FAKE
July 26, 2012 9:42 AM Subscribe
YouTube comments are a notorious cesspool of sexism, racism and vitriol, and the fact that the vast majority of users go by anonymous handles probably doesn’t help mitigate the problem. Google appears to know this all too well–its obsession with keeping Google+ free of pseudonyms is a good indication that the company isn’t a big fan of anonymity.posted by Egg Shen at 9:54 AM on July 26, 2012
Now, the search giant is taking its distaste for anonymity to a whole new level, instituting a pop-up dialogue box urging YouTube users to employ their real names.
Now, the search giant is taking its distaste for anonymity to a whole new level, instituting a pop-up dialogue box urging YouTube users to employ their real names.
Yes, because that worked perfectly on facebook! No one ever openly and unashamedly posts unbelievably disgusting racist/sexist/homophobic/xenophobic screeds under their full legal name on facebook ever!
oh wait
posted by elizardbits at 10:10 AM on July 26, 2012 [1 favorite]
Yes, because that worked perfectly on facebook! No one ever openly and unashamedly posts unbelievably disgusting racist/sexist/homophobic/xenophobic screeds under their full legal name on facebook ever!
oh wait
posted by elizardbits at 10:10 AM on July 26, 2012 [1 favorite]
Yes, because that worked perfectly on facebook! No one ever openly and unashamedly posts unbelievably disgusting racist/sexist/homophobic/xenophobic screeds under their full legal name on facebook ever!
If I compared a random facebook stream of comments to a random youtube stream of comments, I'd imagine their was a significant reduction in vitriol and idiocy.
posted by Theta States at 10:31 AM on July 26, 2012 [2 favorites]
If I compared a random facebook stream of comments to a random youtube stream of comments, I'd imagine their was a significant reduction in vitriol and idiocy.
posted by Theta States at 10:31 AM on July 26, 2012 [2 favorites]
(ok, maybe not idiocy...)
posted by Theta States at 10:31 AM on July 26, 2012
posted by Theta States at 10:31 AM on July 26, 2012
Yes, because that worked perfectly on facebook!
It's true that people will say some amazingly ghastly things under their real names, but it's also true that there is a real moderating effect when commentary is non-anonymous ("nonymous"?). One needn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
posted by yoink at 10:32 AM on July 26, 2012 [4 favorites]
It's true that people will say some amazingly ghastly things under their real names, but it's also true that there is a real moderating effect when commentary is non-anonymous ("nonymous"?). One needn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
posted by yoink at 10:32 AM on July 26, 2012 [4 favorites]
Now, the search giant is taking its distaste for anonymity to a whole new level, instituting a pop-up dialogue box urging YouTube users to employ their real names.
What kind of crazy motherfucker would use their real name on the internets?
posted by nathancaswell at 10:41 AM on July 26, 2012 [6 favorites]
What kind of crazy motherfucker would use their real name on the internets?
posted by nathancaswell at 10:41 AM on July 26, 2012 [6 favorites]
Actually very funny. This dude gets it.
posted by ReeMonster at 10:43 AM on July 26, 2012
posted by ReeMonster at 10:43 AM on July 26, 2012
That was a good one. A lot funnier than expected. Some of the other vids are great too.
posted by lampshade at 10:49 AM on July 26, 2012
posted by lampshade at 10:49 AM on July 26, 2012
FIRST
posted by schmod at 10:57 AM on July 26, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by schmod at 10:57 AM on July 26, 2012 [1 favorite]
I've noticed that having names present does have a moderating effect when people are discussing things with local peers. However, on large sites with national/international audiences, people are pretty terrible even if their name is attached. Living in Connecticut and pissing off someone from Ireland or California might as well be the same as being anonymous.
On the other hand, we're largely anonymous on Metafilter, but the relatively small community size seems to temper impulses to be uncivil nearly as much as the moderation.
posted by explosion at 10:59 AM on July 26, 2012 [1 favorite]
On the other hand, we're largely anonymous on Metafilter, but the relatively small community size seems to temper impulses to be uncivil nearly as much as the moderation.
posted by explosion at 10:59 AM on July 26, 2012 [1 favorite]
I lost it at the progression from "Russian two-headed dog" video to "man with beetle stuck in his ear".
Very droll.
posted by KokuRyu at 11:03 AM on July 26, 2012
Very droll.
posted by KokuRyu at 11:03 AM on July 26, 2012
As you point out, explosion, nyms and anonymity has little to do with the quality of the comments. Google just wants are real names (or things that look like real names, as they aren't really checking that the names are real) because it = mo' advertising money.
posted by dabitch at 11:05 AM on July 26, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by dabitch at 11:05 AM on July 26, 2012 [1 favorite]
Oh it's amazing salvia guy
posted by MangyCarface at 11:30 AM on July 26, 2012
posted by MangyCarface at 11:30 AM on July 26, 2012
Ed Norton's gotten a lot funnier!
posted by Drexen at 11:58 AM on July 26, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by Drexen at 11:58 AM on July 26, 2012 [1 favorite]
The names thing will be interesting, though, because we're not actually requiring it. You have to click like "No, really, I don't want to use my real name" like twice but then that's it.
