Jimmy Wales' New Social Network Skyrockets To 345,000 Members, Will Hire Journalists (pressgazette.co.uk) 132
Jimmy Wales' new social network WT.Social started November with just 1,500 members. Four weeks later, it's skyrocketed up to 345,680 members -- and that's just the beginning.
Next year Wales plans to hire journalists, with the site's users acting as their "editors-in-chief," fulfilling the dreams Wales had for the site's earlier incarnation as a crowd-sourced news platform Wikitribune, reports the journalism magazine Press Gazette: Wikitribune originally employed about ten to 12 journalists who created content and hit publish on stories for the site. But the whole editorial team was laid off in October last year after Wales told them costs were unsustainable with not enough money coming in from crowdfunding and no major investors. [On WT.Social] he instead enabled thousands of users to publish articles, a right that had previously been limited to Wikitribune's staff journalists....
"[T]here was a real feeling that this site was a journalists' website and you as a member are allowed to help them as a junior mini-journalist on the side. And that just didn't really work. Whereas to really foster that sense of community engagement and moral ownership of what they're doing, you kind of want to reverse that and say actually the journalists are here to serve whatever you're interested in so send them out, get them busy, you be the editor-in-chief and direct their work....
"We'll say: 'Here are some of the most active communities, you work for them -- what do they need you to do? What are the things that they want you to look into? Who do they want you to go and hunt down and interview?' So it's really putting journalists at the disposal of people who are in a certain area."
Wales tell the Press Gazette that his original WikiTribune site had had a design that was "too intimidating" for non-journalists. "People felt like 'okay I have to go and write a whole big piece, edit it, publish it, all of that' rather than just sharing, interacting in a much more casual way..."
"So far [on WT Social] that's proven to be overwhelmingly true," Wales added. On his new site users are signed up for four "subwikis" by default -- Internet News, Long Reads, Fighting Misinformation, and Upcoming Newsworthy Events -- and this has started some good conversations. "People come on the platform and they're discussing things, sharing things, writing things in a much more fluid way."
WT.Social is currently looking for volunteer laravel or vue developers, as well as admins, and there's even a paid position as a community assistant.
Next year Wales plans to hire journalists, with the site's users acting as their "editors-in-chief," fulfilling the dreams Wales had for the site's earlier incarnation as a crowd-sourced news platform Wikitribune, reports the journalism magazine Press Gazette: Wikitribune originally employed about ten to 12 journalists who created content and hit publish on stories for the site. But the whole editorial team was laid off in October last year after Wales told them costs were unsustainable with not enough money coming in from crowdfunding and no major investors. [On WT.Social] he instead enabled thousands of users to publish articles, a right that had previously been limited to Wikitribune's staff journalists....
"[T]here was a real feeling that this site was a journalists' website and you as a member are allowed to help them as a junior mini-journalist on the side. And that just didn't really work. Whereas to really foster that sense of community engagement and moral ownership of what they're doing, you kind of want to reverse that and say actually the journalists are here to serve whatever you're interested in so send them out, get them busy, you be the editor-in-chief and direct their work....
"We'll say: 'Here are some of the most active communities, you work for them -- what do they need you to do? What are the things that they want you to look into? Who do they want you to go and hunt down and interview?' So it's really putting journalists at the disposal of people who are in a certain area."
Wales tell the Press Gazette that his original WikiTribune site had had a design that was "too intimidating" for non-journalists. "People felt like 'okay I have to go and write a whole big piece, edit it, publish it, all of that' rather than just sharing, interacting in a much more casual way..."
"So far [on WT Social] that's proven to be overwhelmingly true," Wales added. On his new site users are signed up for four "subwikis" by default -- Internet News, Long Reads, Fighting Misinformation, and Upcoming Newsworthy Events -- and this has started some good conversations. "People come on the platform and they're discussing things, sharing things, writing things in a much more fluid way."
WT.Social is currently looking for volunteer laravel or vue developers, as well as admins, and there's even a paid position as a community assistant.
This will be perfect (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the perfect place for me to publish my 9 part series on the truth about UFOs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
OOP Sucks! Forget about it!...All successful contemporary systems are functional including UI.
Javascript programmers feel that way because the OOP primitives in their language actually do suck, so they are forced to treat functions like objects, with a number of weird hacks to make it work.
