I have a lot of respect for the legacy of #RalphNader, and he clearly respects the legacy of #RobertFellmeth, but listening to these two old men discuss internet regulation on Nader's #podcast is truly painful:
For a start, they don't know that FB already enforces real names and have completely missed the long-running debate about the #UnintendedConsequences of this:
Everything else in the discussion is about as far behind the 8 ball.
t. ex-8chan user
And yes, maybe having a privacy feature of displaying just an alias for a contributor would be nice, but to minimize the burden of proof that you're contributing in good faith I think it's a good idea that staff should have access to real names/identities of other staff.
OTOH wikipedia can do just fine with small contributions from anonymous people, so there's that. :)
As for Wiki, I think they manage to do reasonably well with anonymous contributions by having a fair amount of institutional safeguards which minimize the impact of vandalizing and trolling when it does happen (although subtle topic shifts/biasing representations in articles happen, regardless of whether or not the people contributing to the articles are anon, pseudonymic, or have their legal names divulged)
There are myriad consequences that no one should have to endure for having everything tied to a "real name" -- your employer does not deserve and should not have a full survey of your social interactions; this has a chilling effect. Many opinions and experiences that are worth discussing would be damaging tied to a legal name. You do not want discussion of suicide, for example, associated with your real name because people in society at large and especially employers are deeply regressive about it.
It's crazy to me that anyone would pretend "real-life society" at large is good enough at enforcing norms that make sense and that are constructive for the people on the receiving end that a "real name policy" makes sense -anywhere-.
What if you're some trans kid w/ controlling bigoted who just wants a friend group that doesn't hate them? What if your employer is shit? What if you just want latitude to be who you actually are?
People who want this want control, and they want people who have a shit time in society to have no escape from it. It's that simple.
@pulledfromthewater @allison @strypey I can totally sympathize with what you're saying. But I feel like you're missing the context of the discussion here which is a community for fact checking. Maybe I'm too privileged to see the forrest for the trees, but I don't see how this type of content can lead to dangers concerning one's real identity. I'm sorry if you have to worry about these things on a daily basis, and I hope we'll get to a point where you'll be able to feel safe on the internet.
> I don't see how this type of content can lead to dangers concerning one's real identity.
1) any community that enforces "real name" policies risks creating the negative effects described by @pulledfromthewater (among others), regardless of the purpose or content of that site.
2) on the net, no one cares that you're a dog. Communities need tools for evaluating users on the merit of their contributions, not their personal attributes. #FreeCode dev proves this is possible
@Wolf480pl "radical" comes from the Latin for "root", and describes the political approach of trying to identify and address the root cause of problems , rather than flailing away at the symptoms, to little lasting effect (reformist politics). "Radicalization", used correctly, refers to the process by which activists learn to dig deeper into causes, not the process of being recruited and indoctrinated by extreme reactionaries (who are the polar opposite of radical).