All I'm saying (and maybe it wasn't clear enough), is that more and more people are using this false internet anonymity to hide behind so that they can be as disgusting as they want to other people.
My point is that there are a lot of hypothetical problem people in this discussion. So let's focus on one person: me. I want to know what exactly you intend to do with *my* name/number/moniker that will make the world a better place?
I mean, sure, if I had access to the right databases, I (or maybe someone a touch smarter than I) could whip up a statistical calculation on IP addresses, bulk word usage and arrangement that would be able to link one pseudonym to another most of the time. But what is that missing step between assigning people a unique ID and the world becoming a better place? What exactly are you going to do to me?
Good luck, he told me he won't answer that question. It's a secret, but it's for all of our own good. What could go wrong?
Its not about what we would do with your "name." It is about what you would or would not do if anything you say/do could be traced back to you. How would you act on the internet if your name/reputation were on the line.
I know I'm pretty much the exception to the rule because I am pretty much the same online and in real life. I'm an equal opportunity a-hole, I f**k with everyone.
Seriously though, there are those that for whatever reason act different online but I will take putting up with those clowns to keep anonymous. That's just me though.
Being upset over comments on the internet isn't a strong enough reason to lose anonymity. Who gets to say what is acceptable or not? Corporations? Governments? Special interest groups? People are hooked too much on things like Twitter, Facebook and all that other social media hot garbage. I think its better people use whatever aggressive thoughts and emotions they have and type them out rather than act them out. As someone else asked, what exactly would you do if you knew my name and where I lived? Phone me? Phone my employers? Come to my house? The links below are reason enough to keep online activties anonymous.
You are the 4th person I think to bring this up, and I'm hoping you will respond to my reply.
Are you saying that having a false sense of anonymity online is more important than dealing with the bullies? In theory, the bullies and attackers should be in the vast minority. If this is the case, why wouldn't we address their actions as the problem rather than try to hide people from them?
Again, I'm not advocating people's real names are online as a catch all solution, but I'd like to hear more about your logic on this matter.
Yes I am saying that. Taking something away from me because of the actions of a few is stupid. If something is said online like a threat or anything else criminal, then yes, I am in favour of having them tracked down and dealt. Sorry, harsh words fall under that. How the hell do people get bullied online anyway? I don't use social media so the concept escapes me.
IMO, the problem is people aren't anonymous ENOUGH. All these fools putting their names and photos out there for anyone to read or look at is the problem. I know there's privacy options that people can use yet somehow don't. Also, whatever happened to sticks and stones?
Again, taking something away from me due to the actions of others is unfair and unnecessary.
Is a man not entitled to the herp of his derp?
Remember, I live in a world where juggalos and yugioh players are real things.
Good luck, he told me he won't answer that question. It's a secret, but it's for all of our own good. What could go wrong?
Because to answer that question would assume I chose this as my solution to the problem, which I have not. Google and other people have, but I DO NOT know what the solution is, nor do I think there's an easy one to point at. This is a very, very complex subject,
If it helps you get past this point: I'd do *nothing* with that information. Nothing at all. I don't want or need your real name.
There are a couple posts here, and there are articles online which discuss in detail why some people advocate Real Names online if you are really curious.
I avoid companies like Google, so this is a non-issue for me. No need for you to repeat it over and over.
What is the point of knowing our personal information is what we are asking. Maybe not YOU, but the people that would have it. What do you expect to be done with that information exactly?
I gave you two examples of this being done before. What makes this time any different?
I already know "why some people advocate Real Names online". You even shared your experiences. They pretty much, more or less, reflect each other.
We want to know what will be done with this information. So far, people have posted that are for this have stated that it would be used as intimidation.
Is that what you would like to see? Or would you like to see it used for retaliation such as harrassment, violence, and/or vandalism? There can be no other purposes here.
IMO, the problem is people aren't anonymous ENOUGH. All these fools putting their names and photos out there for anyone to read or look at is the problem. I know there's privacy options that people can use yet somehow don't. Also, whatever happened to sticks and stones?
It does amaze me what some people whack on the net for all to see. Sheer rank stupidity, but at least they can claim over 9000 efriends I guess and that's the important thing these days.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
IMO, the problem is people aren't anonymous ENOUGH. All these fools putting their names and photos out there for anyone to read or look at is the problem. I know there's privacy options that people can use yet somehow don't. Also, whatever happened to sticks and stones?
It does amaze me what some people whack on the net for all to see. Sheer rank stupidity, but at least they can claim over 9000 efriends I guess and that's the important thing these days.
I can count on one hand the number of people I consider to be my close friends. I guess not having hundreds or thousands of efriends makes me wierd or something.
Is a man not entitled to the herp of his derp?
Remember, I live in a world where juggalos and yugioh players are real things.
I can count on one hand the number of people I consider to be my close friends. I guess not having hundreds or thousands of efriends makes me wierd or something.
Likewise, never had anything to do with Myspace, Facebook, personal Youtube accounts or Twitter. It must be amazing to some that I am able to operate at all without being able to inform at least three people in another country when I am popping down the shops to buy some beer.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
I can count on one hand the number of people I consider to be my close friends. I guess not having hundreds or thousands of efriends makes me wierd or something.
Likewise, never had anything to do with Myspace, Facebook, personal Youtube accounts or Twitter. It must be amazing to some that I am able to operate at all without being able to inform at least three people in another country when I am popping down the shops to buy some beer.
And then getting sacked the next day because your boss discovered that you like beer and he is against that.
Perhaps you would like some kind of electic shock mechanism put into peoples computers to fire into their gonads whenever they call someone a shit face? How about a boxing glove on a mechanical arm? That should do the trick.
Do you want one on your machine so someone can shock you whenever they don't like what you say?
Sure. I'd ask you to help install it but you would no doubt be too busy making another "mmorpgs don't need game worlds" thread.
nah i would like to shock you a couple of time first so you won't troll in one of those threads.
I've read some very interesting and creative solutions to the problem you have presented. But it seems to me that a lot of people here tend to incorrectly assume that the internet in general is a extension of a singular country, govermental body, collection of laws or company. Freedom of speech, individual rights and judicial reach vary from person to person depending on their country of origin. But sooner or later all these governing bodies will have no choice but to adhere to a singular regulatory system that all countries and goverments can agree upon and adapt to in order to maintain some type of civility. But it won't be the world's goverments that will lead this charge. Read on...
As of right now, the various businesses spread across this great internet are holding all the chips when it comes to your privacy and your money is the only thing keeping them from devulging it. So that control of your information stops at their front door for now. Take for instance a global company like Apple. It's safe to assume that as of right now, Apple has a right to 100% control and access of their users data. No matter where that user resides. But does that mean that the U.S. government has the same rights to that information anytime they want? Only in special circumstances within the boundries of the law. Obviously. But then again they don't have to. Why you say? Read on...
We all know that the internet itself was invented by the U.S. government. Also, they can request information about you and your actions from any given ISP at anytime and they WILL devulge that information to them. But more importantly, that trick is not lost upon the rest of the world's governing bodies. WIth systems in place like China's massive control over ISPs and Pakistan's OpenNet Initiative, if the government wanted to know who you were and what you have been up to, it's nothing you can do to stop them.
Companies on the other hand, don't have it that easy. They have to operate within the bounds of the laws of the lands they reside in. And while the government could care less that you spent 200 bucks on the ultimate founder's pack for the up and coming Marvel Heroes, Google and other companies would pay hand over fist to have that information made available to them. If only to sell it to other mmo companies and developers for a hefty price. They are the ones that would benefit the most by tracking you and all you do. And what better way to get the masses to adapt such a notion than to have companies like Facebook, Youtube, Google and other marketing data analyst pushing that agenda.
Let's take Youtube. First, I remember when they were bought by Google and not soon after you had to merge your google gmail and youtube accounts. Now recently they are asking people to use their real names.
And next was Facebook and gaming. More and more browser and mobile games are suggesting that people use their Facebook accounts to log into these types of games. Slowly getting people use to single ID systems.
Now could you imagine if a major U.S. ISP merged with one of these companies, like Comcast or AT&T? The masses wouldn't know what hit them... You could have Google and Facebook IDs replace emails and user created IDs for all future websites and no one would bat and eyelash. Yeah...keep thinkin that the internet will always be a haven for privacy. Like I said, governments won't be the ones infringing on your precious anonymity, companies will be.
"Small minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas."
I think what advocates of 'netiquette' are looking for is some type of reputation based identity that is attached to a singular user. You can still have your anonimity barrier between you and the net but your net identity can't be reforged every time you want to be an idiot online.
There are consequences and just because you can seperate your identity doesn't mean you should be able to absolve yourself from your morality.
I like the fact about remaining anonymous, if people didn't remain anonymous then the problem with this is the fact that a person could make more Real Life threats ifa person had X Persons location IP and Geo Locates also give away enough information, and Doxing a person can obtain a persons Real Life infomation even more exactly to where they are at that exact time and second I won't go into how to do such but some already know how.
The Problem with remaining Anonymous is it has been tried in games Like Second Life for example they no longer required users to verify their Real Email, Enter Their Real Life Name, and so now since 2009 I have witnessed CopyBotters, also known as Hackers in the MMO community, Griefers, and Cheaters, as well as people like NoR who IP log Violate everyones privacy in SL track alternate accounts all without the fear of getting removed because of being anonymous you get banned you make a new account every time you get banned, even games like League OF Legends its bad.
However I am against every user having a persons Real Life identity for the reason of griefing, and Real Life threats however if they just had an ID and could be reported and banned by the game company for example Second Life with lal the griefers then we wouldn't have all these griefers and trolls in the online community, however companies like Linden Lab are doing nothing to protect anyone anymore its pretty much Game Over in that game unless someone else starts leading the game/simulator. I like Second Life for example but it will never be what it used to be because of all the griefing, and trolls and mistakes Lindens have made.
The Solution.
The solution to keeping UnderAged Kids, and people from Griefing, and Trolling is Government issued Gamer ID's, and Services that use them they do not get your Real Life information in fact no one does it, however to use certain online services such as google beyond searching, but to even post you are required to give your ID, this is the only way it would work it would keep kids safe, and it would keep trolls out of games because once you get banned form a game or service you can't keep making alt accounts. Well maybe not government but ID's for example the ESRB gets bigger or some company, and gaming industries follow.
Basically how the ID would work is you can choose any screen name you want for any online service, and you can create multiple user names or accounts with that same ID, but every account links to your ID you have obtained in Real Life, therefore if you get banned all your accounts on the same service get banned and you can't get back in, this works by when you register an account you enter your unique code similar to a social security number but more cryptic.
I do agree that online harassment is becomming a problem, Heck I am even a Griefer myself but have online done such in Second Life, However the people I target are those who griefed friends first or are like Land OF NoR the corrupt GM's who support CopyBot, and hacking in Second Life, they deserve whatever comes their way unless they can throw out their corrupted GM's and get better GM's I don't care. I do also backup what I say with Snapshots, Video, or NoteCards before ever taking any type of exposure or actions in a game or person. I mean if they are going to grief they shouldn't expect not to get griefed back, I mean they ruined a friend who was from 2006 they ripped off his entire store, or at least one of their players from their community did, and they did not care this guy had a business made his money through SL, and I know there was more than one store too they all lost money and real life income because of this.
However with this said if anonymity did not exist the way it does today, and Companies actually banned every user who didn't follow the TOS then these griefers wouldn't be a problem in Second Life, and In League, so for example I would always be able to enjoy the game everyday without logging in getting an IM that spams me telling me to end it in real life.
Then you got the sexist harassment in online games too.
It would have to start at the ISP. If Comcast provided a first name to each ISP (or multiple codes with first names for members of a family/dorm) then when signing up for YouTube, MMORPG.com, etc. at least your first name would be out there. In order to make sure it works right it would have to be regulated by either the ISP or the government which then attaches cost. I wouldn't care but I don't think it's a great idea overall.
In the short term providing easy access to block/report tools for websites can curb the garbage to a certain extent. Going farther than that what if a watchdog company rated websites on community value AND ratio of reports:bans by the site. This way even if (out of 10) YouTube started out with a community value of 3 there report:ban was 10 which would indicate they are doing something about it.
In the end it's not our responsibility to be someone's psychiatrist. In most cases any attention given to jerks is asking for more of the same behaviour. If websites had great ignore/block systems with real punishments for the offender then it at least puts the sign out there that bad behaviour is a one time deal. Plus I think websites should log connections and ban IPs if they are found to be making a new account.
First, OP, thank you for that link. I'm familiar with Lanier's views from way back when, and it's interesting to see how they've changed. And I find myself agreeing with him on some level.
As for the topic: Of course anonimity is a problem. It's just an unnatural thing for a human being. Because, yes, the fear of paying a price is an important part of us, as is having a coherent physical identity. This was whole point of Wells' The Invisible Man, wasn't it?
When visibility and accountability goes out the window, strange things happen indeed.
I've read some very interesting and creative solutions to the problem you have presented. But it seems to me that a lot of people here tend to incorrectly assume that the internet in general is a extension of a singular country, govermental body, collection of laws or company. Freedom of speech, individual rights and judicial reach vary from person to person depending on their country of origin. But sooner or later all these governing bodies will have no choice but to adhere to a singular regulatory system that all countries and goverments can agree upon and adapt to in order to maintain some type of civility. But it won't be the world's goverments that will lead this charge. Read on...
As of right now, the various businesses spread across this great internet are holding all the chips when it comes to your privacy and your money is the only thing keeping them from devulging it. So that control of your information stops at their front door for now. Take for instance a global company like Apple. It's safe to assume that as of right now, Apple has a right to 100% control and access of their users data. No matter where that user resides. But does that mean that the U.S. government has the same rights to that information anytime they want? Only in special circumstances within the boundries of the law. Obviously. But then again they don't have to. Why you say? Read on...
We all know that the internet itself was invented by the U.S. government. Also, they can request information about you and your actions from any given ISP at anytime and they WILL devulge that information to them. But more importantly, that trick is not lost upon the rest of the world's governing bodies. WIth systems in place like China's massive control over ISPs and Pakistan's OpenNet Initiative, if the government wanted to know who you were and what you have been up to, it's nothing you can do to stop them.
Companies on the other hand, don't have it that easy. They have to operate within the bounds of the laws of the lands they reside in. And while the government could care less that you spent 200 bucks on the ultimate founder's pack for the up and coming Marvel Heroes, Google and other companies would pay hand over fist to have that information made available to them. If only to sell it to other mmo companies and developers for a hefty price. They are the ones that would benefit the most by tracking you and all you do. And what better way to get the masses to adapt such a notion than to have companies like Facebook, Youtube, Google and other marketing data analyst pushing that agenda.
Let's take Youtube. First, I remember when they were bought by Google and not soon after you had to merge your google gmail and youtube accounts. Now recently they are asking people to use their real names.
And next was Facebook and gaming. More and more browser and mobile games are suggesting that people use their Facebook accounts to log into these types of games. Slowly getting people use to single ID systems.
Now could you imagine if a major U.S. ISP merged with one of these companies, like Comcast or AT&T? The masses wouldn't know what hit them... You could have Google and Facebook IDs replace emails and user created IDs for all future websites and no one would bat and eyelash. Yeah...keep thinkin that the internet will always be a haven for privacy. Like I said, governments won't be the ones infringing on your precious anonymity, companies will be.
Good post.
I wanted to say something about Commerce Laws preventing monopolies like what you have described but then I realized, since when did the government enforced pre-existing laws?
So, you're right.
There are a few things that you failed to mention.
One, the government isn't as good as they portray when it comes to finding people on the internet.
But, they are going to go after internet trolls for saying mean things, instead?
Also, there IS another version of the internet. The government has made a public statement on it that they can no longer keep up with it. No, I'm not going to name it or link the statement (which includes the name) here on this site.
I use it when I lurk like-minded political and social sites. I also use proxies alternating around the globe.
Bottomline, if certain people want to "1984" the internet to hunt down political dissidents, other people will find other outlets. I hope it's something positive!
Originally posted by Aelious It would have to start at the ISP. If Comcast provided a first name to each ISP (or multiple codes with first names for members of a family/dorm) then when signing up for YouTube, MMORPG.com, etc. at least your first name would be out there. In order to make sure it works right it would have to be regulated by either the ISP or the government which then attaches cost. I wouldn't care but I don't think it's a great idea overall.
In the short term providing easy access to block/report tools for websites can curb the garbage to a certain extent. Going farther than that what if a watchdog company rated websites on community value AND ratio of reports:bans by the site. This way even if (out of 10) YouTube started out with a community value of 3 there report:ban was 10 which would indicate they are doing something about it.
In the end it's not our responsibility to be someone's psychiatrist. In most cases any attention given to jerks is asking for more of the same behaviour. If websites had great ignore/block systems with real punishments for the offender then it at least puts the sign out there that bad behaviour is a one time deal. Plus I think websites should log connections and ban IPs if they are found to be making a new account.
This is pretty redundant. And to make more laws and cost doesn't make any sense when these things are already in place.
Besides, an ISP can't do this. They cannot bypass IOS and IEEE standards. If they did, they basically created an intranet. You would be unable to make contact outside that ISPs domain. Sort of. It's a half-assed explaination. None of your infrastructure could talk to each other either. Anyways...
An ISP already knows who you are. Your name is on the account with them. They assign that account an IP Address. Further, every NIC is a layer 2 device as it has its own unique MAC Address. They know who you are already.
The government isn't going to hunt down internet trolls because somebody got their feelings hurt (First Amendment). But, if somebody is making serious threats (as in something that is actually against the law), they will get your information from the ISP with a warrant (4th Amendment).
As far as blocking IPs, no. It is worthless. You may be able to ban my IP assigned to me by my ISP, but I can still change proxies from anywhere in the world and still access that website. There is nothing that can be done to stop this. Your only chance is to ban every suspected bridge IP on the planet. That's a lot of innocent people that you have just banned business with. Not very smart. But lets say we do this. lol
Let me give you a perspective on how long it would take to track down a bridge IP.
As you may or may not know, the planet is running out of IP Addresses (IPv4). To fix this, IPv6 is being implemented.
If a single IPv6 Address was a soccerball, and you laid these soccerballs side-by-side for every possible IPv6 Address, those soccerballs would wrap around the known universe over one million times. I don't know off the top of my head what the name of the first sequence of numbers would be called, but it's 3.4028236692093846346337460743177e+38 or simply 2^128. Good, now that we have a starting point.
Tell me, how long would it take for your website to find my bridge IP that I'm using to change my proxy to some old lady in Italy? Oh wait, it's been 15 minutes, I'm in Japan now. And so on.
But wait, there's more. That website will have to find my hardline between my modem and the nearest ISP node, sniff my packets. Pull apart my layer 3 encapsulation, decrypt my IP packet headers. Algorithims, cypher keys, 256 bits, oh my!
I wonder what will happen with my IDS and Wireshark that I have running on my other monitor will do when they put gator clamps on my coaxial? Dunno. But what I DO know is, that person will have to do this while I'm actively logged into their website.
All that because somebody said a naughty word that you didn't like?
Originally posted by Aelious It would have to start at the ISP. If Comcast provided a first name to each ISP (or multiple codes with first names for members of a family/dorm) then when signing up for YouTube, MMORPG.com, etc. at least your first name would be out there. In order to make sure it works right it would have to be regulated by either the ISP or the government which then attaches cost. I wouldn't care but I don't think it's a great idea overall.
In the short term providing easy access to block/report tools for websites can curb the garbage to a certain extent. Going farther than that what if a watchdog company rated websites on community value AND ratio of reports:bans by the site. This way even if (out of 10) YouTube started out with a community value of 3 there report:ban was 10 which would indicate they are doing something about it.
In the end it's not our responsibility to be someone's psychiatrist. In most cases any attention given to jerks is asking for more of the same behaviour. If websites had great ignore/block systems with real punishments for the offender then it at least puts the sign out there that bad behaviour is a one time deal. Plus I think websites should log connections and ban IPs if they are found to be making a new account.
This is pretty redundant. And to make more laws and cost doesn't make any sense when these things are already in place.
Besides, an ISP can't do this. They cannot bypass IOS and IEEE standards. If they did, they basically created an intranet. You would be unable to make contact outside that ISPs domain. Sort of. It's a half-assed explaination. None of your infrastructure could talk to each other either. Anyways...
An ISP already knows who you are. Your name is on the account with them. They assign that account an IP Address. Further, every NIC is a layer 2 device as it has its own unique MAC Address. They know who you are already.
The government isn't going to hunt down internet trolls because somebody got their feelings hurt (First Amendment). But, if somebody is making serious threats (as in something that is actually against the law), they will get your information from the ISP with a warrant (4th Amendment).
As far as blocking IPs, no. It is worthless. You may be able to ban my IP assigned to me by my ISP, but I can still change proxies from anywhere in the world and still access that website. There is nothing that can be done to stop this. Your only chance is to ban every suspected bridge IP on the planet. That's a lot of innocent people that you have just banned business with. Not very smart. But lets say we do this. lol
Let me give you a perspective on how long it would take to track down a bridge IP.
As you may or may not know, the planet is running out of IP Addresses (IPv4). To fix this, IPv6 is being implemented.
If a single IPv6 Address was a soccerball, and you laid these soccerballs side-by-side for every possible IPv6 Address, those soccerballs would wrap around the known universe over one million times. I don't know off the top of my head what the name of the first sequence of numbers would be called, but it's 3.4028236692093846346337460743177e+38 or simply 2^128. Good, now that we have a starting point.
Tell me, how long would it take for your website to find my bridge IP that I'm using to change my proxy to some old lady in Italy? Oh wait, it's been 15 minutes, I'm in Japan now. And so on.
But wait, there's more. That website will have to find my hardline between my modem and the nearest ISP node, sniff my packets. Pull apart my layer 3 encapsulation, decrypt my IP packet headers. Algorithims, cypher keys, 256 bits, oh my!
I wonder what will happen with my IDS and Wireshark that I have running on my other monitor will do when they put gator clamps on my coaxial? Dunno. But what I DO know is, that person will have to do this while I'm actively logged into their website.
All that because somebody said a naughty word that you didn't like?
To be honest I laugh at most of the things I see on the internet because it's amazing what people type even if they don't actually believe it. That aside the problem is not just "naughy words". It goes beyond that and even though my forays into the interwebs are pretty limited I see it, I'm pretty sure you do too.
All this stuff you put here to show how much you know about the interwebs is fantastic, I'll assume that it all makes sense because I have no idea . What's more the average 13 year old mentality (whether actual or maturity level) doesn't either, at the most a single digit percentage IMO. Putting ISP bans in place for repeated horrible behavior would have a great effect I think.
As for the regulating as I said I don't think it's great idea. The issues of other people will not be fixed "by proxy" so removing them either selectively by users or globally by moderators is what I think is best.
To be honest I laugh at most of the things I see on the internet because it's amazing what people type even if they don't actually believe it. That aside the problem is not just "naughy words". It goes beyond that and even though my forays into the interwebs are pretty limited I see it, I'm pretty sure you do too.
All this stuff you put here to show how much you know about the interwebs is fantastic, I'll assume that it all makes sense because I have no idea . What's more the average 13 year old mentality (whether actual or maturity level) doesn't either, at the most a single digit percentage IMO. Putting ISP bans in place for repeated horrible behavior would have a great effect I think.
As for the regulating as I said I don't think it's great idea. The issues of other people will not be fixed "by proxy" so removing them either selectively by users or globally by moderators is what I think is best.
Hi, and thanks for the reply.
I know what you mean. Each person is different and reacts differently too. Words typed in chat don't bother me enough to demand some sort of action. I spend my time doing better things, I have thick skin, and don't care much for being other peoples' nanny. I just wish people felt this strongly about hunting down violent criminals instead of internet trolls, by which would infringe on our right to privacy.
So, I just want to get something clear. You want ISP bans or IP bans? I already explained how IP bans can't work. ISP band would be a whole different conversation.
Well, I would hope that responsibility would be left up to a moderator and not users. That would be the biggest grief-fest ever, if users could ban other users. I would assume that most people wouldn't even waste their time there, so whatever it is that site does for income, they would lose a lot of money.
To be honest I laugh at most of the things I see on the internet because it's amazing what people type even if they don't actually believe it. That aside the problem is not just "naughy words". It goes beyond that and even though my forays into the interwebs are pretty limited I see it, I'm pretty sure you do too.
All this stuff you put here to show how much you know about the interwebs is fantastic, I'll assume that it all makes sense because I have no idea . What's more the average 13 year old mentality (whether actual or maturity level) doesn't either, at the most a single digit percentage IMO. Putting ISP bans in place for repeated horrible behavior would have a great effect I think.
As for the regulating as I said I don't think it's great idea. The issues of other people will not be fixed "by proxy" so removing them either selectively by users or globally by moderators is what I think is best.
Hi, and thanks for the reply.
I know what you mean. Each person is different and reacts differently too. Words typed in chat don't bother me enough to demand some sort of action. I spend my time doing better things, I have thick skin, and don't care much for being other peoples' nanny. I just wish people felt this strongly about hunting down violent criminals instead of internet trolls, by which would infringe on our right to privacy.
So, I just want to get something clear. You want ISP bans or IP bans? I already explained how IP bans can't work. ISP band would be a whole different conversation.
Well, I would hope that responsibility would be left up to a moderator and not users. That would be the biggest grief-fest ever, if users could ban other users. I would assume that most people wouldn't even waste their time there, so whatever it is that site does for income, they would lose a lot of money.
Oh, I agree there are better issues to be concerened with but "netiqette" is pretty bad in certain venues. Online interaction of course continues to become more prevailant so sharper tools for dealing with people can't hurt. I did mean IP bans and although you mentioned ways to get around being banned the majority of your immature trolls and A-holes I doubt will know how. Lastly I would never put global banning in the hands of users, you are correct in that it would... turn out badly heh. What I meant is that the combination of users able to ignore other users and mods account/IP banning offensive people it would clean up a good portion of dirt. A lot of sites do this already of course.
Will this get rid of all the jerks? No, nothing will completely. Cracking down hard, or as hard as is reasonable, may send a good message if the major sites did this.
Throughout this discussion, a quote has been niggling in the back of my mind... "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty." - Ben Franklin
I think this topic is the essence of what is being talked about here. While I would like a safer world in an image I like, I don't think trying to regulate others' behavior over the internet is the way to go, ie: taking away liberties. (Would this fall under "Civil" or "Uncivil" Liberties? lol)
I think all we can do is educate our children and instill in them our own personal values. Monitor their activities online and teach them. Then hope for the best. The solution starts at home, in my opinion.
I know there are areas of the internet that are not for me. I choose to not go to those places. If I visit a place and find the behavior not what I wish to be around, I leave. I seem to lack this entitlement of many people that the whole world must be the way I think it should be. Just give me a little corner somewhere and I am happy
After all, the only thing *I* can control is me.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Throughout this discussion, a quote has been niggling in the back of my mind... "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty." - Ben Franklin
I think this topic is the essence of what is being talked about here. While I would like a safer world in an image I like, I don't think trying to regulate others' behavior over the internet is the way to go, ie: taking away liberties. (Would this fall under "Civil" or "Uncivil" Liberties? lol)
I think all we can do is educate our children and instill in them our own personal values. Monitor their activities online and teach them. Then hope for the best. The solution starts at home, in my opinion.
I know there are areas of the internet that are not for me. I choose to not go to those places. If I visit a place and find the behavior not what I wish to be around, I leave. I seem to lack this entitlement of many people that the whole world must be the way I think it should be. Just give me a little corner somewhere and I am happy
After all, the only thing *I* can control is me.
What a refreshingly good post.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
I agree that anonymity is very important, its one of the cornerstones of the internet. I know people have been brainwashed by facebook and myspance and such, but that doesnt change the original spirit of the web. There are forces trying to remove that, and it is everyones duty to try and resist them.
However thats general anonymity, the kind that lets you speak your mind or take on other personas. In a game im all for people being their character and not whatever their name or some other external identifier is, but pairing that with general meaninglessness in the effort invested into that character is the problem.
The solution ive already said and so have others, is just to make the character in the games personal identity and reputation more important. That means making it:
1. very costly to the player to just reroll
2. important to have a good place within the community to have an easy time at the game
Unfortunately (or fortunately) both of the above things require changes that the average modern-day mmo player would hate.
I don't really think there is any more to say. That is the only solution that preserves anonymity.
This is speaking from personal experience. I actually had another account on a gaming website and got banned, not because I was trolling other players, but because I was adamantly defending a game that I liked. And it is a problem, honest people use sites like MMORPG.com as their only source of information on games they are interested in playing. You think it would be crucial for the site owners to regulate their sites to prevent users for giving flat out false informatioin about a game they don't even play, or only played for less than a day.
I don't know if it was the site owner himself or one of the moderators, but they have come out and blatantly said that this is a free resource of information, and you should be happy with what you get. A lot of the opinions in this thread claim that a Universal ID will fix the problem. But a universal ID with worth jack unless the website is willing to moderate it. And if you see the amount of bile that these posters spew out on a daily basis, you'll understand why doing it "to preserve internet integrity" is simply not enough.
The choice is simple. You want a cleaner internet, you're going to have to pay someone to clean it up. A lot of people are using actual games as example of the effects of trollers and hackers destroying their game. And the common feature of these games is that they are all free to play, and the demand for free to play games is only growing.
So the moral of the story is that yes, "You get what you pay for."
A lesson I learned a while back about privacy (online anonymity in this case) is one I learned from an old philosophy prof I had back in my youth. When someone is in private (ie. at home behind closed doors) or anonymous, that is when they show their true selves because they are free to do whatever they wish. That is the actual reflection of who they are, for better or for worse.
So while I dislike the trolls and jerks and so on, I also must remind myself that if people weren't "free" to be themselves, I would also have a much harder time finding the people that are truly kind and respectful, and not just putting on a facade to gain acceptance.
Enter a whole new realm of challenge and adventure.
Comments
I know I'm pretty much the exception to the rule because I am pretty much the same online and in real life. I'm an equal opportunity a-hole, I f**k with everyone.
Seriously though, there are those that for whatever reason act different online but I will take putting up with those clowns to keep anonymous. That's just me though.
Yes I am saying that. Taking something away from me because of the actions of a few is stupid. If something is said online like a threat or anything else criminal, then yes, I am in favour of having them tracked down and dealt. Sorry, harsh words fall under that. How the hell do people get bullied online anyway? I don't use social media so the concept escapes me.
IMO, the problem is people aren't anonymous ENOUGH. All these fools putting their names and photos out there for anyone to read or look at is the problem. I know there's privacy options that people can use yet somehow don't. Also, whatever happened to sticks and stones?
Again, taking something away from me due to the actions of others is unfair and unnecessary.
Is a man not entitled to the herp of his derp?
Remember, I live in a world where juggalos and yugioh players are real things.
I avoid companies like Google, so this is a non-issue for me. No need for you to repeat it over and over.
What is the point of knowing our personal information is what we are asking. Maybe not YOU, but the people that would have it. What do you expect to be done with that information exactly?
I gave you two examples of this being done before. What makes this time any different?
I already know "why some people advocate Real Names online". You even shared your experiences. They pretty much, more or less, reflect each other.
We want to know what will be done with this information. So far, people have posted that are for this have stated that it would be used as intimidation.
Is that what you would like to see? Or would you like to see it used for retaliation such as harrassment, violence, and/or vandalism? There can be no other purposes here.
It does amaze me what some people whack on the net for all to see. Sheer rank stupidity, but at least they can claim over 9000 efriends I guess and that's the important thing these days.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
I can count on one hand the number of people I consider to be my close friends. I guess not having hundreds or thousands of efriends makes me wierd or something.
Is a man not entitled to the herp of his derp?
Remember, I live in a world where juggalos and yugioh players are real things.
Likewise, never had anything to do with Myspace, Facebook, personal Youtube accounts or Twitter. It must be amazing to some that I am able to operate at all without being able to inform at least three people in another country when I am popping down the shops to buy some beer.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
And then getting sacked the next day because your boss discovered that you like beer and he is against that.
nah i would like to shock you a couple of time first so you won't troll in one of those threads.
The fact that you are making such a statement is already shocking.
I've read some very interesting and creative solutions to the problem you have presented. But it seems to me that a lot of people here tend to incorrectly assume that the internet in general is a extension of a singular country, govermental body, collection of laws or company. Freedom of speech, individual rights and judicial reach vary from person to person depending on their country of origin. But sooner or later all these governing bodies will have no choice but to adhere to a singular regulatory system that all countries and goverments can agree upon and adapt to in order to maintain some type of civility. But it won't be the world's goverments that will lead this charge. Read on...
As of right now, the various businesses spread across this great internet are holding all the chips when it comes to your privacy and your money is the only thing keeping them from devulging it. So that control of your information stops at their front door for now. Take for instance a global company like Apple. It's safe to assume that as of right now, Apple has a right to 100% control and access of their users data. No matter where that user resides. But does that mean that the U.S. government has the same rights to that information anytime they want? Only in special circumstances within the boundries of the law. Obviously. But then again they don't have to. Why you say? Read on...
We all know that the internet itself was invented by the U.S. government. Also, they can request information about you and your actions from any given ISP at anytime and they WILL devulge that information to them. But more importantly, that trick is not lost upon the rest of the world's governing bodies. WIth systems in place like China's massive control over ISPs and Pakistan's OpenNet Initiative, if the government wanted to know who you were and what you have been up to, it's nothing you can do to stop them.
Companies on the other hand, don't have it that easy. They have to operate within the bounds of the laws of the lands they reside in. And while the government could care less that you spent 200 bucks on the ultimate founder's pack for the up and coming Marvel Heroes, Google and other companies would pay hand over fist to have that information made available to them. If only to sell it to other mmo companies and developers for a hefty price. They are the ones that would benefit the most by tracking you and all you do. And what better way to get the masses to adapt such a notion than to have companies like Facebook, Youtube, Google and other marketing data analyst pushing that agenda.
Let's take Youtube. First, I remember when they were bought by Google and not soon after you had to merge your google gmail and youtube accounts. Now recently they are asking people to use their real names.
And next was Facebook and gaming. More and more browser and mobile games are suggesting that people use their Facebook accounts to log into these types of games. Slowly getting people use to single ID systems.
Now could you imagine if a major U.S. ISP merged with one of these companies, like Comcast or AT&T? The masses wouldn't know what hit them... You could have Google and Facebook IDs replace emails and user created IDs for all future websites and no one would bat and eyelash. Yeah...keep thinkin that the internet will always be a haven for privacy. Like I said, governments won't be the ones infringing on your precious anonymity, companies will be.
"Small minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas."
I think what advocates of 'netiquette' are looking for is some type of reputation based identity that is attached to a singular user. You can still have your anonimity barrier between you and the net but your net identity can't be reforged every time you want to be an idiot online.
There are consequences and just because you can seperate your identity doesn't mean you should be able to absolve yourself from your morality.
I agree and Disagree.
I like the fact about remaining anonymous, if people didn't remain anonymous then the problem with this is the fact that a person could make more Real Life threats ifa person had X Persons location IP and Geo Locates also give away enough information, and Doxing a person can obtain a persons Real Life infomation even more exactly to where they are at that exact time and second I won't go into how to do such but some already know how.
The Problem with remaining Anonymous is it has been tried in games Like Second Life for example they no longer required users to verify their Real Email, Enter Their Real Life Name, and so now since 2009 I have witnessed CopyBotters, also known as Hackers in the MMO community, Griefers, and Cheaters, as well as people like NoR who IP log Violate everyones privacy in SL track alternate accounts all without the fear of getting removed because of being anonymous you get banned you make a new account every time you get banned, even games like League OF Legends its bad.
However I am against every user having a persons Real Life identity for the reason of griefing, and Real Life threats however if they just had an ID and could be reported and banned by the game company for example Second Life with lal the griefers then we wouldn't have all these griefers and trolls in the online community, however companies like Linden Lab are doing nothing to protect anyone anymore its pretty much Game Over in that game unless someone else starts leading the game/simulator. I like Second Life for example but it will never be what it used to be because of all the griefing, and trolls and mistakes Lindens have made.
The Solution.
The solution to keeping UnderAged Kids, and people from Griefing, and Trolling is Government issued Gamer ID's, and Services that use them they do not get your Real Life information in fact no one does it, however to use certain online services such as google beyond searching, but to even post you are required to give your ID, this is the only way it would work it would keep kids safe, and it would keep trolls out of games because once you get banned form a game or service you can't keep making alt accounts. Well maybe not government but ID's for example the ESRB gets bigger or some company, and gaming industries follow.
Basically how the ID would work is you can choose any screen name you want for any online service, and you can create multiple user names or accounts with that same ID, but every account links to your ID you have obtained in Real Life, therefore if you get banned all your accounts on the same service get banned and you can't get back in, this works by when you register an account you enter your unique code similar to a social security number but more cryptic.
I do agree that online harassment is becomming a problem, Heck I am even a Griefer myself but have online done such in Second Life, However the people I target are those who griefed friends first or are like Land OF NoR the corrupt GM's who support CopyBot, and hacking in Second Life, they deserve whatever comes their way unless they can throw out their corrupted GM's and get better GM's I don't care. I do also backup what I say with Snapshots, Video, or NoteCards before ever taking any type of exposure or actions in a game or person. I mean if they are going to grief they shouldn't expect not to get griefed back, I mean they ruined a friend who was from 2006 they ripped off his entire store, or at least one of their players from their community did, and they did not care this guy had a business made his money through SL, and I know there was more than one store too they all lost money and real life income because of this.
However with this said if anonymity did not exist the way it does today, and Companies actually banned every user who didn't follow the TOS then these griefers wouldn't be a problem in Second Life, and In League, so for example I would always be able to enjoy the game everyday without logging in getting an IM that spams me telling me to end it in real life.
Then you got the sexist harassment in online games too.
In the short term providing easy access to block/report tools for websites can curb the garbage to a certain extent. Going farther than that what if a watchdog company rated websites on community value AND ratio of reports:bans by the site. This way even if (out of 10) YouTube started out with a community value of 3 there report:ban was 10 which would indicate they are doing something about it.
In the end it's not our responsibility to be someone's psychiatrist. In most cases any attention given to jerks is asking for more of the same behaviour. If websites had great ignore/block systems with real punishments for the offender then it at least puts the sign out there that bad behaviour is a one time deal. Plus I think websites should log connections and ban IPs if they are found to be making a new account.
First, OP, thank you for that link. I'm familiar with Lanier's views from way back when, and it's interesting to see how they've changed. And I find myself agreeing with him on some level.
As for the topic: Of course anonimity is a problem. It's just an unnatural thing for a human being. Because, yes, the fear of paying a price is an important part of us, as is having a coherent physical identity. This was whole point of Wells' The Invisible Man, wasn't it?
When visibility and accountability goes out the window, strange things happen indeed.
Good post.
I wanted to say something about Commerce Laws preventing monopolies like what you have described but then I realized, since when did the government enforced pre-existing laws?
So, you're right.
There are a few things that you failed to mention.
One, the government isn't as good as they portray when it comes to finding people on the internet.
http://gawker.com/5979203/anonymous-hacks-department-of-justice-website-threatens-to-launch-multiple-warheads
But, they are going to go after internet trolls for saying mean things, instead?
Also, there IS another version of the internet. The government has made a public statement on it that they can no longer keep up with it. No, I'm not going to name it or link the statement (which includes the name) here on this site.
I use it when I lurk like-minded political and social sites. I also use proxies alternating around the globe.
Bottomline, if certain people want to "1984" the internet to hunt down political dissidents, other people will find other outlets. I hope it's something positive!
This is pretty redundant. And to make more laws and cost doesn't make any sense when these things are already in place.
Besides, an ISP can't do this. They cannot bypass IOS and IEEE standards. If they did, they basically created an intranet. You would be unable to make contact outside that ISPs domain. Sort of. It's a half-assed explaination. None of your infrastructure could talk to each other either. Anyways...
An ISP already knows who you are. Your name is on the account with them. They assign that account an IP Address. Further, every NIC is a layer 2 device as it has its own unique MAC Address. They know who you are already.
The government isn't going to hunt down internet trolls because somebody got their feelings hurt (First Amendment). But, if somebody is making serious threats (as in something that is actually against the law), they will get your information from the ISP with a warrant (4th Amendment).
As far as blocking IPs, no. It is worthless. You may be able to ban my IP assigned to me by my ISP, but I can still change proxies from anywhere in the world and still access that website. There is nothing that can be done to stop this. Your only chance is to ban every suspected bridge IP on the planet. That's a lot of innocent people that you have just banned business with. Not very smart. But lets say we do this. lol
Let me give you a perspective on how long it would take to track down a bridge IP.
As you may or may not know, the planet is running out of IP Addresses (IPv4). To fix this, IPv6 is being implemented.
If a single IPv6 Address was a soccerball, and you laid these soccerballs side-by-side for every possible IPv6 Address, those soccerballs would wrap around the known universe over one million times. I don't know off the top of my head what the name of the first sequence of numbers would be called, but it's 3.4028236692093846346337460743177e+38 or simply 2^128. Good, now that we have a starting point.
