I like this idea, but I have a couple of thoughts.
Anything that approaches anonymity always seems to attract people that would otherwise be shunned, because they feel comfortable spewing nonesense behind a veil of anonymity. How would this be avoided?
And do we have an exampe of any network like this working? It would be nice to glean lessons from previous attempts.
I like the idea of unlimited posting, limited viewing- it’s unusual. But it wouldn’t be very user friendly. Scaling with karma does provide a good incentive, it would also mean people are really incentivized to keep holding on to their accounts.
One alternate possibility would be to actually let go of anonymity towards the network organizers. The posts could be anonymous, but one can only access the network if one has a personal connection to someone willing to vouch for them, and both their real names are coupled to their accounts.
This way spam and outside mob access is completely prevented. But the question is are people comfortable with posting on an account that is coupled to their real name, even if that real name is only accessable to the network organizers?
I know I usually want to keep all my internet accounts as uncoupled as possible. I’ll delete an account and start over with a fresh slate, so my past comments are not linked to my current accounts. As I keep leaking personal information with each interaction (writing style, timezone, etc.) At a certain point I feel I’ve exposed too much, and exposing more with the same online persona would lead to too hogh a chance of getting deanonymized. So I start over.
This isn’t a very rigorous system: it would be better to couple this to a calculation of leaked information instead of just a feeling. But it’s something.
Users on this “network” are capable of being pseudonymous. Anonymity is probably also possible, tho (much?) harder. We don’t seem to have attracted too many people “spewing nonsense”, or that many at all.
Requiring a personal connection to existing users will shut out a lot of potential users. And it’s probably better for plausible deniability that we continue to allow anyone to signup.
I – and I’d guess most other users – are not doing enough to reliably avoid de-anonymization. It requires very strict opsec in general.
And I don’t know how you could possibly calculate the probability of being de-anonymized, even with perfect information about everything you’ve leaked. Relying on your feelings is probably the only practical option, besides not sharing any info.
I might register if it required a real name, but I definitely wouldn’t comment or post. The first defense against doxxing is to avoid using your real name on anything you don’t want linked to you.
It’s also an unenforceable rule. If Facebook can’t do it, I doubt LW is going to be up to the technical challenge.
I like this idea, but I have a couple of thoughts.
Anything that approaches anonymity always seems to attract people that would otherwise be shunned, because they feel comfortable spewing nonesense behind a veil of anonymity. How would this be avoided?
And do we have an exampe of any network like this working? It would be nice to glean lessons from previous attempts.
I like the idea of unlimited posting, limited viewing- it’s unusual. But it wouldn’t be very user friendly. Scaling with karma does provide a good incentive, it would also mean people are really incentivized to keep holding on to their accounts.
One alternate possibility would be to actually let go of anonymity towards the network organizers. The posts could be anonymous, but one can only access the network if one has a personal connection to someone willing to vouch for them, and both their real names are coupled to their accounts.
This way spam and outside mob access is completely prevented. But the question is are people comfortable with posting on an account that is coupled to their real name, even if that real name is only accessable to the network organizers?
I know I usually want to keep all my internet accounts as uncoupled as possible. I’ll delete an account and start over with a fresh slate, so my past comments are not linked to my current accounts. As I keep leaking personal information with each interaction (writing style, timezone, etc.) At a certain point I feel I’ve exposed too much, and exposing more with the same online persona would lead to too hogh a chance of getting deanonymized. So I start over.
This isn’t a very rigorous system: it would be better to couple this to a calculation of leaked information instead of just a feeling. But it’s something.
Users on this “network” are capable of being pseudonymous. Anonymity is probably also possible, tho (much?) harder. We don’t seem to have attracted too many people “spewing nonsense”, or that many at all.
Requiring a personal connection to existing users will shut out a lot of potential users. And it’s probably better for plausible deniability that we continue to allow anyone to signup.
I – and I’d guess most other users – are not doing enough to reliably avoid de-anonymization. It requires very strict opsec in general.
And I don’t know how you could possibly calculate the probability of being de-anonymized, even with perfect information about everything you’ve leaked. Relying on your feelings is probably the only practical option, besides not sharing any info.
I might register if it required a real name, but I definitely wouldn’t comment or post. The first defense against doxxing is to avoid using your real name on anything you don’t want linked to you.
It’s also an unenforceable rule. If Facebook can’t do it, I doubt LW is going to be up to the technical challenge.