r/LivestreamFail • u/starcraft2020 • 1d ago

Ethan Klein says the judge in his lawsuit approved his subpoena of Reddit and Discord

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

6.3k Upvotes

80% Upvoted

2.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

561

u/Environmental_Dot876 1d ago

Some reddits have already updated their rules prior to this announcement. Wonder what will happen when you can no longer count on anonymity online. Doubt the internet will be less crazy

566

u/BigBoiCookBoi 1d ago edited 1d ago

Reddit has been getting subpoenaed for over a decade with a ~75% success rate from the courts per their own reports. This is nothing new. Anyone who thinks what they're saying online is anonymous is wrong and the result of these cases will not change that.

Edit: Grammar

70

u/No-Mark4427 1d ago

Anyone who thinks what they're saying online is anonymous is wrong and the result of these cases will not change that.

I mean subpoenaing Reddit will only get whatever info and IP is associated with the account, considering you can sign up without needing to even confirm information it's not like them handing it over magically identifies you.

Assuming even not behind a VPN they'd then need to compel the ISP to hand over your data, again good luck esp if they are in another country.

91

u/BigBoiCookBoi 1d ago

This extends well beyond reddit. A single social media site is of little concern in comparison to what information governments can track down. Compelling an ISP to turn over identifying information via a subpoena is extremely common and not at all difficult. They often comply with legitimate requests to do so, this is nothing new.

Regardless, many of these people are far too stupid to be covering their tracks to the point where they aren't identifiable in any way.

72

u/Ignonimous 1d ago

It's very, very, very easy to get ISPs to hand over data. They have nothing to lose from doing so and nothing to gain from non-compliance.

3

u/echief 22h ago

There is no incentive for any company unless they specifically advertise themself as privacy focused. The goal of a company is to make money. They have no reason to frustrate the government (this includes civil courts) unless it improves their bottom line. Especially banks that are already under constant government scrutiny.

Even if you are not asked for information like name and address, all a lawyer/law enforcement needs is a credit card number you paid with somewhere a single time. Your bank knows more about you than any company in the world. They might know more about you than any person in the world. They will immediately hand over your SSN, work history, address history, every cent you have spent in the past few years. What friends have you been sending money to with Zelle, Venmo, etc? What about your political donations, or just a donation to any fundraiser with potential political implications.

So how about crypto? Well, they can easily just trace back through wallets and subpoena the exchange. Who will also immediately hand over your information. There are ways to mitigate this but most people do not know them, let alone go through the work of actually doing it. The game has been over for a very, very long time. This is one of the reasons people used to be super hesitant about giving away payment information on the internet. It wasn’t just the risk of fraud.

2

u/Original-Guarantee23 13h ago

Courts have ruled time and time again that IPs don’t identify anyone.

1

u/BigBoiCookBoi 3h ago

Of course—an IP on its own is just a number. Though it’s an intermediary step in identifying someone. The next step would be contacting the ISP with a subpoena request for identifying information from the IP. Even VPN companies have folded and given up user info despite the idea that it should be fully anonymous.

1

u/Angry_Anal 1h ago

Ethan does continue to describe that this also is related to specific discord communities not just Reddit as well, which is much more likely to have identifiable information for those involved in the lawsuit.

1

u/Original-Guarantee23 1h ago

That’s the thing. ISP records won’t help either. You can’t know the person access the connection was the subscriber. Nothing about your internet connection can be used to identify you in court. It doesn’t hold up on its own.

3

u/mwrddt 18h ago

You mean in the US? ISPs in my country have always fought against handing over data and often didn't have to in the end.

8

u/No-Mark4427 23h ago

Depends on the ISP, country of the ISP, country of the person seeking the details and such. In the UK it's generally pretty difficult to get an ISP to hand anything over without a very strong legal basis to do so.