So I would expect real trolls to just keep using pseudonyms. Or fake "Real Names".
(even I did the "no thank you" to using my real name on the site...)
posted by wildcrdj at 1:58 PM on July 26, 2012
So I would expect real trolls to just keep using pseudonyms. Or fake "Real Names".
(even I did the "no thank you" to using my real name on the site...)
posted by wildcrdj at 1:58 PM on July 26, 2012
Obviously fake. His spelling was WAY too good.
posted by TheCoug at 2:28 PM on July 26, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by TheCoug at 2:28 PM on July 26, 2012 [1 favorite]
it's also true that there is a real moderating effect when commentary is non-anonymous
Yes - having once been threatened with job loss due to discussion in an online forum under my real name, I have learned to moderate my commentary under my real name to zero. It's great to imagine a world where an employer (or potential employer) will not Google your name online and see what comes up, and make career-related decisions based on things that have nothing to do with your career, but I know for a fact this is not the world we actually live in. I could understand wanting to maintain a "clean" internet presence for high-profile individuals that clients may Google, but I held no such position and still got slammed for an online presence with my real name.
Is anonymous commentary sometimes vile? Yes. But it's also telling. I believe Wilde was dead-on when he said: "man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.”
People like to claim that sexism, racism, homophobia, etc. are dead, or there are just a few hangers-on. What these offensive comments show is that they aren't dead, just hidden. I think they're disturbing, but also a useful tool to point to when people say we're living in a completely equal society.
And as for Google's efforts to enforce "real names" as mentioned above, it doesn't work at all. On Google Plus I was frozen for using my long-established internet nickname (which I take care to maintain the integrity of ) but a completely fake real looking name was A-OK. I have absolutely NO ties to that name and don't care if I muck it up (and yes, G+ has added nicknames, but they display in addition to your "real" name)
Meta Filter is pretty good at regulating comments (some slips and weirdness here and there, but overall good) but we are not (for the most part) as someone said above, "anonymous". We are pseudonymous. If I go on a racist, homophobic rant, everyone knows exactly who to send their responses to. If it's in an online forum, they have an online way of targeting me - why, if it's in an online forum, do people need an irl way of contacting me? Mods are (should be?) able to track/ban people based on IP addresses, not real names.
Google seems to miss that there is a middle ground between "anonymous" and "eunonymous"
posted by Lt. Bunny Wigglesworth at 3:24 PM on July 26, 2012 [1 favorite]
Yes - having once been threatened with job loss due to discussion in an online forum under my real name, I have learned to moderate my commentary under my real name to zero. It's great to imagine a world where an employer (or potential employer) will not Google your name online and see what comes up, and make career-related decisions based on things that have nothing to do with your career, but I know for a fact this is not the world we actually live in. I could understand wanting to maintain a "clean" internet presence for high-profile individuals that clients may Google, but I held no such position and still got slammed for an online presence with my real name.
Is anonymous commentary sometimes vile? Yes. But it's also telling. I believe Wilde was dead-on when he said: "man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.”
People like to claim that sexism, racism, homophobia, etc. are dead, or there are just a few hangers-on. What these offensive comments show is that they aren't dead, just hidden. I think they're disturbing, but also a useful tool to point to when people say we're living in a completely equal society.
And as for Google's efforts to enforce "real names" as mentioned above, it doesn't work at all. On Google Plus I was frozen for using my long-established internet nickname (which I take care to maintain the integrity of ) but a completely fake real looking name was A-OK. I have absolutely NO ties to that name and don't care if I muck it up (and yes, G+ has added nicknames, but they display in addition to your "real" name)
Meta Filter is pretty good at regulating comments (some slips and weirdness here and there, but overall good) but we are not (for the most part) as someone said above, "anonymous". We are pseudonymous. If I go on a racist, homophobic rant, everyone knows exactly who to send their responses to. If it's in an online forum, they have an online way of targeting me - why, if it's in an online forum, do people need an irl way of contacting me? Mods are (should be?) able to track/ban people based on IP addresses, not real names.
Google seems to miss that there is a middle ground between "anonymous" and "eunonymous"
posted by Lt. Bunny Wigglesworth at 3:24 PM on July 26, 2012 [1 favorite]
« Older Mean tw*ts | O, Pioneers Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by mcstayinskool at 9:48 AM on July 26, 2012 [1 favorite]