Pseudonymity, Anonymity, and Accountability Online

[ALAYMAN]

Deindividuation is ..why under the cover of an alias or an avatar on a website or a blog ? surrounded by virtual strangers ? conventionally restrained individuals might be moved to suggest a comedian should suffer all manner of violent torture because they don?t like his jokes, or his face. Digital media allow almost unlimited opportunity for wilful deindividuation. They almost require it. The implications of those liberties, of the ubiquity of anonymity and the language of the crowd, are only beginning to be felt.

http://www.wired.com/2011/07/accountability-online/

Just thought in light of recent developments, and an ongoing problem of the internet age, that we might discuss the ethics of owning your own words by standing behind them with your own real name and reputation.

 

[FSSL]

... that would put a damper on the FFF!

We have high profile IFBXRs posting from prison. That would give away their identities... Lol

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Deindividuation is ..why under the cover of an alias or an avatar on a website or a blog ? surrounded by virtual strangers ? conventionally restrained individuals might be moved to suggest a comedian should suffer all manner of violent torture because they don?t like his jokes, or his face. Digital media allow almost unlimited opportunity for wilful deindividuation. They almost require it. The implications of those liberties, of the ubiquity of anonymity and the language of the crowd, are only beginning to be felt.

http://www.wired.com/2011/07/accountability-online/

Just thought in light of recent developments, and an ongoing problem of the internet age, that we might discuss the ethics of owning your own words by standing behind them with your own real name and reputation.

I've been open about my identity for years.

Now about my sockie...

(J/K, I actually don't have one on this forum. I initially had one but hadn't used it for eons and it got wiped when Webby got rid of members who hadn't posted in like, forever.)

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Deindividuation is ..why under the cover of an alias or an avatar on a website or a blog ? surrounded by virtual strangers ? conventionally restrained individuals might be moved to suggest a comedian should suffer all manner of violent torture because they don?t like his jokes, or his face. Digital media allow almost unlimited opportunity for wilful deindividuation. They almost require it. The implications of those liberties, of the ubiquity of anonymity and the language of the crowd, are only beginning to be felt.

http://www.wired.com/2011/07/accountability-online/

Just thought in light of recent developments, and an ongoing problem of the internet age, that we might discuss the ethics of owning your own words by standing behind them with your own real name and reputation.

I've been open about my identity for years.

Now about my sockie...

(J/K, I actually don't have one on this forum. I initially had one but hadn't used it for eons and it got wiped when Webby got rid of members who hadn't posted in like, forever.)

There's unfortunately a good reason for anonymity these days.  I overheard people at work saying they refused to hire someone because they looked at his Facebook posts and saw that he was re-posting conservative stuff and things about the Tea Party, and these managers didn't like that.  (Not coincidentally, these people are government employees.)  That's why I deleted my accounts on Facebook with my real name, and started using a fake name. 

Losing a job or not getting hired because of my devotion to Christ is one thing.  I can deal with that.  But being rejected because I happen to have conservative views, or post wacky humor is quite another thing.  So I have one account for posting what I consider important or fun, and another account with my real name for keeping it professional. 

I actually have 2 more FB accounts as backups because my primary fake account has been banned several times for posting anti-Obama and anti-Marxist cartoons -- my political friends on FB get banned regularly for that, too.  It's political fascism on FB.  There was nothing immoral about what I posted.  I could easily post the things for which I got banned on FB, here, and nobody would complain.  In fact, I might have posted those political cartoons already. 

 

[ALAYMAN]

I've been open about my identity for years.

As have I, and you know that as much as we disagree theologically on some very important points, I still highly respect you and the way you conduct yourself.  My pastor and a few others from church know my FFF posting name on here, and the church members know I participate on a Christian forum.  They would be welcome any time to see what I post.

Now about my sockie...

(J/K, I actually don't have one on this forum. I initially had one but hadn't used it for eons and it got wiped when Webby got rid of members who hadn't posted in like, forever.)

I understand the reason for socks like the ones you'd create, but the nature of the way they can be abused (similar to the logic and arguments pro and con regarding anonymity) I don't much care for them.  There's lots of other ways to be appropriately provocative and have some fun with folk.

