I have a lot of respect for the legacy of , and he clearly respects the legacy of , but listening to these two old men discuss internet regulation on Nader's 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 of this:

Everything else in the discussion is about as far behind the 8 ball.

@strypey "real names" All this does is keeps people with privacy concerns away from your platform and pushes them towards platforms which are more likely to radicalize them.

t. ex-8chan user

@allison @strypey how can anyone be sure that a person with a furrvatar and a made up name is contributing in good faith? (I'm not trying to attack you, but provide a counterargument to your statement)

@mariusor @strypey Because every once and a while I set aside performative irony and actually talk seriously about subjects I have a personal investment in? Like, I've been down all the steps of the radicalization pipeline, and back again, I know how this shit works. It's a lot of the reason I'm as open about my past as I am, because truthfully, I wouldn't wish it on anyone. If you have any more specific questions, please feel free to ask. (p.s. about the "fake name" thing, that's not quite true, I'm actually going to be legally changing my name to this in a year or so, so "fake name" is a bit of a stretch and also inadvertently transphobic to boot)

@allison @strypey like I said I wasn't trying to attack you. By "made up name" I was trying to contrast to "real name".

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. :)

@mariusor @strypey "good faith" can be something of a subjective issue depending on the ideological stance you choose to take going into it, but the way I see it, good faith is assuming your opponent or whoever you're talking to is actually interested in discussing things with a degree and air of seriousness and not just blatantly trolling or doing performative irony with whatever it is you're discussing (not to say those don't have a place too! Just not in the same kind of discussion imo)

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)

@allison @strypey to come back to you personally. Would you feel the same level of reluctance to contribute to strypey's effort if your name would be known only to a limited number of users as opposed to being completely public?

@allison @strypey
tfw. we live in a world where many people consider "radicalization" to be a good thing....

@mariusor @allison @strypey Guess I'm going to butt in because this is too noxious to me to ignore.
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.

@mariusor @strypey Yes, because that would still be a single point of failure and there could still be unintended adverse social consequences from tying a legal name to something. Let me put it this way, I have known several people who have had their lives utterly ruined from having one ill-placed mention of their real name allowing their opsec to be completely compromised. Entire websites essentially have a trade in writing libel and trying to harass people using their "powerwords" (legal names) and make their lives miserable for contrived and bad reasons. The only sane position to take in such an environment is one of minimal to no trust of any authority that can have your legal name, regardless of the social or personal ramifications of not divulging personal info

@allison @strypey ok, makes sense. Thank you for replying. I hope strypey is taking notes. :D

@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.

@mariusor @pulledfromthewater @strypey For fact checking, empirically the only thing that matters is that a fact is established and that it can be confirmed independently. If that is the case, then there should be no need for legal name escrow as such (although it might be helpful to do something else like PGP or Bitcoin as a way of verifying identity, along the lines shown here for example)

> 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. dev proves this is possible


@Wolf480pl agreed. I strongly dislike the misuse of "radicalization" to describe recruitment by cryptofascists of various flavours (white nationalist, islamist, zionist etc)

I don't think we agree. I dislike the misuse of "radical" to describe strong leftism with which the speaker agrees.

@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).