TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

Anonymity vs. Transparency [Infographic]

34 pointsby madamepsychosisabout 14 years ago

10 comments

terioabout 14 years ago
Of course both anonymity and transparency are needed. The need for transparency is obvious in many scenarios. Anonymity is more contentious. Some people would love to avoid it completely. For example, I just came back from Spain and I saw a debate, which was none after all, on TV about the need to identify everybody to prevent slander.<p>I firmly believe that anonymity is in many cases the only tool to express oneself, like when power asymmetries or divergence from social conventions make such an expression extremely expensive.<p>Anonymity is fundamental for democracy. If it was not, there would be no secret voting. Other examples in which anonymity is obviously required are when you need an honest opinion which could be affected by power asymmetry (rate your professor, give your employer some feedback, etc); when the subject matter requires privacy (sexual behavior poll); and so on.<p>Dealing with anonymity in the internet is not easy. The usual problems are slander, low quality content, trolls, spam, etc. [Shameless plug ahead] That is part of our mission at spottiness.com. We allow anonymous users to send messages that remain posted in our web site. We guarantee the quality of the content of the messages, and although there is no way to fend off slander from the beginning, the site offers tools to fight back.
评论 #2564071 未加载
bugsyabout 14 years ago
Infographic is pretty but misleading propaganda that promotes its left column. It does indicate "advertisers" win at the bottom, but fails to mention stalkers, totalitarian governments, corporate power in general, and Zuckerberg and his investors in particular benefit from the total internet surveillance tracking which Zuckerberg cynically calls "integrity".<p>Having a corporation track all your visits, readings and posts on the internet such as Facebook is trying to establish, and to be able to accurately link it to your identity, is about power control and money, and not to your benefit. It is such an unpleasant possibility that expert PR firms plant absurd infographics and stories every day to promote this agenda and pay armies to downvote or otherwise disenfranchise all who question the plan. The propaganda is working as we see here in this discussion all the people now have bought in and are promoting corporate surveillance and control of lives as if it is a good thing in any way whatsoever.
robertskmilesabout 14 years ago
Ultimately the question is one of freedom vs enforced rules.<p>If you have a system of anonymity or pseudonymity, it's always possible to identify yourself by a real identity if you want to. Whether this takes the form of 4chan's "photo with a shoe on your head" or Reddit's "Post about this to your twitter account", reliably associating a pseudonym to a meatspace person is easy. So you can get the advantages of the 'transparent' system in a pseudonymous system <i>if you want them</i>, but you're never forced to.<p>The only way to properly run a transparent system is to force everyone to identify themselves. Then you can't get any of the benefits of anonymity.<p>The only people pushing for 'transparent systems' are people who have some material gain from them - advertisers, information miners, law enforcement etc. I think they have enough power as it is.<p>So I'm in favour of anonymity by default, keeping the choice to be transparent in the hands of the individual.
wladimirabout 14 years ago
My vote goes for pseudonymity. It has the advantages of transparency (such as reputation) but also the advantages of anonymity (such as to allow expression of less popular opinions without repercussions).
AliAdamsabout 14 years ago
I remember hearing a talk by Philip Zimbardo, one of the main figures in the Stanford Prison Experiment.<p>He concluded that 'evil' behavior is a product of a combination of:<p>1) Mindlessly taking the first small step (eg Milgrim Experiment - the first 45volts couldn't be felt)<p>2) Dehumanization of others (giving them numbers in a prison)<p>3) De-individualisation of self (anonymity)<p>4) Diffusion of personal responsibility (saying a higher authority takes responsibility)<p>5) Blind obedience to authority<p>6) Uncritical conformity to group norms ('Everyone else is doing it')<p>7) Passive tolerance of Evil through Inactions and/or Indifference<p>8) New or unfamiliar situations (default actions don't apply so morality can become disengaged)<p>If you take this in the context of anonymity online, a substantial number of these factors are heavily involved(2,3,4 and potentially 1,7&#38;8).<p>Anonymity has its advantages, but the encouragement of it diffuses people's responsibility, potentially encourages 'evil' action, and has subsequently risk of escalation...<p>I think my vote has to be transparency.<p>TED talk link:<p><a href="http://www.ted.com/talks/philip_zimbardo_on_the_psychology_of_evil.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.ted.com/talks/philip_zimbardo_on_the_psychology_o...</a>
评论 #2565018 未加载
评论 #2564830 未加载
cosgrovebabout 14 years ago
"Having two identities for yourself is an example of a lack of integrity"<p>It's been said before I'm sure but I don't need Zuckerberg lecturing me on integrity.
Silhouetteabout 14 years ago
I think this is a false dichotomy. In reality, your life is not either an open book or a closed one, and you can choose how much personal information of what type you share with whom. The problems usually start, IMHO, when others are allowed to make that choice for you.<p>This can be direct, as with all the modern tracking technologies and personal information that businesses try to collect about you even if they don't really need it, but it can also be more subtle, for example where social networking sites can build up a profile on you based on information implied by your relationships, or where information from sources you might expect to be independent is aggregated and available for data mining by a single entity. It also cuts both ways, if you wanted to share certain things but for some reason were prevented from doing so, leaving others with incomplete or out-of-date information even though you were willing to share that kind of data with them.<p>I think the more serious problem here is that this is a Pandora's box problem. Once your life is out in the open, there is no way to put it back, but the consequences are not always immediately obvious.<p>Perhaps as a society we should grow up and learn not to evaluate people based on isolated data or out-of-context incidents that we find out about their past, but as any politician, insurance company or judge can tell you, that's not going to happen any time soon. It's probably a generational shift if it's even possible at all.<p>In the meantime, an entire generation are growing up sharing their lives on Facebook and Twitter and being physically tracked via their mobile devices and travel smartcards and logging every purchase/refund they ever made with credit/debit/loyalty cards. It's only a matter of time before "bad candidates" don't even get their CVs read because the employer's automated background checks picked up a black flag, "bad customers" (who expect the product/service they paid for and complain if they don't get it) see their consumer rights eroded by the power of the database, "bad clients" can't get useful or even legally required insurance because their profile fits a high risk group, and so on. These trends are already well established, but as Pastor Niemöller explained, first they came for the communists and I was not a communist...<p>An amusing anecdote to close with: just a few hours ago, I read a comment by someone who works at Facebook, observing that most people there also maintain a separate LinkedIn profile because they want to keep their personal and professional lives separate. Apparently Zuckerberg hires a lot of people who, in his judgement, have a "lack of integrity".
评论 #2563652 未加载
评论 #2563671 未加载
shiiabout 14 years ago
Original source without the blogspam from a new user: <a href="http://namesake.com/blog/2011/05/namesake/are-you-who-you-say-you-are/" rel="nofollow">http://namesake.com/blog/2011/05/namesake/are-you-who-you-sa...</a>
zipdogabout 14 years ago
We could turn this question from the individual as themselves to the individual within an institution: for example an executive at Sony or a government official.<p>Given the harassment Anonymous has given to Sony execs, its not surprising that there's a certain invisible wall between the rest of the world and those in privileged positions. I guess anonymity of everyday activitists is a one way to redress that.
评论 #2564358 未加载
TeMPOraLabout 14 years ago
A really nice infographic. I like the design, especially the Facebook logo progressbar (near the bottom, "70% of Facebook users...").