Comment by eesmith | Hacker News Reader

Comment by eesmith | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Wait, what? You have gone on a very different path than I. It seems that you accept an angry mob as a given, and are looking for technical solutions to avoid it.

Why is there an angry mob in the first place? Why aren't people doing what they can to stop the angry mob? Why does Wheaton need to use pseudonym in order to discuss things in public?

Nor do I understand how you infer that he want to use his own name because he wants his reputation affect the judgement of others.

In his blog postings, he often makes references to his history, including on ST:TNG. He'll need more than a pseudonym to avoid the angry mob - he'll also need to exclude any personally identifiable information. That is hard, and very different than his normal style.

In other words, a pseudonym doesn't really obscure one's identity for people who want to express their identity online, because identify is far more than just a name.

For that matter, is it really that bad to have reputation? After time, even a pseudonym will gain reputation - are we supposed to reset our pseudonyms time and time again to shed any reputation gain?

I have not given a technical solution, but a practical solution that has been known for centuries.

The current result is that Wil Wheaton has chosen to abstain from a certain social network and an alternative which he had hoped would alleviate the problem.

Suggesting that companies need to deal with the problem leads to an attempt at a technical solution.

I do not see how what you propose is practical.

Please describe how using an alternative name - that's the technical solution you propose - would sufficiently obscure his identity that he could continue to make posts in the style that he wishes. Posts which, among other things, refer to his acting experience.

Another "practical solution that has been known for centuries" is to describe the problem, as a way to push for a cultural change.

I disagree with your statement that the current result is simply that Wheaton has chosen to abstain from two social networks. Wheaton writes that he is "done with social media" and that "What we used to call microblogging isn’t worth the headache for me. I’m gonna focus my time and my energy on the things that I love, that make me happy, that support my family."

Nor do I see where Wheaton suggests that companies need to deal with the problem. I see "[Twitter's] never going to change, by the way." and "I respect and support [the Mastadon admin's] decision".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com