21 Untitled

Also, this cutesy AJAX text preview is making my browser grind to a halt, and making typing nearly impossible.

posted at 05:21 pm on April 5, 2006 by A. Nonymous

22 Why should Anonymity be Accepted?

(Note: I once wrote about this in different view in my blog at http://planetinternet.wordpress.com/2006/03/21/hello-world/. I repost it again in this discussion just for sharing…)

Identity is an essential aspect of human interaction. Human interaction is expressed in communication that takes place in the exchange of meanings that are shared by people. How then should the existence of an anonymous communicator on the Internet be considered in this era of cyberspace?

How do we treat information coming from someone we have never met or whose voice we have never heard? Such questions have come under focused discussions following the popularity of Internet use: a top-of-the-line computer; technologically smart human users; and a worldwide network.

There are millions of people who surf the Internet every day, either to just browse and look for information or to send messages to colleagues in the rest of the world. Individual Internet users often want to keep their own identities anonymous and the features of the Internet help them to do that.

Why should anonymity in the Internet be accepted?

The Internet should be seen as more than a computer network and accessories. It should be seen as a real experience that is virtually transformed into cyber space. The Internet is not just a media or tool: its users are real human beings. Anonymity is just one method used for special purposes.

The shaping of a virtual community, including virtual anonymity, should be encouraged. In terms of cyber law, this sub-community should be accommodated because whether we like it or not, it will continue.

Accepting the anonymity of an e-mail sender, blogger or chatting attendant is not too much of a problem compared to anonymity situations to come such as the existence of tele-presence. That’s it!

posted at 01:22 am on April 6, 2006 by Budi Putra

23 Untitled

Article? No. A noxious solipsistic barrage of tripe, a self-elevating exercise in mass distraction masquerading as legitimate review.

“As most party hosts knows, it’s usually the people who just “show upâ€? and that you don’t know who can create the biggest headaches.”

Standing there in the living room with a sight full of punk haired agonists. There you be, centric to a miserable community of mutated bottom feeding, wine guzzling, bourgeois dullards Restricted within the nutshells of their imagination and, well, good luck to you.

But please please, stay out of the freaking way.

posted at 07:42 am on April 6, 2006 by Idiot Article

24 Writer or message

I always liked it when everyone was anonymous and what was said – not how or by who – was the important. I guess it’s best summed up in the old Arabian proverb, “Examine what is said, not him who speaks.�

I disagree. I read a number of newsgroups, some of which deal with quite technical matters. It makes a significant difference to know whether I am reading the words of someone who works in the industry, or someone who is a Sunday-afternoon hobbyist.

On other occasions, you see there are people who change their opinions with the weather and give a different answer each week. There are people who hold grudges against other members and will reject everything those members say. There are people who are more literate than the average troll but write utter nonsense all the time.

It is much easier for members to perceive the likely value of an article / contribution if they know who is behind it. If you were writing an academic paper, you wouldn’t accept any article at face value without first checking its provenance – so why should an online community be any different?

posted at 09:30 am on April 6, 2006 by Stephen Down

25 Ramifications

“Anonymity allows people to hide behind their computers while saying whatever they want with little ramification.�

Just wondering, isn’t it a good thing when people say what they want? Isn’t it the stupid things they want that make it bad? ‘Cause it’s always been quite an enigma to me that people aren’t welcome to say what they think when they aren’t threatened to be bashed or rejected by the establishment.

It depends what they are saying. I have seen people and even whole online communities brought to their knees by malicious individuals hiding behind anonymity. I’ve seen others that have descended into slanging matches and flamewars because a small number of people involved are unable to hold a civilised conversation. Some people lose all semblance of social interaction when behind a computer, and say things that they would never dare to say face-to-face.

That’s where some communities can benefit by losing total anonymity. I’m not saying it’s appropriate for all communities, or that it will solve all the problems. If nothing more, it allows members to filter out contributions from particular individuals.

posted at 09:42 am on April 6, 2006 by Stephen Down

26 Time

(a) posting anonymously is pointless when you can easily sign up for most discussions with any old username,

It comes down to issues of time. There are a couple of fora where I tend not to bother logging in to post comments because (i) I don’t need to, and (ii) I can’t remember the password I used – my usual one wasn’t acceptable to them, and (iii) I tend to read/reply to it during my lunch break and my work computer doesn’t store passwords or cookies from one day to the next.

(b) if you can’t stand by your comment you shouldn’t bother making it in the first place.

Exactly.

posted at 10:00 am on April 6, 2006 by Stephen Down

27 Are you the _real_ John M. Grohol?

“Many community registration systems offer the option to require e-mail address validation by sending a link to the email address that must be clicked on to “validateâ€? the email address … This process guarantees a valid, working email address for just a short time”

I’ve never taken the reason for validating emails to be that you’re checking the user’s identity.

I’ve always assumed it was so they’re not pretneding to be someone else.

By validating your email you’re simply proving you have access to it .. and therefore are unlikly to be someone trying to damage another person’s reputation.

For example, I know John M Grohol’s email address is: ala (at) grohol (dot) com

What’s to stop me going on a neo-nazi site, pretending to be him and then denying the holocaust?

Well, I don’t have access to his email – that’s what.

posted at 10:44 am on April 6, 2006 by Richard Quick

28 anonymity is important

Old time ‘net user weighing in here (since 1987). I used to post and chat under my own name, until a series of events in the mid nineties convinced me it was not a safe thing to do. I wound up with two separate harrassment/stalking incidents one of which spilled over into real life. Since then I have never used my name on the Internet. There are too many good reasons to remain anonymous or pseudonymous (BEG/browneyedgirl is for me a pretty well established handle by now) for it to go away.

Email validation sounds to me like a perfectly good compromise, so long as anonymous email accounts remain available.

posted at 02:51 pm on April 6, 2006 by brown girl

29 Untitled

Having seen people being misrepresented by faked ID’s on NNTP, email verification helps to ensure protection of an internet ID. Added with having had somebody from a forum related to my hobbies attack me in professional forums and then on to my clients for nothing more than a difference of opinion, I couldn’t afford the risk of mixing communities again. My current way of thinking is that anonymity is a requirement as without face to face communication it’s difficult for me to assess a person. As with this e-village the distance from my home and work is only a click away. So I guess it’s true that mail.yahoo.com helps you work rest and play.

posted at 07:10 am on April 7, 2006 by John Smith

30 Untitled

Having seen people being misrepresented by faked ID’s on NNTP, email verification helps to ensure protection of an internet ID. Added with having had somebody from a forum related to my hobbies attack me in professional forums and then on to my clients for nothing more than a difference of opinion, I couldn’t afford the risk of mixing communities again. My current way of thinking is that anonymity is a requirement as without face to face communication it’s difficult for me to assess a person. As with this e-village the distance from my home and work is only a click away. So I guess it’s true that mail.yahoo.com helps you work rest and play.

Authority association and ID is a difficult one for me, it’s a bit like consultancy you never know if it’s their skills and opinions or the echoes of somebody else until you put your money on the table. Mixed with the old adage ‘if you take the three world leaders in a particular area, all three will have different opinions on how something works’ and in two years time they will all be wrong and outdated.

Is it just me or is there a growing trend to have to sign up to an e-community and post a little about yourself before you are granted access to read!? Post: yes, access to extra resources: yes, associate yourself to it: no, no matter how well it was recommended.

posted at 07:12 am on April 7, 2006 by John Smith