[LACNIC/Seguridad] Fwd: Pseudonymity
fgont en si6networks.com
Lun Ago 22 20:44:04 BRT 2011
-------- Original Message --------
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 11:01:19 GMT
on the value of pseudonymity. From the conclusions:
Here lies the /huge/ irony in this discussion. Persistent pseudonyms
aren't ways to /hide/ who you are. They provide a way to /be/ who
you are. You can finally talk about what you /really/ believe; your
real politics, your real problems, your real sexuality, your real
family, your real self. Much of the support for "real names" comes
from people who don't want to hear about controversy, but
controversy is only a small part of the need for pseudonyms. For
most of us, it's simply the desire to be able to talk openly about
the things that matter to every one of us who uses the Internet. The
desire to be judged -- not by our birth, not by our sex, and not by
who we work for -- but by what we say.
I leave you with this question. What if I had posted this under my
pseudonym? Why should that have made a difference? I would have
written the same words, but ironically, I could have added some more
personal and perhaps persuasive arguments which I dare not make
under this account. Because I was forced to post this under my real
name, I had to weaken my arguments; I had to share less of myself.
Have you ever met "Kee Hinckley"? Have you met me under my other
name? Does it matter? There is nothing real on the Internet; all you
know about me is my words. You can look me up on Google, and /still/
all you will know is my words. One real person wrote this post. It
could have been submitted under either name. But one of them is not
allowed to. Does that really make sense?
Behind every pseudonym is a /real/ person. Deny the pseudonym and
you deny the person.
This is, of a course, a response to the Google+ names policy.
Más información sobre la lista de distribución Seguridad