Re: (Score:1)
It will also be the perfect echo chamber for SJWs and their faux outrages. They already destroyed Wikipedia with loads of misinformation.
Re: This will be perfect (Score:3)
Much is misinformation because it leaves out many details (often these sections are repeatedly added and then deleted, to hide context; dissembling on a massive scale.
Fewer things are outright lies, but constructions like:
-spam inserting editorialized statements that never get removed (all properly sourced, but out of line regardless)
-constructions calling people made up categories, such as âoewhite supremacistâ and âoefar rightâ, again, usually with a pile of letters pointing you places
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, get in the "editors circle" quickly and survive the political wars, and you can ensure truth about UFOs is the only point of view allowed. I don't know what deletionism and revertism/page protection will look like on the new platform, but for sure it will be the way of things.
Re: (Score:2)
It would be nice to have APK around again. He beats the spam posters we have now by a country mile.
Journalists? (Score:1, Flamebait)
Its pretty clear that the public now understands the depths of mainstream medias dishonesty at this point, and its not a "bombshell."
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Its pretty clear that the public now understands the depths of mainstream medias dishonesty at this point
Yeah I know but Fox News is honest.
Re: (Score:2)
And neither is MSNBC, CNN, CBS, ABC, etc...
Every time the MSM is pointed out to being the lying fucks they are, some clueless fuck like you tries to put it all on FOX.
You are a fucking rube. Fucking cattle for the liars.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Woosh
we heard the woosh over here in Scotland bud!
Re: (Score:1)
Man, moderators are so unfair. That was trolling, not flamebait :D
Re: (Score:2)
Its pretty clear that the public now understands the depths of mainstream medias dishonesty at this point
Yeah I know but Fox News is honest.
Fox News is feeling the ire of the most honest man in the world..
The rel truth is only available on Infowars.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah I know but Fox News is honest.
I'm assuming here you're being sarcastic.
What you should know is that everyone who complains about "the mainstream media" considers Fox News to be part of it. They boycott most of the same stories that the others do, just not all. Fox News and MSNBC are equally in the bag for the 100 richest families and their establishment politics. The stuff they argue with each other about is the "bread and circuses" stuff designed to distract voters from anything important.
Re: (Score:2)
Can a President ratify a treaty?
Go back to your civics class.
Re: (Score:2)
From their community email asking for volunteers:
so you know before it even starts, its to be a platform that fights "bigots" without beginning to define what one is (but I think we know what that will be defined as, right now a Muslim guy stabbed 2 people to death in London, and all the "bigots" are c
funding? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Hope he's not using my Wikipedia donation dollars to fund it.
Even if he is, that still beats selling your personal data to anyone with stack of cash like Facebook and Google do.
Re: (Score:2)
How to make a valuable social network? (Score:2)
Not sure what to make of someone who donates on that basis and who wants to complain about it afterwards. "No backsies"?
So why don't you [phantomfive] look at the system before saying nothing? It's a subscription model, but apparently with slack for freeloaders. I think the charity share brokerage approach would be better, but that's what I always say. ADSAAuPR, atAJG.
As of yet, I don't see anything there that is worth paying for, though I signed up anyway and I'm around 100,000 on the list to get a closer
Re: (Score:3)
The basis of that complaint is usually that Wikipedia's begging ads generally imply that without your donations, WP will go away tomorrow, when they have enough cash on hand to persist for years. Then they waste the donation money on things nobody asked for. Case in point...
Re: (Score:2)
Why no solution approach?
My recent thoughts on this particular topic would be fund drives based on actual costs. During the drive they would tell the truth on a cost-recover basis. Perhaps a banner like:
Your access to this article cost $0.003. We also evaluate the research and editing costs of this page at $347 divided by 127,016 accesses to date. Your donation of $10 would therefore support beneficiaries of your generosity.
As regards the original story, I think there is vast room for improvement in social networks. Too soon for me to guess if this might be one of them.
Re: (Score:2)
Whoops. Corrected below.
Why no solution approach?
My recent thoughts on this particular topic would be fund drives based on actual costs. During the drive they would tell the truth on a cost-recover basis. Perhaps a banner like:
Your access to this article cost $0.003. We also evaluate the research and editing costs of this page at $347 divided by 127,016 accesses to date. Your donation of $10 would therefore support <do the math> beneficiaries of your generosity.
