The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Proof on whether anonymity encourages abuse

Proof on whether anonymity encourages abuse

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. All
I've seen some here who have tried to hide behind being identified.
The perception that because a real identity is known (and associations) that should protect the poster from criticism. Threats of legal action were not uncommon.

I'd find it hard to judge if anonymity encourages abuse, I suspect that overall not but for a small number of people possibly so. I've seen some vicious posters with pseudo-names and some posting under easily identifiable names.

I suspect that the consequences for standing by posted views in public would vary significantly from person to person. I don't want a potential manager being able to do a simple search and decide that they'd rather give the job to another candidate who's views align more closely with their own. I don't think I can legally discuss my own experiences in family law issues in a public space under a real name as that would then identify third parties.

I will happily express the same views in a private setting but in that situation I've got a far better idea who is listening, the trust factor is far higher. On line I've got no idea who is reading, what use some would be willing to make of what's said.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Saturday, 4 August 2012 12:34:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anthonyve refers to the Greens as," A group of well intentioned people." I disagree strongly.I've met both Jo Nova and Dr David Evans.They used to be part of this well intentioned Green Movement.

David Evans said by 1995 the science of CO2 causing AGW no longer supported the theory.Dr Evans wrote the computer models for our Govt to express this flawed theory.

The Greens suppport the UN Agenda 21 in which they want all property to belong to the state and to bring in "Global Governance." with a communist bent for the masses and absolute power for a few elites.

I've seen and heard Bob Brown on a number of occasions support this UN concept of one World Govt which Christopher Monckton and many others have warned us about.

Did the Greens ask us if we wanted George Bush's "New World Order" that we have no democratic say in? The Greens have been treacherous liars who in my view are in the pockets of big finance.The CO2 tax is all about making money for the few and establishing another derivative called the ETS to destroy production.

Notice how quiet the Greens are on the issue of fracking,clean water and food security.These are the big issues not CO2 a harmless,odourless gas that is the basis of all life on this planet.

We are not really anonymous no matter what pseudonym we use,since all out intelligence agencies can trace every email.
Posted by Arjay, Saturday, 4 August 2012 1:12:47 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I read the link on Friday, GrahamY and was surprised at the conclusions from the experiments – they do seem counterintuitive.

There's probably a big difference between posting anonymity and poster 'untrackability' – I have no problem with moderated postings with the confidence of knowing 'authorities 'could track down a person in real life if circumstances warranted it. The British diver Tom Daley's recent experience with an abusive Twit being an example.

Putting abuse to one side… Anonymity certainly doesn't discourage public idiocy in some, though I suspect that for those same individuals it doesn't encourage it either – there being no need to.
Posted by WmTrevor, Saturday, 4 August 2012 1:25:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foregoing some imbeciles that respond maliciously by rote to any impeachment of their thought process, a realistic statement on the capacity of your current interlocutor’s ability to convey facts and projections is sometimes called for. One man’s Ad Hominem is another man’s orchestration of a fact. The prohibition of any view, be it holistic or personality focused is detrimental to free expression.

Forum admin should consider the closed club syndrome. Our instincts see posters form quasi interpersonal relationships bonding them into a “pecking clutch” and they then as a corium determine the tone and the limitations of the forums subject matter. I was a foundation poster on Darwin and later watched it decline to just two factions, the direct opposites, it took years but they ran everybody out of town because they just regurgitated the same diatribe, so the thinkers left.

Yin does not exist without yang but OLO is composed of “just” yin and yang. Pauline Hanson would have no chance with this mob. Forums that cater to political and social issues as addressed on OLO cannot suppress the interpersonal observations without suppressing expression. The ones who survive best in this climate of forum tribalism are the passive aggressive acolytes. How do you combat one who solely relies on a regurgitation of non facts coupled with an innate inability to address publish statistics pertinent to the subject? You question their capacity to reason, you consider factual dyslexia via indoctrination, you consider the worth of the utterances they convey. Then you point out your personal observation that they are idiots, you don’t carry it as theme, but you are sometimes drawn to mentioning it in passing.

Good whinge eh Graham. As I have intimated if you want a cordial and compliant forum try a gardening themed page, otherwise give latitude to the sometimes sledgehammer manner in which a vote of no confidence in what one says or thinks is delivered. Bring back CJ Morgan.
Posted by sonofgloin, Saturday, 4 August 2012 2:37:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sonofglion is one of a very few, why claim a tribalism exists here.
In my view it does not.
I know one poster here,you have never seen me talking to him here.
No problems between us ex workmates, but with different thoughts.
It is what we write how we say it, that gets us judged, not a click.
I understood Grahams post, and think, strongly, only few take the opportunity to be rude because we do not know them, very few.
I recommend a search, find the car park, number one, the oldest is best, but both tell of near war here.
While such threads may find more who dislike them, I think the taking it out side bit has promise.
I think the greens are a very real danger, but the uninformed, needlessly rude descriptions here need rebutting.
Some, once again, find them selves on the outer because of posts like those.
Posted by Belly, Saturday, 4 August 2012 3:47:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Proof on whether anonymity encourages abuse

Well, it definitely encourages one to get a lot hotter than normal. PC is largely responsible for the occasional strong word as it prevents people from airing their true feelings.
Posted by individual, Saturday, 4 August 2012 4:04:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy