On shitting on Google.

[Doktor Howl]

In that case I agree with Sigmatic - anonymous slander would just be filtered.  Perhaps not initially, but certainly after the Nigerian scammers started routinely blackmailing people - a small fee and we don't invent shit.  In fact any group of non-anonymous individuals who were known for such activity could be also blacklisted quite easily, and their slander filtered too.

I see.  So if I don't like someone, I simply question what they've said, and if it's not 100% +/- 0% factual, I get them thrown off the internet?

WOOOOOO!

Not thrown off the internet, simply they would no longer be considered an authoritative source when it comes to dirt on someone else.

Fuck yeah.  It would be even more fun to discredit people with legitimate gripes, than it would to generate bogus ones.

BUT WAIT!  I could do BOTH!

[Cainad (dec.)]

I am going to stick my nose in this thread, uninvited, to point out the argument that I seem to be seeing crop up ITT over and over again. I will express it by analogy (whoo, strawman):

"We don't need to worry too much about lack of privacy online, because bad rumors and gossip won't hurt a person's employment or other social prospects. This is because people know better than to trust a defamatory rumor that comes from a source unknown to them (or a source whose reliability they are unsure of)."

This seems like an incorrect argument to me. Mainly because of the following clause: "...people know better..."

This argument, therefore, presupposes that people (not individual persons, mind you, but people) are not shitflinging apes who get a perverse glee out of the utter humiliation of an unlucky individual and then rationalizing their behavior to each other after the fact.

The fact that this defamation is coming from the Internet, rather than phone calls, or anonymous letters, or old-fashioned "he said she said" hearsay, doesn't change the fact that defamatory lies can irreparably damage a person's reputation. Yes, being caught in a lie is a very risky business, but that hasn't stopped harmful lies from being spread via the Internet or other means, now has it?

People (again, not individual persons, but people) are absolutely rubbish at critically analyzing the sources of their information and gauging their reliability. See the case of eyewitness reports in courtrooms and their true reliability versus their perceived reliability for evidence of this. The presence of the Internet does NOT magically improve the critical thinking skills of the person hearing the defamatory rumor.


TL;DR:
Basically, if your position on this issue presupposes that there aren't enough scummy idiots in the world for shit like this to be a persistent problem, I would argue that you accidentally your view of humanity. The whole thing.

[Doktor Howl]

Hush.  Quit disillusioning the idealists.  I'm having fun here.

[Cainad (dec.)]

Hush.  Quit disillusioning the idealists.  I'm having fun here.

Sorry, my Idealicynicism* got the better of me and jumped the gun.




*The naive belief that everyone can be made to understand just how shite anything and everything becomes once "people" become part of the equation.

[Doktor Howl]

Hush.  Quit disillusioning the idealists.  I'm having fun here.

Sorry, my Idealicynicism* got the better of me and jumped the gun.




*The naive belief that everyone can be made to understand just how shite anything and everything becomes once "people" become part of the equation.

From a realism POV, both hopeless pessimism and foolish optimism are equally stupid.  But optimism is funnier.

OH, THE FREE MARKET WILL KEEP PEOPLE FROM DEFAMING EACH OTHER ON FACEBOOK!
\

[Captain Utopia]

I am going to stick my nose in this thread, uninvited, to point out the argument that I seem to be seeing crop up ITT over and over again. I will express it by analogy (whoo, strawman):

"We don't need to worry too much about lack of privacy online, because bad rumors and gossip won't hurt a person's employment or other social prospects. This is because people know better than to trust a defamatory rumor that comes from a source unknown to them (or a source whose reliability they are unsure of)."

This seems like an incorrect argument to me. Mainly because of the following clause: "...people know better..."

This argument, therefore, presupposes that people (not individual persons, mind you, but people) are not shitflinging apes who get a perverse glee out of the utter humiliation of an unlucky individual and then rationalizing their behavior to each other after the fact.

The fact that this defamation is coming from the Internet, rather than phone calls, or anonymous letters, or old-fashioned "he said she said" hearsay, doesn't change the fact that defamatory lies can irreparably damage a person's reputation. Yes, being caught in a lie is a very risky business, but that hasn't stopped harmful lies from being spread via the Internet or other means, now has it?

People (again, not individual persons, but people) are absolutely rubbish at critically analyzing the sources of their information and gauging their reliability. See the case of eyewitness reports in courtrooms and their true reliability versus their perceived reliability for evidence of this. The presence of the Internet does NOT magically improve the critical thinking skills of the person hearing the defamatory rumor.


TL;DR:
Basically, if your position on this issue presupposes that there aren't enough scummy idiots in the world for shit like this to be a persistent problem, I would argue that you accidentally your view of humanity. The whole thing.

Well sure, but I didn't see anyone make that argument.  We were talking about a situation which doesn't currently exist, where it's trivial and risk-free to ruin someones reputation by saying the wrong thing in the wrong place - because a prospective employer is guaranteed to find it - and as such scammers could simply blackmail anyone they found contact details for.