 

[Walt]

It's a fascinating subject.  I have heard many preachers state that they "wouldn't waste two minutes on what some anonymous person says about me on the internet".  I wonder if this just their insecurity talking.  But if someone puts his name to a statement, they go out of their way to dredge up dirt on that person, and attack him, to (presumably) draw attention away from the points made.


On the other hand... much of how we take opinions depends on our view of the person. When someone posts under a consistent alias, one must actually read and think about what is said... as opposed to "Oh, that's just Jim - you can't trust what he writes because he doesn't tithe" or "I wouldn't trust what Mark says - he can't be spiritual, as he skips church a lot".

One doesn't have anything to do with the other.  Mark's post should be evaluated on what he writes, not on what he does.

So, I prefer to comment on the various topics as merely "Walt" and let the words stand for themself... I've seen firsthand where someone was accused of writing anonymously; he was attacked in messages, and church leadership spread stories about him behind his back.

 

[Recovering IFB]

ESPN for years, on the comment section was absolutely brutal. Until they switched to requiring  a Facebook account to post comments  in. There was so much filthy, and racial slurs all over every article posted. Now at least, it's calmed down quite a bit. Still have the occasional person saying foolish things, but at least you can put a face on the person.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Do whatever you want to do. Just live with it.

By the way. I don't personally know Paul. All I know is what he said. Which is good enough for me. I could care less what T-Bones real name is. I know from what he says that he is a good man. Who cares where he lives and we're he serves. God knows. That is all that matters.

 

[prophet]

As far as I know, anyone who wants to can figure out who I am.

I'm not sure if my profile has my name on it, it used to.

I haven't logged on from a laptop in two years, so I never see that stuff.

I've been black-balled by anyone who would do it already, because of what I've said offline.



Sent from my C6730 using Tapatalk

 

[Fresh Air]

My view on the subject is relatively easy to assess... 

 

[Mathew Ward]

I'm in.

 

[Bob H]

... that would put a damper on the FFF!

We have high profile IFBXRs posting from prison. That would give away their identities... Lol

I don't think the 'IBx'ers" here are the problem

 

[Bob H]

... that would put a damper on the FFF!

We have high profile IFBXRs posting from prison. That would give away their identities... Lol

I don't think the 'IBx'ers" here are the problem

apparently none of them think they are either.......

I guess then that "them" & "I" do agree on something

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

... that would put a damper on the FFF!

We have high profile IFBXRs posting from prison. That would give away their identities... Lol

I don't think the 'IBx'ers" here are the problem

apparently none of them think they are either.......

I guess then that "them" & "I" do agree on something

then maybe i misunderstood what you were saying at first...... ....

do you think pastors... regardless of denomination.... who spend their time amusing themselves by trolling the internet anonymously.... "stirring pots" and playing "provocative" games with people... as one of them admitted in this very thread..... are not problems?........

because in my opinion they are a disgrace to whatever religious denomination they represent...... and the fact they lie about their anonymity claiming everybody knows them when they clearly do not makes it an even bigger disgrace......

maybe instead of people being required to post their true names..... ... it would be better if the registered owner of the computer they were posting from appeared on screen........  whether it be a private computer ... or one belonging to a church.... or an industry or some other place of business.... the employer of the person posting....... or even a prison system as fssl jokingly suggested.......  ..........

baptist churches and prisons might not care what their pastors or inmates are doing online .... but i bet other places of businesses might have some concerns if an employee was using a company computer to harass people and play games on the internet....... especially if they were using that computer on company time......

A disgrace:  When a moderator feels compelled to pester a FFF member on Facebook, even if he mistakenly pesters the FFF member's son.

A bigger disgrace:  When he refuses to admit he did it, and refuses to apologize. 

An even bigger disgrace:  When he claims I blurred the last name because I was making it up.  Yet when I provided the unblurred name, suddenly the issue was about a profile picture.  That's called moving the goalposts and making up any excuse to deny it.  Anyone can make multiple FB accounts with the same name and different profile pictures.

An even bigger disgrace:  When the owner of the forum defends the moderator, who was clearly proved guilty, and then even goes on to mock the FFF member for outing the moderator, trying to make himself and the moderator seem like the victims.