As regards the original story, I think there is vast room for improvement in social networks. Too soon for me to guess if this might be one of them.
The awkwardness of the Slashdot editor reminds me of the first multi-terminal emulator I wrote around 1985. Quite a kludge.
Re: (Score:2)
The last article I read on this says you have to pay a monthly fee, is that not the case?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm fairly certain he hasn't been in any active role of the kind that would allow him to siphon money out of Wikipedia Foundation in years.
Wikipedia mated with Reddit (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like a Wikipedia made love with Reddit and resulted a handicapped Slashdot.
This^
It sounds like what Slashdot was supposed to be ten years ago. Except less knowledgable readers.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with "knowledgable" readers in general articles is the Dunning-Kruger effect. People think that expertise in one area means they're qualified to have an opinion in any another area. General Slashdot comment quality whenever people are talking outside their narrow knowledge-domain should put that idea to rest.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with "knowledgable" readers in general articles is the Dunning-Kruger effect. People think that expertise in one area means they're qualified to have an opinion in any another area. General Slashdot comment quality whenever people are talking outside their narrow knowledge-domain should put that idea to rest.
That -is- a real effect. But it is not like a "light switch", people do tend to have knowledge outside their "comfortzone". Just not as much as they think, sometimes.
However, there is a noticable contrast to other messagelists / newsgroups.
Where is the WT social news link? (Score:3)
Do I need to login to read the news?
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Re:Already Leftist (Score:4, Interesting)
What bothers you about this statement? It's accurate. It seems to be quite reasonable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
So what is the claim? All white people will moderate one way? Is there a meeting of white people where they all decide how to moderate? Is there a secret flag that indicates your skin pigmentation online? You SJWs are literally misguided and being played by people much smarter than you are.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, please explain exactly in detail HOW "obviously intelligent white people will moderate quite differently". You don't get to crawl away, dog.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly, shut down the discussion with nonsensical replies. Keep on crawling away Zero Kelvin. You bleaters don't even think.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not a "SJW" dipshit.
Yes you are, dipshit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
"We encourage all potential employees to apply for our job openings, but we would like to make a special call for white males."
"Everyone is welcome to our restaurant, but we would be particularly delighted to have non-black and non-jewish customers."
"We would love to make your dream wedding-cake, especially if you aren't gay."
See anything wrong with these? Do they sound reasonable? Is it okay to have a "special call" some groups but not others?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes it is, as long as those are groups that really need extra attention because of a historical bias against them.
Re: (Score:2)
Why? Why not come out and say WHY you think that, instead of beating around the bush and bleating the same idiocy over and over again? Do you claim that white people will moderate differently and suppress the expression of non-whites? How is this possible? Do you have to indicate what your skin color is? How would anyone know your skin color online?
Re: (Score:2)
How would anyone know your skin color online?
Social media, or doxxers.
Re: (Score:2)
Here is a hint: don't use personally identifiable information when you sign up to avoid that. Stop judging people on their skin color. There are plenty of reasons to hate individuals. In fact, I hate a lot of the people on Slashdot, because they are incredibly stupid, but I don't know their skin color, or really care. Most of them probably are doughy white suburban males. It makes no difference.
Re: (Score:2)
Here is a hint: don't use personally identifiable information when you sign up to avoid that.
People often use multiple social networks. And doxxers will track them down on other ones to find that information, even if they don't sign up to this one with it.
Stop judging people on their skin color.
That's not what this is about. This is about ameliorating the damage caused by judging people by their skin color. That's why this network is welcoming people who have been oppressed, not unwelcoming people of the same skin color as their oppressors. You're just being disingenuous, I know you're capable of determining the difference because you tr
Re: (Score:2)
But it makes no sense. How do you "ameliorating the damage caused by judging people by their skin color" by making a special call for people of a certain skin color? It makes ZERO sense, unless you ascribe to the theory that whites will continue to "damage" non-whites online if they find out their skin color through doxxing somehow. Or if you claim that whites think differently than non-whites. And if that is the claim, then just come out and say it out loud: white people think differently than non-whites.
Re: (Score:2)
But it makes no sense. How do you "ameliorating the damage caused by judging people by their skin color" by making a special call for people of a certain skin color?
What? How do you imagine you do it without it?