Tell me, how long would it take for your website to find my bridge IP that I'm using to change my proxy to some old lady in Italy? Oh wait, it's been 15 minutes, I'm in Japan now. And so on.
But wait, there's more. That website will have to find my hardline between my modem and the nearest ISP node, sniff my packets. Pull apart my layer 3 encapsulation, decrypt my IP packet headers. Algorithims, cypher keys, 256 bits, oh my!
I wonder what will happen with my IDS and Wireshark that I have running on my other monitor will do when they put gator clamps on my coaxial? Dunno. But what I DO know is, that person will have to do this while I'm actively logged into their website.
All that because somebody said a naughty word that you didn't like?
To be honest I laugh at most of the things I see on the internet because it's amazing what people type even if they don't actually believe it. That aside the problem is not just "naughy words". It goes beyond that and even though my forays into the interwebs are pretty limited I see it, I'm pretty sure you do too.
All this stuff you put here to show how much you know about the interwebs is fantastic, I'll assume that it all makes sense because I have no idea
. What's more the average 13 year old mentality (whether actual or maturity level) doesn't either, at the most a single digit percentage IMO. Putting ISP bans in place for repeated horrible behavior would have a great effect I think.
As for the regulating as I said I don't think it's great idea. The issues of other people will not be fixed "by proxy" so removing them either selectively by users or globally by moderators is what I think is best.
Hi, and thanks for the reply.
I know what you mean. Each person is different and reacts differently too. Words typed in chat don't bother me enough to demand some sort of action. I spend my time doing better things, I have thick skin, and don't care much for being other peoples' nanny. I just wish people felt this strongly about hunting down violent criminals instead of internet trolls, by which would infringe on our right to privacy.
So, I just want to get something clear. You want ISP bans or IP bans? I already explained how IP bans can't work. ISP band would be a whole different conversation.
Well, I would hope that responsibility would be left up to a moderator and not users. That would be the biggest grief-fest ever, if users could ban other users. I would assume that most people wouldn't even waste their time there, so whatever it is that site does for income, they would lose a lot of money.
Oh, I agree there are better issues to be concerened with but "netiqette" is pretty bad in certain venues. Online interaction of course continues to become more prevailant so sharper tools for dealing with people can't hurt. I did mean IP bans and although you mentioned ways to get around being banned the majority of your immature trolls and A-holes I doubt will know how. Lastly I would never put global banning in the hands of users, you are correct in that it would... turn out badly heh. What I meant is that the combination of users able to ignore other users and mods account/IP banning offensive people it would clean up a good portion of dirt. A lot of sites do this already of course.
Will this get rid of all the jerks? No, nothing will completely. Cracking down hard, or as hard as is reasonable, may send a good message if the major sites did this.
Throughout this discussion, a quote has been niggling in the back of my mind...
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty." - Ben Franklin
I think this topic is the essence of what is being talked about here. While I would like a safer world in an image I like, I don't think trying to regulate others' behavior over the internet is the way to go, ie: taking away liberties. (Would this fall under "Civil" or "Uncivil" Liberties? lol)
I think all we can do is educate our children and instill in them our own personal values. Monitor their activities online and teach them. Then hope for the best. The solution starts at home, in my opinion.
I know there are areas of the internet that are not for me. I choose to not go to those places. If I visit a place and find the behavior not what I wish to be around, I leave. I seem to lack this entitlement of many people that the whole world must be the way I think it should be. Just give me a little corner somewhere and I am happy
After all, the only thing *I* can control is me.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
What a refreshingly good post.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
However thats general anonymity, the kind that lets you speak your mind or take on other personas. In a game im all for people being their character and not whatever their name or some other external identifier is, but pairing that with general meaninglessness in the effort invested into that character is the problem.
The solution ive already said and so have others, is just to make the character in the games personal identity and reputation more important. That means making it:
1. very costly to the player to just reroll
2. important to have a good place within the community to have an easy time at the game
Unfortunately (or fortunately) both of the above things require changes that the average modern-day mmo player would hate.
I don't really think there is any more to say. That is the only solution that preserves anonymity.
This is speaking from personal experience. I actually had another account on a gaming website and got banned, not because I was trolling other players, but because I was adamantly defending a game that I liked. And it is a problem, honest people use sites like MMORPG.com as their only source of information on games they are interested in playing. You think it would be crucial for the site owners to regulate their sites to prevent users for giving flat out false informatioin about a game they don't even play, or only played for less than a day.
I don't know if it was the site owner himself or one of the moderators, but they have come out and blatantly said that this is a free resource of information, and you should be happy with what you get. A lot of the opinions in this thread claim that a Universal ID will fix the problem. But a universal ID with worth jack unless the website is willing to moderate it. And if you see the amount of bile that these posters spew out on a daily basis, you'll understand why doing it "to preserve internet integrity" is simply not enough.
The choice is simple. You want a cleaner internet, you're going to have to pay someone to clean it up. A lot of people are using actual games as example of the effects of trollers and hackers destroying their game. And the common feature of these games is that they are all free to play, and the demand for free to play games is only growing.
So the moral of the story is that yes, "You get what you pay for."
Are these forums worthwhile, do you get infomation and entertainment from them? Yes.
Are they always nice. No.
Do I care that they are not always nice and fluffy? No.
Is most of the angst, rants and piss taking all part of what I like. Yes.
Would posters voting on other poster's posts make the site better. No.
Would people having to use their own name make the site better. No.
A lesson I learned a while back about privacy (online anonymity in this case) is one I learned from an old philosophy prof I had back in my youth. When someone is in private (ie. at home behind closed doors) or anonymous, that is when they show their true selves because they are free to do whatever they wish. That is the actual reflection of who they are, for better or for worse.
So while I dislike the trolls and jerks and so on, I also must remind myself that if people weren't "free" to be themselves, I would also have a much harder time finding the people that are truly kind and respectful, and not just putting on a facade to gain acceptance.
Enter a whole new realm of challenge and adventure.