The biggest disgrace of all:  When these people, and others "stir the pot", lie, behave like misogynist hypocritical white-washed tombs, troll and goad people like aleshanee, me, and others -- when these very people claim to be pastors and ministers, and elders of a church. 

This is not a Christian forum.  There are Christians who participate here, but the ones in charge certainly do not have the Spirit of Christ.  And some of the participants, namely ALAYMAN and probably even TB do not have the Spirit of Christ.  Yeah, it's above my pay grade to know for sure who belongs to Christ and who doesn't.  But my money is on FSSL, Ransom, ALAYMAN, and even Tarheel Baptist all going to hell.  Liars, hypocrites, false accusers of the brethren, those who stir up trouble among the brethren, etc., will not inherit the kingdom of God.  And that's what some of you ARE.  And while I hope I change my mind at some point, right now I wouldn't shed a tear if I was right.  There's a word for the way you people named above behave. It's called "evil". 

 

[Ransom]

An even bigger disgrace: throwing a major wobbly based on nothing but a screenshot.

An even bigger disgrace: mewling and puking about the harrassment of your son, but doing nothing to deal with the account from which the harrassment came.

I don't want some net.psycho harassing people in my name any more than you want your family harassed by them. I would be as happy to see the stalker gone as you would. But you're too busy carrying out your idiotic little temper tantrum to ask me for help or support.

So be it. It's not my account and not my problem. You're on your own.

An even bigger disgrace: Continually whining like a spoiled little child about how horrible this forum is, but lacking the testicular fortitude to just walk away.

An even bigger disgrace: Putting me on ignore, complaining about me constantly, and having the gall to demand that I stay away from you.

The Rogue Tomato: the raging, spineless, balless, coward and hypocrite.

I have nothing further to say about Rogue's stalker, and no further to say to Rogue himself, except to moderate the inevitable nudity, profanity, and general stupidity our of his posts.

 

[FSSL]

Wow... An unknown troll really did Rogue in!

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Just to be clear for those who didn't see the whole story. 

My son and I have the same name (although he's not a "jr", since he has different middle names).  Ransom messaged "me" calling me a troll.  The phone screen cap is below. 

Only it wasn't me, it was my son.  My son told me about it.  I was outraged that Ransom was criticizing me to my son and said so in no uncertain terms, but I didn't have the screen shot yet. 

FSSL demanded proof.  So I asked my son for a screen shot, and posted the picture below with Ransom (Scott's) last name blurred out so as not to break forum rules. 

Then Ransom claimed I blurred out the name because it wasn't really his last name.  So I posted it without the blur.  Then FSSL and Ransom said it wasn't really Scott/Random because he doesn't normally use that same avatar.  Except anyone can make a dozen accounts on Facebook with the same name and different avatar, so that doesn't mean anything.  People do that all the time for plausible deniability.

The bottom line is, Ransom did it, he refuses to admit it or apologize, and FSSL is not only defending Ransom, they're both mocking me for being upset about my son being pestered by Ransom. 

One last thing... above the screen shot of Ransom pestering my son, you'll see a screen shot of Ransom's first reply to my complaint.  He made this reply BEFORE I posted the phone screen shot evidence, which is important. 

His first line, "I have no idea what you're talking about" was clearly an attempt to mock me, because that's almost exactly what my son first said... and at that point Ransom was still thinking it was me who said it, not my son.  So that was just his smug way to "reply in kind".  And then he follows that with, "Troll" -- which is exactly what he said to my son at the end.

There's no question that Ransom was the perpetrator, and that FSSL and Ransom are both denying it and making me out to be the villain.

These people are evil. 

Read this quick, because FSSL has a habit of deleting threads with proof.

 

[FSSL]

I also have a habit of putting those who are unable to self-moderate on suspension.

Stop accusing the brethren and consider the possibility that you have been effectively trolled by someone other than Ransom. You have an exaggerated sense of violation due to the sublime nature of your image above. You have no proof that was the same Scott McClare.

You create a great groaning disturbance in the force with your silliness.

 

[FSSL]

Scott's (Ransom's) identity looks like this. It has looked this way for at least a couple of years now.

 

[Binaca Chugger]

So.....

When all is silent in the IFB world and no pastors are on trial, the majority of members on this forum begin to attack each other with no one else to mock.