Question for the masses because I’m curious:

What do you think social media would be like if there was no anonymity?

Is it fair to say some people behave differently online because of anonymity?

Would it be good or bad if everything you posted could be tied back to you by your friends, family, employer, etc?

Some obvious concerns people express:

  • personal safety
  • freedom to express views contrary to community, government, etc without retaliation
  • fear of stigmas related to support, education, etc for stigma topics like mental health, sexuality, etc

What reasons do you have for not wanting to own your online identity other than being able to talk trash without being identified? Some people are public and still talk a lot of trash, looking at you Twitter.

You you got doxed, what do you think the impact would be just related to social media conduct?

  • fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    67
    ·
    9 months ago

    People already post the most racist, hate inducing, vitriolic shit on facebook with their name and life history attached to it.

    It might reduce some low effort trolling, but I don’t think it will affect much.

    • patchexempt@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      9 months ago

      Yep, there is already a great example of what would happen, and it pretty much proved what many of us believed: governments and employers used it as a surveillance tool, and it’s not a replacement for a real content moderation strategy. People are just as happy to be cruel to each other and spread disinformation even if their real name is attached to it.

      • MSgtRedFox@infosec.pubOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Locking down social media to prevent employers from judging your whole life on some party post has definitely become a thing.

        It’s harder to separate personal life from professional life if employers go through personal accounts.

        Government oppression is definitely a good example and would not be a desirable outcome.

    • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      They didn’t way back when I signed up.

      Later they started asking for it so I deleted my account.

    • EmperorHenry@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      9 months ago

      Certain politicians want to force everyone to dox themselves so that they can always find out exactly who is saying what.

      No more whistle blowers, no more protest organizing, no more political statements that rock the boat. No more shitposting for fun, no more porn, no anything else that you might want to keep private for any reason.

  • brsrklf@jlai.lu
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    There was a time when not revealing your identity was considered the safe way to be online, and telling strangers your name or personal info was taboo. Really, it was basic internet hygiene. The first push for real identities on social networks came mostly from advertisers, and those can go to hell.

    Yes, some people abuse anonymity to be assholes with no repercussions, and obviously I am not okay with that. There should be ways to deal with those without forcing everyone to expose their identity to the whole world.

    I will keep defending the right to anonymity. You only need one deranged maniac with different views on whatever, or trying to ruin your life for whatever reason to get into serious danger.

  • Dave@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    I’ll flip the question around: what are you trying to achieve with zero anonymity, and how could it be abused? Is the tradeoff worth it?

    If real identity is required to participate, but is not publicly displayed, who would you entrust with this information, and how could it be abused?

    • MSgtRedFox@infosec.pubOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      The phrase cognitive dissonance comes to mind.

      • I like the idea of being accountable for your activities, for some it would cause some thoughtfulness. It’s interesting to be able to scroll through a person’s activity and see how they treat people, the reasoning and logic behind their thoughts, etc. Facebook has this. I don’t think it counters much though. I feel like people double down on their views when challenged instead of reflection these days.

      • However, as well mentioned previously, people publicly scream ridiculous stuff. It doesn’t always prevent cyber bullying or curtail really convicted people from sharing unpopular, extreme, or hurtful things.

      • It’s sometimes nice to know who you are communicating with instead of a persona. I’m not a fan of deceitful context or misrepresentation. Opinions are funny. You ask a question, get a good answer, but have no idea who really said it. If you take advice from social media platforms, you might be taking advice from a kid, adult, senior, etc. There’s interesting pros/cons with that.

      • I think whistleblowers still need Anonymity to allow affective reporting, but I’m not sure that’s on social media sites.

      • calling out or spreading information on bad industry practices is a pretty good example of an advantage.

      • Overall, I don’t think there is as much idealistic positive effects on the social media experience as people might think/wish.

      • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        You didn’t answer the questions that the poster asked.

        " who would you entrust with this information, and how could it be abused?"

        • MSgtRedFox@infosec.pubOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          9 months ago

          Hmm, I trust the government because I don’t have a choice. Same for my ISP. Same for MS, Google, LinkedIn. They all mine data to compile and sell for ads. I don’t really care, I don’t buy crap I don’t want.

          A guy named ‘Jerry’ runs the instance my account is on. I guess I wouldnt care if he knew who I was. It would be nice if I knew exactly who he was since he owns all our data in his systems.

          Abuse in mild forms is a matter of opinion. I’m indifference to data mining in return for free services because I don’t buy crap I don’t want. I mostly hate advertising because it’s a distraction and you never get more time. Ever.

          Abuse towards identity theft already happens every moment of the day. If the government provided digital identity services that could be used to sign in everything, maybe I wouldn’t have to put my social security number into anything anymore.

          • dezmd@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            The irony of having an account on infosec.pub and not understanding even basic needs for personal infosec.

            Did you ever know a world without smartphones in your adult life?

          • MSgtRedFox@infosec.pubOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            I’d rather someone explain why they don’t like something then just down vote it. Seems lazy? I usually only down vote low effort or trash talk.

  • reddit_sux@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    9 months ago

    There is one more fear which might not be discussed, that is of identity theft.

    It is easy to do it offline, but it is a lot easier online.

  • Ada@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Queer people would be denied a chance to explore their identities and find peers if they lived in an unaccepting environment. This would be particularly damaging to closeted queer kids.

  • FoundTheVegan@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    That it would drastically harm queer people and those questioning their identity. Social pressure, fear and shame keeps people from asking certain questions or exploring their desires when it’s potentially tied to them for life.

    Look at the while concept of “queer appropriation” by celebrities. Their entire life is public and ironically while feeling themselves out and experimenting with new presentations, it’s ironically met with backlash from some queer people thinking it’s a capitalist ploy to appeal to queer fans.

    Being able to just ask questions and explore is a fundamental part of understanding yourself. Anonymity is a precious gift, but one that is also easy to take granted.

    Edit: Also religious folk.

  • DarkThoughts@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    9 months ago

    Aside from the obvious privacy issues, which are definitely the main problems here, it isn’t just users that behave differently. I’ve got several bans on Reddit that were literal bullshit, like saying a fascist Italy should be kicked out of NATO and the EU. Apparently this is “spreading hate”, worthy of a permanent ban, despite the fact that both institutions require democratic foundations for their member states. Mods and admins are just as ridiculous, be it out of malice or simply incompetency. And once you’re banned, there’s nothing you can do. You can try to appeal but those are in almost all cases denied too.

    But it also goes very much against the basic principles on what the internet was founded on. If we put some heavy identifiable restrictions onto internet accessibility then that’s a very powerful tool of oppression. Maybe you trust you current government enough to handle that, right now. I personally don’t. But even then, you never know what the next one will do. Tools of oppression like this, or AI based surveillance, could strangle any sort of meaningful resistance before it even gains the slightest bit of traction. Just look at how many far right governments had been gaining votes or even got into power over the last decade. Do you really trust those people to handle such tools with the needed responsibility?

  • TacoButtPlug@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    9 months ago

    It would put victims of domestic violence and other similar situations in a lot of danger. It would also paint a red x on the queer community, feminist activists, police reformists, housing rights activists, people opposed to war and genocide, so on and so forth. Meanwhile, Chase and his white supremacist buddies would continue to post their bile behind their real identities, just as they always have, and Mark and Elon would still sleep like babies.

  • r00ty@kbin.life
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    9 months ago

    Personally, sometimes I’m going to say things that are against the industry or specifically the actions of the company I work for. If my real name was shown someone could connect me to the actual business and they’d see me as some disloyal employee and not only would I not have a job, I could be blackballed by the industry because most businesses follow the same practices.

    With this level of anonymity I can post my opinion about these subjects and not be calling out an individual company or connect the comment to myself in order to alienate myself from other potential employers.

  • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    Would be pretty awful for any minority group.

    Queer kid in Idaho is going to have an even worse time trying to find community and such on the Internet when their identity is publicly associated with their activities. People would die. They would be murdered by conservatives.

    • MSgtRedFox@infosec.pubOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      I take your point. I might argue to swap conservatives with something like bigots. Quoting Ted Lasso: Every person is a different person

      • WHYAREWEALLCAPS@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Conservative ideology is based on bigotry. Always has been. The fact the Republican party has so easily and wholeheartedly embraced white supremacists, misogynists, rapists, etc, proves the point. Indeed, the de facto leader of conservatism in the United States proudly embodies all those things and more. All the while he is the clear leader in their presidential candidate race without even having to participate in the process. It is impossible to extricate conservatism from bigotry - if you’re a conservative in the US you are a bigot either directly or through association. You know, the ol’ ten people and a Nazi having dinner is 11 Nazis having dinner.

  • EmperorHenry@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    9 months ago

    prohibition of anonymity means that everyone is mandated to dox themselves…That’s a bad time for everyone if they’re forced to have their real name and real location attached to literally everything they do online.

    • MSgtRedFox@infosec.pubOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Why?

      Edit, location, I get that. That could be unsafe under certain circumstances, and it’s sometimes hard to protect your location privacy.

      • EmperorHenry@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Yes actually…When people are anonymous online and they have an argument, it can’t go anywhere besides the online space.

        If everyone is forced to dox themselves, then the violent people in online arguments know where the other person lives.

        • gregorum@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          I was not making that argument that everyone should be forced to dox themselves and that online anonymity should be abolished

          I was just pointing something out