Re: (Score:2)
You didn't answer my question. Obviously you never even considered the question I asked at any time in your life. Do you know why? Because you bleat out the typical SJW tropes without any thought. You guys are being played by people who want to convince you there are different "groups" and each "group" should be pitted against each other. Meanwhile, they are cleaning up while you argue about who should fuck who, or whose skin color is the right shade.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't answer your question because it was stupid. If certain people miss out on opportunity because of their appearance, then if you want to provide people with opportunities who have been denied them, it's sensible to identify those people by their appearance.
Re: (Score:2)
You aren't just "identifying" them, you are elevating them to another status simply because of their "appearance" (whatever that is). It is completely insane, and also makes even less sense on the online world. How would I know what your "appearance" is on wiki website? Are you supposed to submit a skin color sample? A list of names of genders you like to fuck? With the Internet we finally have the chance to take "appearance" out of the equations, but SJWs want to always drag it back in to seperate us. Yet
Re: (Score:3)
I had moderated on this topic but I cast the Orb of Annulment on that, because this is becoming ridiculous.
The fact that X had a historical bias against it does NOT give X the right to have a bias for it today. X deserves equal treatment and nothing more.
SJW crowd (which has become more like an army nowadays) thinks that if X was discriminated for the last 1000 years, we should positively discriminate X for the next 1000 years to be even in the end. It's stupid if you think about it but at the same time it'
Re: (Score:2)
>"The fact that X had a historical bias against it does NOT give X the right to have a bias for it today. X deserves equal treatment and nothing more." [...] "I am totally, 100% for equal treatment of all skin colors, religions, sexual orientation, and I apply that in my day-to-day life by not caring which religion, skin color, age or sexual orientation one has. "
I wish I could mod you up. Discrimination is discrimination. But, alas, Progressives will label us as racist, misogynist, whatever, because w
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, then the theory is that "white people" have a certain common worldview and "non-whites" have another common worldview. Complete idiocy, but you guys have been brainwashed to believe it.
Re: (Score:2)
While that sounds great in theory, in practice unconscious bias and institutional racism (and sexism, etc.) [wikipedia.org] exist.
Yes, they do. They exist for everyone equally, regardless of genre, skin color or religion. People tend to group up with people who are like them. That's why we have ghettos, "Chinatown"s, gay bars, etc.
The problem is what is EACH PARTY willing to do to eliminate these tendencies? I, personally, am doing my best to eliminate all such conscious tendencies. However, positive discrimination of "minorities" (which, are, by the way, majorities elsewhere) is not a solution. The solution is to interact with diffe
Re: (Score:2)
Yes it is, as long as those are groups that really need extra attention because of a historical bias against them.
You you're totally OK with punishing members of some race because of crimes by other members of that race decades ago? Is that the rule you want? Becuase that's literally what people are saying in placse like South Africa, and that will not end well.
That entire mind set is the root of most political violence in the world. "My neighbor never did anything to harm me, but people who look like him once did bad things to people who look like me." That's exactly where genocidal purges come from!
Re: (Score:1)
Is it okay to have a "special call" some groups but not others?
Yes, if "some" groups have more power[or are in power] than "others", it's ok to level the playing field to reduce the advantage that "some" groups have over the "others".
Is there something wrong with that?
Re: (Score:2)
How do white people on that website have more power than "others"? Do you have to submit a skin sample when you sign up? How would you know if someone has a certain skin pigmentation online? You SJWs are completely insane. We finally have the power to disregard things like skin color, or sex, or whatever online and you choose to drag it into the conversation.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have to submit a skin sample when you sign up?
Not a bad idea. We could make a quilt!
Anyway, being on the *right side of the tracks*, you can't possibly have any idea. It's good to be king, isn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
Just by being on this website and being able to access the Internet you are on the "right side of the tracks" compared to the billions on the globe. It is good to be king, but I am not even close to being king. You are being played by the kings but are too stupid to realize that you are a pawn. And even though you said that tongue-in-check I am not surprised that submitting a skin sample to sign up to a website is a idea that you would endorse. I have noticed you on Slashdot for quite a while, and you are m
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have to submit a skin sample when you sign up?
Not a bad idea. We could make a quilt!
Anyway, being on the *right side of the tracks*, you can't possibly have any idea. It's good to be king, isn't it?
And a picture of your genitals, and another of you screwing your preferred type of sexual partner.
And I still wonder why they weren't inclusive of furries.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, it's the internet. No one can tell what your gender, skin color, sexual orientation, or favorite sports team unless you go around telling everyone what it is. This kind of environment is the antithesis of what people who push identity politics (whether it's white supremacy on the alphabet soup people) loathe because it forces ideas and arguments to be moderated on their own merit as opposed to characteris
Re: (Score:2)
“Everyone is welcome, but I'd like to make a special call for women, LGBTQIA, and non-white folks. You are under-represented in online moderation, and as such online moderation does not protect you as it should. Let's change that, together...”
What bothers you about this statement? It's accurate. It seems to be quite reasonable.
None of those things define what you are online. All you have is a screen name and your arguments.
You are under-represented in online moderation, and as such online moderation does not protect you as it should.
Moderation shouldn't bias towards anything in the first place. How do they even know or care what sexuality or race you are?
Re: (Score:2)
What bothers you about this statement? It's accurate. It seems to be quite reasonable.
People of all sorts and flavors are under-represented in all manner of endeavors. Why is it reasonable to count noses in online moderation and unreasonable to count noses in drywallers?
Of course, the reason it's reasonable is because women, LGBTQIAs and non-white folks are a priori expected to advocate for their particular interests. Which seems weird to me, as it says quite directly that WT.social is a form of propaganda. I'm fine with that, so long as it's stated upfront as a goal of the organization, but
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Let me spell it out for you: the email contained racist language. It specially called for extra consideration based on SKIN COLOR. This is insane. What does skin color have to do with "online moderation"? Does skin pigment cause people to moderate online a certain way? What shade of skin color do we have to be answer this "special call", how much pigmentation do we need? The whole SJW nonsense is completely insane and inane. Skin color doesn't make you think a certain way, or perceive the world in a certain
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
In the US, racism is a big problem, and has been for a long time. As a result, people who are discriminated against as a group are at many disadvantages in our society. Encouraging discriminated against groups to hold positions of power helps those groups of people by making their viewpoint known.
Re: (Score:1)
Fuck the US. What does this have to do with the US? This is global. Is the US the only racist country you can think of? And what does this have to do with racism? Are white people planning on modding down non-white people? Do white people all over the world band together and oppress non-whites? It is complete nonsense. White people in the US don't think alike, and they don't think like white French people, or white Russian people, or pink people from Mars. You fucking SJWs are trying to destroy society. So
Re: (Score:2)
White people's views and values are the most prevalent, yes.
Re:Already Leftist (Score:4, Insightful)
Aha, so here is the crux of your claim. Your claim is that white people have certain common "views and values". And presumably non-whites have different "views and values".That is wrong and that is what makes you SJWs disgusting creatures and racists. We are all individuals. You think just because a person has certain skin pigmentation, or chooses to fuck a particular type of person they must have things in "common". Guess what? We don't.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a "disgusting creature" because I acknowledge that different groups of people are different? Wow, take your meds, buddy. Jesus.
Re: (Score:2)
>"Your claim is that white people have certain common "views and values". And presumably non-whites have different "views and values". That is wrong and that is what makes you SJWs disgusting "
Bingo.
So when he says that racism is a problem in the USA, that is EXACTLY the racism problem we have- identity politics. The ridiculous, racist belief that somehow skin tone (or whatever physical trait) dictates one's THOUGHTS AND BELIEFS.
I want diversity of thought and don't care a damn about how much melanin so
Re: (Score:2)
... except in the demonstrably true value that people of a given skin color tend not to devalue input from people of that skin color; likewise, people who choose a particular type of person to fuck tend not to devalue input from people who fuck that particular type of person. It's only one common value in each group, but it is a rather key common value.
Re: (Score:2)
There are things called cultures. They are essentially shared histories and experiences.
One such experience is being called the n word. It's something that rarely happens to white folk, but unfortunately far too often to black people.
None of this requires thinking that all members of a group think the same way, that's just a straw man.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. That is EXACTLY why. "Different groups" of people are not "different". They are individuals. Complete idiocy.
Re: (Score:2)
I cannot respond to this because it is nonsensical. If you'd like to respond in a coherent fashion that doesn't involve personal attacks, I'd be happy to continue.
