linuxjournal.com
> But email still works. You still have to put in the effort to write it, and there's generally some actual content (technical or otherwise). The whole "liking" and "sharing" model is just garbage. There is no effort and no quality control. In fact, it's all geared to the reverse of quality control, with lowest common denominator targets, and click-bait, and things designed to generate an emotional response, often one of moral outrage.
> Add in anonymity, and it's just disgusting. When you don't even put your real name on your garbage (or the garbage you share or like), it really doesn't help.
> I'm actually one of those people who thinks that anonymity is overrated. Some people confuse privacy and anonymity and think they go hand in hand, and that protecting privacy means that you need to protect anonymity. I think that's wrong. Anonymity is important if you're a whistle-blower, but if you cannot prove your identity, your crazy rant on some social-media platform shouldn't be visible, and you shouldn't be able to share it or like it.
Stop being anonymous.
But email still works. You still have to put in the effort to write it...
Other urls found in this thread:
Why don't you use your real name? Are you a whistle-blower?
Yes.
What if I am? What you gonna do? Call the police?
oh shit! now I assume kernel actually has NSA backdoors!
time to use BSD I guess
The absolute state of Canadians
So how good are you at blowing? Would you consider yourself good at the job? I mean, the job of blowing.
Get it? It's funny because blowjob.
Hehe.
epic
>The whole "liking" and "sharing" model is just garbage
Well that's just a downright problematic, thing to say. I thought we had Linus under control now. This is very disappointing. Maybe he needs a little more sensitivity indoctrination.
>NSA bullying whistleblowers
What a faggot.
I think trannies break him
he can not say what he actually thinks, because kernel might be refused to use
I mean, would you use kernel made by actual Hitler (in 2019 standards)?
of course not!
> Linus: If anything, I think I have become quieter. I wouldn't say "more diplomatic", but perhaps more self-aware, and I'm trying to be less forceful.
They really did.
>I mean, would you use kernel made by actual Hitler (in 2019 standards)?
There are so many other reasons not to use something, best not to make it so you can't use anything.
I would if it were good
Anonymity protects ideas from reader bias based on author
Why are these cis white males even allowed in tech. It's 2019 people
We are the polis
How the flying fuck do anonymity and privacy not go hand in hand? I don't want my workplace to know that I post on a Mongolian cartoon board which is why I post anonymously.
he's right though. social media is shit and it's even shittier when everyone is anonymous. you can't share or like on Jow Forums btw so his comment doesn't really apply.
so does open-minded-ness
But that puts onus on everyone to be unbiased which I think is unreasonable, people have inherent biases that are subconscious
>I'm actually one of those people who thinks that anonymity is overrated.
Depends on the context, he's not necessarily wrong. If for instance serious discussion is required, for instance in a professional development project, anonymity is detrimental. See: the number of successful projects made by Jow Forums as a collective.
>Some people confuse privacy and anonymity and think they go hand in hand, and that protecting privacy means that you need to protect anonymity. I think that's wrong.
Now this is just plain wrong. Anonymity is literally a type of privacy: privacy of identity. Sure there are other types of privacy, like for example I could identify myself by name but I wouldn't want everyone to immediately know my medical records or whatever, but in the context of online discourse your identity is the main, if not the only, thing you usually want to keep private.
In the middle ground you have pseudonyms, which keep your real-life identity private but construct a new, localised identity. But I maintain that for just aimless shitposting and discussion, persistent pseudonymous identities are bad: you'd only use them in a more serious, goal-oriented setting.
and then autistic people on internet forums are in / pretend to be in constant disbelief that other folks online or IRL don't share their own perceived 'fair' sense of judgment towards things
So let them read the article with their bias. After all, each one of use is responsible for our conclusion-making.
sure
>Depends. If the situation doesn't call for anonymity then anonymity isn't called for.
Wow man, you really nailed it. kys
I suppose he could be making the argument that just because you're attaching your real name (or any name) to it, it doesn't mean that it's easy for any random person to see what you're up to. I put my real name on my taxes, medical records, and bank statements, but if someone wanted access to those they can't just get those off of google. In this case, even though I'm not anonymous, if my bank and doctor aren't shit, my privacy is preserved.
Likewise, anonymity just means that they can't tell who is using the service, but they can still gather data about what each user does in their limited time using something, and share this. In any thread about browsers there will be some autistic user talking about how addons are useless because they enable tracking via negative, and that's what this is getting at. I'm anonymous, but what I do is shared with the world even though my real name isn't attached.
>he thinks you can't get someones tax returns and medical information
Except stupid people will gladly put their real names to their stupid opinions because they're not smart enough to know they're stupid.
Nice article.
Thank you user.
I find the one from 1994 even more interesting, he's talking about supporting Pentium and shit.