> > If you defiantly refuse to say who you are, it can make people angry that you’re upsetting social reciprocity.
> Citation needed.
Look around. In this thread there are people who are upset.
> This entire post/idea seems to be based on "you can't just make up an obviously anonymous avatar/username anymore (like BakedPotato138)" and I frankly don't see why not. It's been working fine for decades.
I have had a few obviously anonymous avatars/usernames over the years (this isn't one of them--it's actually my real last name). There have been a few attempts to doxx me during that time.
> The only people who are upset over this are authorities and corporations.
Authorities and corporations aren't people (which is important because people have rights). But that's an aside really.
The bigger point is that authorities and corporations are made up of people, and those people, are often acting on behalf of their authority/corporation. In the worst case, they're true believers that what their authority/corporation is doing is right (i.e., all the people who defend invasions of privacy by corporations on hacker news).
> And in those cases, making up a fake person is quite possibly criminal fraud.
Not always. For example, with Facebook's shadow profiles, they won't even admit they exist most of the time, so they certainly aren't going to prove they exist by attempting to prosecute someone who feeds them fake data.
Authorities and corporations aren't people and don't have rights. In places where the law says that authorities and corporations are people with rights, the law is wrong.
I do understand that it's worth knowing the law because authorities have the power to enforce it. But I think it's important to be clear that corporations and governments are not people and do not have rights, no matter what the law says.
In context, this conversation is about ethics, and corporate personhood is a prime example of where laws and ethics diverge drastically.
> Citation needed.
Look around. In this thread there are people who are upset.
> This entire post/idea seems to be based on "you can't just make up an obviously anonymous avatar/username anymore (like BakedPotato138)" and I frankly don't see why not. It's been working fine for decades.
I have had a few obviously anonymous avatars/usernames over the years (this isn't one of them--it's actually my real last name). There have been a few attempts to doxx me during that time.
> The only people who are upset over this are authorities and corporations.
Authorities and corporations aren't people (which is important because people have rights). But that's an aside really.
The bigger point is that authorities and corporations are made up of people, and those people, are often acting on behalf of their authority/corporation. In the worst case, they're true believers that what their authority/corporation is doing is right (i.e., all the people who defend invasions of privacy by corporations on hacker news).
> And in those cases, making up a fake person is quite possibly criminal fraud.
Not always. For example, with Facebook's shadow profiles, they won't even admit they exist most of the time, so they certainly aren't going to prove they exist by attempting to prosecute someone who feeds them fake data.