Re: (Score:2)
What personal insult? I just made a statement and said that your statement was complete idiocy. That isn't a personal attack, that is an opinion and an observation. You are a disgusting creature. You seek to tear apart others and divide us. You try to continue that in the online world. People like you just need to leave.
Re: (Score:1)
No, but you are a racist for defining a person's personality on the basis of skin color.
You are just as anti-liberal as the far right.
Re: (Score:2)
And presumably non-whites have different "views and values".That is wrong and that is what makes you SJWs disgusting creatures and racists. I'm a "disgusting creature" because I acknowledge that different groups of people are different? Wow, take your meds, buddy. Jesus.
You been trolled dogdude.
But it is interesting. I am a 65 year old pale skinned heterosexual male.
What are my political views?
What US political party am I registered to?
What are my thoughts on equality of the sexes?
I can't have you guess my thoughts on "race", since I already told you.
My point is, I'm told my views by far left Social Justice warriors. That's strong sex and "race" based prejudice on their part. Social Justice warriors inclusivity is pretty exclusive. .
Re: (Score:2)
You're stereotyping.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are white people planning on modding down non-white people? White people's views and values are the most prevalent, yes.
Whose fault is that?
Also, when the inevitable disagreements break out, is "race" a consideration in deciding who is wrong? Do women and LGBT and darker skinned peopel get more moderation points get more moderation
And just curious - what method of determining skin color is used, and how are they going to determine who wants to have sex with who?
See the complications we get into when gender and skin color is the measurement of truth? Truth should be truth, no mater who the messenger is.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, racism is over. Good job!
Re: (Score:2)
The US isn't even in the top 50 of the world's racist countries. How have you allowed yourself to become so brainwashed into self-loathing?
Re: Already Leftist (Score:2)
"Buuuuut, my racism is the GOOD kind of racism!!"
Re: (Score:1)
Aside from the insult, he is actually correct here (not elsewhere).
Mentioning things like race, in this context, -is- indeed racist. And liberals are not the least racist of the current groups.
Not being like that, means not asking everyone's skin color.
However, I think the editor here is just feeling compelled to conform to the current styles...
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, can't stand Creepy Wales. (Score:2, Insightful)
Wikipedia has done enough damage with its centralized system, giving the power to delete ALL the edits, to exactly those with enough of an agenda, obsession and free time, that they should not be allowed to do that. Yeah yeah, "everyone" who disagrees with them and their convenient definition of credibility and notability is a vandalizing conspiracy theorist by definition, especially when they are not. We know the drill.
Now go ahead and tell me how I have to prove to you that I am not a conspiracy theorist
CmdrTaco (Score:2)
I created an account and grabbed "CmdrTaco". Just to piss off Rob.
Re: (Score:2)
Should have used CowboyNeal.
First Name, Last Name, No. (Score:2)
When will certain people realize that the reason the 'social' media sites I use like Slashdot, Reddit and various forums are because I don't have my real name attached to them. "Who" I am is irrelevant and I'm not trying push myself. I just want to talk about news, tech, ask a question, etc.
Thankfully fakenamegenerator.com and others exist.
Seriously, I'm not giving you my name.
Re: (Score:2)
So you don't even stand behind your own reputation. Why should I (or anyone) believe or care about anything you say?
Re: (Score:2)
0100010001010011 is my reputation here. I don't need it linked to my actual person reputation and vice versa.
That's how the internet always was back in the day.
Re: (Score:2)
That's how the internet always was back in the day.
If you had really been there "back in the day" you'd know that people's addresses often revealed their identities, because they were getting their accounts from educational institutions.
Re: (Score:2)
My basic problem is NOT with the label that's associated with any particular identity, though a deliberately confusing and unmemorable label is to some degree defeating the point of having any identity at all. He might as well go AC and no one will care. At all. (Also make it easier for me not to see him at all.)
My main problem is with the abuse of anonymity to do negative things because the abusive identity has no intrinsic value to the abusive person. If that label gets blocked or banned, then he'll just
Re: First Name, Last Name, No. (Score:2)
Good job, Boris! Now the American dogs are really confused!
Re: (Score:2)
If you are correct, hardest hit will be twitter, because that is the default go-to site for the people you're talking about.
And they, like everyone else, only have 24 hours in a day to do stupid shit on the internet.