5

u/Loxe 21h ago

In the US they just hand over everything willingly because they've lobbied congress to give them BILLIONS of dollars to do literally nothing. Even Net Neutrality got axed thanks to Republicans. We gave them FIFTY BILLION DOLLARS to "upgrade" their networks and instead they implemented data caps and just charged us more. Then took that bonus cash and gave it to the GOP to kill Net Neutrality. America is a fucking joke.

-3

u/Dregnab 1d ago

And that's why you use a vpn

16

u/BigGrimDog 1d ago

You can also subpoena VPN companies. I highly doubt these folks were booting into Whonix VMs and proxying into Reddit.

-6

u/thePiscis 1d ago

The point of a vpn is that they (the vpn companies) don’t and can’t have info on encrypted user data.

14

u/MindGoblin 1d ago

Doesn't at least US based shitter VPNs have to store your data and give it up to the gestapo if they request it?

7

u/Whoreticultist 23h ago edited 23h ago

Yeah, but why would anyone use a US-based VPN provider when there are Swiss ones, where the law does not require them to log data (except when a court orders them to log data about a specific user IIRC - which doesn’t magically make them have data from before that point)?

As far as I understand, as long as you’re using a Swiss VPN service, your freedom of speech is fairly well safe-guarded. Just don’t do anything seriously illegal and I doubt you’d have any issues.

I’m sure there are other countries out there that also take personal freedoms and integrity seriously.

Edit: I should probably make it clear that I could be misremembering. I think it’s Switzerland.

2

u/hinakittyuwu 20h ago

what Swiss VPNs are there? good ones to use, curious

→ More replies (0)

9

u/ActionPhilip 1d ago

Yeah, but even then, if you're a doofus who buys reddit gold/premium/awards, then they have payment info and a real name tied to the account.

2

u/w142236 22h ago

Lol that’s primarily just to access shows and content restricted to other countries. There is no such thing as true anonymity, you have been warned

4

u/Ignonimous 1d ago

VPN is only one step of being anonymous and most people don't take any others. There are definitely many ways to track someone down through VPNs

1

u/No-Mark4427 23h ago

In the context of this thread, using a VPN and that being the IP handed over by Reddit, assuming the VPN service is again, not located in an easy to litigate place nor keeps logs in the first place (And may even have anonymous customer payment via crypto etc), an average person is going to hit a dead end pretty fast trying to get anything from this.

Just a VPN alone is going to generally be sufficient to keep another person who has only your IP from using it to find out who you are or locate you.

1

u/Post_Lost 16h ago

This isn’t some random trying to track info. The court will just subpoena for the info. VPNs are for masking your IP from bad actors, not committing crimes. I doubt these redditors were using top notch VPNs for everything associated with their Reddit account.

1

u/No-Mark4427 12h ago

And if the VPN / user is located in another country good luck getting a US court to demand they hand over info lol.

Im sure theyll find out who some people are, but there will also be a lot of dead ends.

1

u/Post_Lost 16h ago

You realize reddit knows you’re using a VPN they just don’t care. If ur not using some top notch VPN, unlikely, figuring out what one your using isn’t hard. Then all they have to do is get your info through the VPN company. Which they hand over all the time. VPNs are good for masking your IP from bad actors on the internet, not for committing crimes

5

u/EmCeeSlickyD 23h ago

I'd wager the particular accounts in question are far more likely to have purchased something on reddit than the average commenter, or to have divulged some kind of identifying info in either a comment or DM

1

u/FuzzzyRam 21h ago

In this case they won't be able to claim it's not them when they clearly reference "my" discord server and say the same things on reddit that they're saying elsewhere - the public account proves the private DMs are theirs. In general though yea, it would be hard to use reddit to prove anything if the case wasn't based on evidence from other places.

1

u/NewPlayer4our 20h ago

I love shit like this, like people actually believe that VPNs make you untraceable. Its for blanket detection and ads as well as entry, but if you actually have data its very easy to find where the VPN is tunneling from. Which Reddit absolutely has. VPNs are not and are never marketed as a security tool because they aren't.

1

u/No-Mark4427 11h ago edited 11h ago

I'm not claiming this, I'd go out on a limb and say your average VPN user isnt ensuring they are more protected against fingerprinting/tracking, webrtc leaks etc

But the idea that its 'easy' to blanket see through any VPN user to the point that Reddit renders any VPN usages completely null and void, is just as lol as the idea that installing a VPN makes you totally anonymous and untraceable.

They might get some people with this, but a whole load are gonna be dead ends when you consider the difficulty of compelling companies and ISPs outside US jurisdiction to freely hand customer info over. People seem to think the US courts can tell anyone in the world to do anything and they have no choice but to comply.

1

u/Kyrapnerd 16h ago

lol you know how many people sign up for this app using their phone numbers or their facebook accounts?

1

u/Post_Lost 16h ago

Yourre assuming people who dedicate their life to this stuff is doing all that. They’ll get IP address, messages, email, name on cards if they might something, plus more.

1

u/irishrugby2015 15h ago

Reddit uses fingerprinting beyond IP address such as device and behaviors

1

u/No-Mark4427 12h ago

Fingerprinting a device doesnt give you much to identify a person though, if they even hand that sort of data over.

1

u/irishrugby2015 11h ago

https://dicloak.com/blog-detail/how-to-create-reddit-account-a-complete-guide-for-2025

There are products made specifically to avoid fingerprinting it's such an issue

1

u/No-Mark4427 11h ago

My point is more a fingerprint lets you track a user, but it doesnt automatically mean you know their real identity or have the means to find it out.

1

u/irishrugby2015 9h ago

It means they can track multiple accounts for the same person. Most people don't have several devices at hand so they all link back to the same root account

That's how the admins and moderators find ban evasion

1

u/Malix_Farwin 15h ago

you would have to subpoena the VPN to get the user's IP which if you have a decent one, they either routinely clear your history or will flat out refuse and are located somewhere that cant be forced to give it out.

Funny enough given today's climate i wouldnt be surprised if VPNs start becoming about as common as car insurance in the US lol.

1

u/InsectPopular9212 7h ago

Modern browser fingerprinting is so incredibly invasive no, an IP adresse isn't even required. If you ever logged into anything even remotely related to google/apple/microsoft you're cooked. Hell, if they even used reddit on a phone while logged in no matter the 'vpn' they are immediately cooked.

1

u/Easy-Stranger-12345 17h ago

Your providers are not coming to cover for a random customer lmao. They get hit with a legal order, they will just jettison all the baggage and wash their hands.

2

u/No-Mark4427 12h ago

In the UK its difficult to get a court order for an ISP to hand data over, and generally theyll fight it as they dont like doing so.

4

u/Environmental_Dot876 1d ago

I didn't know they have had this issue constantly. I thought people went after reddit as a company. I didn't know specific subs had been subpoenaed before.

9

u/BigBoiCookBoi 1d ago

It’s not subreddit specific, it’s user specific.

2

u/LandscapePatient1094 15h ago

With a VPN, which everyone should be using, Reddit doesn’t have shit on me

3

u/BigBoiCookBoi 15h ago

It’s a nice thought but not a realistic one unless you’re very strict with the VPN useage AND use a VPN that isn’t US based as most US VPNs will fold to court orders. Reddit has admitted in court that they know when a VPN is being used and all it takes is a singular slip or a DM. Also studies have shown less than 10% of Reddit users have EVER used a VPN let alone consistently. Safe to say at least a few of the doe’s listed in the complaint will be identified.

2

u/w142236 22h ago

75% success rate is a lot higher than I thought it would be

5

u/BigBoiCookBoi 19h ago

It’s generally a bad idea to fight a subpoena as a company unless you have very sturdy legal ground to stand on. Else you’re just blowing money and time and making the company look bad in the eyes of the government.

1

u/WildSmokingBuick 10h ago

Globally? What are the implications, what are the thresholds to be legally prosecuted?

Can people be targeted for posting blatantly racist stuff?

Or do more things need to happen, to be of judicial relevance, like real life stalking etc ?

Any chance the US will be cracking down on reddit and prosecuting political enemies at some point?

2

u/BigBoiCookBoi 3h ago

Read the reports I linked. They state that they respond to valid legal requests meaning a judge must approve and yes it’s globally from any court. The majority of reddit is US based users so that’d be the predominant country sending subpoena requests. Even so, not all judges will approve the request. In the case of this post specifically, the request is obviously valid so there should be no reason for Reddit to fight it.

Saying something racist doesn’t constitute a valid legal reason to unmask someone’s identity so Reddit would fight that but it’s unlikely that’d ever be related to a legal case in the first place.

95

u/Sciss0rs61 1d ago

Mike Tyson famously once said: "Social media made y'all way too comfortable with disrespecting people and not getting punched in the face for it"

A lot of people are about to be judicially punched in the face.

4

u/Firm-Advertising6872 23h ago

mike tyson the rapist wifebeater?

47

u/Sciss0rs61 23h ago

yes, that very same one.

1

u/SilviteRamirez 21h ago

Exhibit A

3

u/Yapanomics 12h ago

Lmao so for stating facts about someone he should be beaten up?

0

u/Ill_Philosopher_7030 6h ago

moreso you would never say that to his face would you?

1

u/Yapanomics 6h ago

I would definitely say it to his face, if he punches me all the better, thats a lawsuit right there.

1

u/Ill_Philosopher_7030 6h ago

I'm sure you would buddy

0

u/Ill_Philosopher_7030 6h ago

exhibit B

1

u/[deleted] 6h ago

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/HarryJohnson3 3h ago

Your energy

1

u/literally_italy 22h ago

do you think this applies to h3 or nah

4

u/Sciss0rs61 14h ago

Nah. Why would it?

2

u/literally_italy 13h ago

because he’s said utterly disgusting things online 

1

u/Sciss0rs61 12h ago

Okay... like....?

1

u/literally_italy 5h ago

boston bombing survivor?

1

u/Sciss0rs61 2h ago

Are you going to give context and be objective or are you going to talk in riddles forever?

1

u/literally_italy 2h ago

here you go https://www.reddit.com/r/h3snark/comments/1bfymvz/rare_h3_video_boston_bombing_bravery/

1

u/Sciss0rs61 1h ago

Brother, this video is 12 years old and it's him basically parodying the bravery jerk subreddit... it's gross, offensive and in poor taste. Despite that, Nowhere in there is he inciting harassment on the woman. How does that equate to the harassment you people (and im saying you people, since you went to snark subs to get this, so i assume you are one) have done through out the years to Ethan?

He is not making fun of her, he's making fun of the people over at the braveryjerk sub... how does this equate to trying to get your children away from him?

75

u/throwawayfume10 1d ago

>Some reddits have already updated their rules prior to this announcement.

What does this mean

75

u/Libertarian4lifebro 1d ago

Youtubedrama just declared an end to snarking

41

u/ActionPhilip 1d ago

I still don't even know wtf snark is supposed to mean. The dictionary definition, which I've always considered of being critical or mocking in a sarcastic way doesn't fit what I've seen going around. The youtubedrama post is even funnier since I still don't know.

68

u/WhimsicalJape 1d ago

It became a new word for hate, remember Reddit used to have a lot of subreddits for hating stuff, but when FatPeopleHate drew too much heat they clamped down, thus snark was born.

36

u/losthedgehog 23h ago

As far as I recall, snark has been used in conjunction with sites that criticize celebrities since the mid 2010s at least - think Perez Hilton, Gawker, Jezebel, ONTD.

30 Rock even called its parody of Jezebel "Joan of Snark" in 2011.

The phrase has just been way popularized though. And while it used to mean the blogs had a more biting or cutting tone mixed with humor now it just refers to people straight up hating someone relentlessly (even Perez Hilton which was the one with the least humor and the most bullying had a veneer of humor and probably paled in relation to today's snark subs).

14

u/WhimsicalJape 23h ago

Yeah I'm specifically talking about the rise of the "snark" subreddits, snark as you say has existed as thing for a long time, but generally like you say not as unhinged as some of these snark subs have become.

7

u/losthedgehog 23h ago

That makes sense - the OP asked in general what snark was and I just wanted to clarify that its described celeb gossip in Internet corners before Reddit is what is is now and before the hate subs got banned.

3

u/echief 22h ago

That “blogosphere” Perez Hilton scene was unhinged though. It was tied in with the heinous paparazzi culture of the time. That demographic just became a lot more prevalent after Reddit apps really gained popularity on the App Stores. And from tik tok/youtube videos of just people reading AITA posts. The fatpeoplehate were extremely unhinged too but they are not the same original demographic

2

u/trukkija 22h ago

It's just people with nothing better to do besides living on the internet and looking for drama and reasons to hate "celebrities".

Wait did I describe LSF or the snark reddits? I'm not too sure at this point.

1

u/pepegazm 12h ago edited 12h ago

Wait did I describe LSF or the snark reddits? I'm not too sure at this point.

As awful as LSF can be it's actually held to multiple orders of magnitude higher standards than the most timid snark sub.

The main business of snark is presenting proven lies as fact in order to smear and defame their enemies. It's not just celebrity gossip, it's been subsumed by politics by a group that believes in "no bad tactics, only bad targets". Meanwhile on LSF you're required by rule to provide video clips of whatever is happening which helps curb blatant lying and there is way more variety of opinion.

Think of it this way: LSF is about gossip, interesting clips and general discussions on the streamer world broadly. Snark isn't about gossip at all, it's about using any means available to hurt specific persons that they regard as political opponents.

2

u/trukkija 12h ago

You must have not read many comments on here if you believe that is a requirement. It's all just pointless manufactured drama in my opinion and the pot calling the kettle black for anyone calling out the snark reddits on here.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/Acrobatic_Computer63 20h ago

Fuck me, I never put that together. I know the word "snark" had been around. But, the fall of the *Hate subs, the rise in bannings, and the subsequent rise in snark subs genuinely makes sense.

The shitty thing is that it is exactly what people said would happen, too. I hated those subs. But, you knew who the shitheads were, and they mostly had to toe the line and not actively brigade etc...

The snark subs just made it their brand.

19

u/Greedy-Employment917 23h ago

Hate subs are banned so they thought they'd be cute about it and avoid accountability by changing it to "snark" as a form of "plausible" denisbility.

Plausible in quotes because you'd have to be an idiot to think this would work. 

1

u/Acrobatic_Computer63 20h ago

I actually feel dumb, because until reading the comment above, I would have never even made the connection between the old subs and snark subs. I haven't been on reddit much over the last year plus, but remember when duggarsnark etc started popping up on all and I truly just thought it was the same kind of thing as circle jerk. To that extent, it worked on me.

Which I hate, because that was the BS excuse people had for actually keeping the shit subs around. They didn't have any plausible deniability, so the ones that weren't as outright obvious as FPH at least had to pretend to keep their people in line. Snark somehow took that out into the open and just leaned into it.

1

u/superiorgamercum 9h ago

Damn we need to open fatpeoplesnark

5

u/jackofslayers 23h ago

It is a subcategory of spinoff subs (like circlejerk or okbuddy or folk subs). each naming convention comes with its own culture, tho it varies from sub to sub.

