issue here is the dedicated toxic users: sites like 4chan and Kiwifarm for example. Those groups are typically responsible for the real damage we see on the internet, and there's likely no way for us to ever flush them out. It's a cat-and-mouse game that cannot be won, only indefinitely postponed (which is a victory in their books).
from ddos attacks to the 4chan party van - these things can escalate quickly beyond control and have real world consequences. I've seen it actually happen more than once.