[Doktor Howl]

I am going to stick my nose in this thread, uninvited, to point out the argument that I seem to be seeing crop up ITT over and over again. I will express it by analogy (whoo, strawman):

"We don't need to worry too much about lack of privacy online, because bad rumors and gossip won't hurt a person's employment or other social prospects. This is because people know better than to trust a defamatory rumor that comes from a source unknown to them (or a source whose reliability they are unsure of)."

This seems like an incorrect argument to me. Mainly because of the following clause: "...people know better..."

This argument, therefore, presupposes that people (not individual persons, mind you, but people) are not shitflinging apes who get a perverse glee out of the utter humiliation of an unlucky individual and then rationalizing their behavior to each other after the fact.

The fact that this defamation is coming from the Internet, rather than phone calls, or anonymous letters, or old-fashioned "he said she said" hearsay, doesn't change the fact that defamatory lies can irreparably damage a person's reputation. Yes, being caught in a lie is a very risky business, but that hasn't stopped harmful lies from being spread via the Internet or other means, now has it?

People (again, not individual persons, but people) are absolutely rubbish at critically analyzing the sources of their information and gauging their reliability. See the case of eyewitness reports in courtrooms and their true reliability versus their perceived reliability for evidence of this. The presence of the Internet does NOT magically improve the critical thinking skills of the person hearing the defamatory rumor.


TL;DR:
Basically, if your position on this issue presupposes that there aren't enough scummy idiots in the world for shit like this to be a persistent problem, I would argue that you accidentally your view of humanity. The whole thing.

Well sure, but I didn't see anyone make that argument.  We were talking about a situation which doesn't currently exist, where it's trivial and risk-free to ruin someones reputation by saying the wrong thing in the wrong place - because a prospective employer is guaranteed to find it - and as such scammers could simply blackmail anyone they found contact details for.

So the obvious answer is to strip all anonymity away from the internet, instead of, say NOT HAVING A FACEBOOK ACCOUNT UNDER YOUR REAL NAME.

[Captain Utopia]

Who wants to strip all anonymity from the internet?

[Doktor Howl]

Who wants to strip all anonymity from the internet?

Um, you.

[Captain Utopia]

I do 

Did I say that anywhere?

I do think that certain forces will try to strip anonymity from the internet, and I think they'll succeed to some extent.  I don't think it's necessarily a doomsday scenario, for the reasons I've given, but that doesn't mean that I wish to usher it in.

[Doktor Howl]

That presumes a great deal of internet security, to an extent that is currently not feasible.

Have you ever used online banking?  If we can do one, why not the other?

Here.

[Doktor Howl]

There is some risk in using a cat's paw like that.   Getting caught means never being publically trusted again.

Wouldn't stop me, and there are in fact less responsible people than myself on Facebook.

In addition, the very fact that there are people willing to do this to you = baggage no employer wants to deal with, even assuming he accepts that you really weren't known for raping thalidomide victims.

But if having someone false shit on you = baggage no employer wants to deal with, then why would an employer want to deal with someone who was publicly known for spreading those lies?  Wouldn't it stop you if you knew it'd mean you'd be out of a job and find it difficult to get another?

Good luck catching me.  And it would have no effect whatsoever on hordes of basement dwellers.

In that case I agree with Sigmatic - anonymous slander would just be filtered.  Perhaps not initially, but certainly after the Nigerian scammers started routinely blackmailing people - a small fee and we don't invent shit.  In fact any group of non-anonymous individuals who were known for such activity could be also blacklisted quite easily, and their slander filtered too.

And here.

[Doktor Howl]

Online banking was never iimmaculate.

http://www.ns.umich.edu/htdocs/releases/story.php?id=6652

Those particular flaws may have been fixed, but it just goes to show that not even banks can afford perfect online security.  It just doesn't exist.

I agree, but the fact is that online banking works for the vast majority of people -- it need not be 100% completely secure for it to be a valuable resource.  If an individual hack is detected, then that vote will be switched.  If a widespread hack has actually made a difference and changed the outcome of a vote then that will be repealed.

But there's very little motivation for such activity - there would be more money to be made hacking banks.

Ah, so your argument is to put more security and controls on regular internet behavior?

No, I don't think that is necessary.  I don't see why anything more than a username and password would be required to access the service.

And here.

[Jasper]

Because if you DON'T strip the system of anonymity, in a very strong way, 4chan will fuck you with the business end of a rake.  For fun.

That's the world you have to work with if you want a practical means of utopia.

[Doktor Howl]

Because if you DON'T strip the system of anonymity, in a very strong way, 4chan will fuck you with the business end of a rake.  For fun.

No, everyone will suddenly become very nice, because their computer will be "helping" them with their decisions.  Or so I understand it.

Not that this puts a WHOLE WHACKING SHITLOAD OF POWER in the hands of certain companies, or anything.