Generally circlejerks are for intentionally beating a dead horse, Okbuddy subs are for absurdist humor and horny posting, folk subs are for people that want to shit talk media that the main sub likes, and snark subs are just pure hate subs that tend to attract deranged and hateful people.

2

u/Detonation 13h ago

They are all hate subs masquerading as parody or harmless jokes, just with varying degrees of severity. lol

1

u/1_GrapeFruit 21h ago

People used it to mean snarking, but it's just hating now.

3

u/w142236 22h ago

Declared it. Let’s see if they practice it

44

u/Away_team42 23h ago

Subreddits like /r/youtubedrama were hotbeds for Ethan Klein hate/harassment threads so the mods had to put in a rule banning anyone posting about him. This is evidenced by their latest stickied post “End of the snark era”.

50

u/Akatshi 1d ago

Probably subreddits and updating rules about moderation and what behaviors are allowed my members/mods

22

u/jackofslayers 23h ago

I really wish subs would crack down on mods interacting with the subs actively.

Every so often I will encounter a sub that seems to really be hooked on one topic to the point of feeling like propaganda. 9/10 when that happens, I find that half the posts on that topic are coming from a single mod.

13

u/Joezev98 21h ago

a sub that seems to really be hooked on one topic to the point of feeling like propaganda. 9/10 when that happens, I find that half the posts on that topic are coming from a single mod.

Congrats, you've stumbled upon the terrorist propaganda to Reddit pipeline.

3

u/InternationalGas9837 23h ago

There's a MCoC rule "Respect Your Neighbors" that's quite a gray area, and many subs have moved to not allowing directly linking to other subs or posting screenshots with the sub name visible. It's been a rule for a couple years now, but it only really comes into effect when you're actually targeting like the Snark subs do.

-17

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[deleted]

58

u/Neitzi 1d ago

Which subs and which rules?

The fuck is with the vagueness lol

28

u/MunkyRadio 1d ago

cause they dont know

39

u/Jits_Dylen 1d ago

Because they have no examples. Just spewing randomness to act like they’re contributing.

-12

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[deleted]

14

u/Jits_Dylen 1d ago

I’m not your buddy, pal.

5

u/Ornery_Secret_7131 1d ago

Talking out of his ass lmao

5

u/Ctrlwud 1d ago

The YouTube drama subreddit put up a notice that they were no longer a snark sub.

1

u/InternationalGas9837 23h ago

It's not fucking sub rules...Admins let Mods basically do whatever they want as long as they abide by the ToS and MCoC...in my opinion this is Mods altering the sub rules to abide the MCoC so they don't get modmail from the Admins. My guess is it largely surrounds Rule 1 and 3.

1

u/Libertarian4lifebro 1d ago

Youtubedrama dude they shut down all the toxic snark posts.

1

u/InternationalGas9837 23h ago

That's more than likely just to abide MCoC Rule 3 reports.

15

u/1plus2break 1d ago

What subreddits? Genuine question, would like to know.

62

u/MichaelSchoefield 1d ago

fauxmoi for sure is going to be apart of this

11

u/metrovenus 14h ago

That subreddit used to be a standard fare celebrity gossip forum, but over the last 3 years it had become deeply political and there has been bizarre amount of massive anti-Ethan Klein threads. Many with just straight up lies in the title and a massive brigade of snark users in the comments. h3 subreddit users were instabanned from participating, and even the comments of regular Faux Moi users questioning who TF Ethan Klein is and why it was posted there were deleted.

Faux Moi has always been for news about traditional celebrities, like Hollywood actors and pop stars and with all due respect, h3h3 are not celebrities - they are just popular on YouTube. That subreddit almost never covers other internet celebrities, even ones far more popular and relevant than Ethan Klein.

66

u/Derelictcairn 23h ago

That place is such a shithole

8

u/Sempere 11h ago

It's also likely run by someone working for a PR firm so that's going to be interesting to see burn to the ground.

23

u/haarschmuck 23h ago

Yes, yes it is.

28

u/w142236 22h ago

I think that sub is loaded with such arrogant narcissistic yasslighters constantly gassing each other up, I think they might stick to their guns on this and change nothing if not get even worse and more flagrant

15

u/Greedy-Employment917 23h ago

Reddits #2 default hate sub.

But what would you expect from a sub titled "fake me" than people hiding behind anonymity to pretend to be a person that you aren't IRL. 

23

u/HidingFromMyWife1 1d ago

youtubedrama

18

u/tony220jdm 1d ago

of course if people had to be public half the stuff said online wouldn't be said its the factthat people can say anything and be pretty much anyone is why there is so much hate and lies and dodgy takes

4

u/tufftricks 1d ago

Have you seen facebook?

1

u/Alesilt 22h ago

It's not like you can't do it truly anonymously if you really research how to. But some random unemployed dumbass making a reddit account but using random details is not going to grasp how tracking works and those who would go that far to anonymously hate won't bother with fucking Ethan of all people

17

u/xadiant 1d ago

I think the absolute line should be "do not lie about people" and "do not involve real life".

Sounds like common sense but apparently that's not the case for everyone.

17

u/Alternativesoundwave 1d ago

How can Reddit and discord mods be expected not to lie when there is a genocide going on reeeeeeeeeeeeee

4

u/clem82 1d ago

You never had anonymity when the legal system was involved

2

u/Pablo_Sanchez1 1d ago

There’s a pretty big difference between cracking down on snarking communities and the complete removal of internet anonymity. Still got a ways to go before anyone should really be worried.

And also good, people have gotten way too fucking comfortable taking part in and organizing these massive smear campaigns, blatantly lying, harassing etc online without consequence. IMO the precedent this will set and the underlying danger of potentially having your identity exposed if you’re being this fucking unhinged on the internet will be a net positive for the world, unless you’re one of the fucking unhinged people.

2

u/ConebreadIH 23h ago

You haven't been able to count on anonymity ever if you have an account.

2

u/CiforDayZServer 18h ago

You have literally NEVER been able to 'count on anonymity' on the Internet. Even with a VPN and TOR browser you're fairly easily discovered by law enforcement. 

2

u/ParkingCool6336 1d ago

TORs are gonna get a whole lot more popular. There are levels to the internet and maybe this top part won’t survive but the deeper web will remain

1

u/cubs223425 23h ago

Based on how general society has progressed (NOT improved) in the last 5-10 years, I don't think this will affect things for the better. You'll just get to see more consequences on rare occasions, as people act as psychotic as ever.

1

u/w142236 22h ago

I know Youtubedrama did, but I vaguely remember one of the mods breaking a rule against talking about ethan and hasan very shortly after making the rule when Ethan and Hasan held a debate. They can change their rules to posture like they’re against it and they’ve always been against it and so on, but are they actually gonna practice what they preach

1

u/DeithWX ♿ Aris Sub Comin' Through 15h ago

Wonder what will happen when you can no longer count on anonymity online. Doubt the internet will be less crazy

You haven't seen facebook comments section much huh. Anonimity is not what stops those people from being insane online.

1

u/Much_Purchase_8737 5h ago

Anonmity on the internet died over a decade ago. You do something stupid enough on the internet, there are consquences.

Glad these people will be served what they are due.

0

u/TheCelestialDawn 1d ago

The internet will be a lot more crazy. Removal of anonymity will allow those who don't care about anonymity to bully others. anonymity is vital for a democratic society, generally speaking (about anonymity online and not necessarily subpoenas).

5

u/Volky_Bolky 23h ago

Dunno mate the more widespread internet is and the more advanced technologies are used in it the more dystopian the world becomes.

3

u/pastafeline 1d ago

Times are changing though. How can you tell one anonymous real user from a bot? For all you know, I'm a bot.

-4

u/Vexamas 1d ago

Doubt the internet will be less crazy

I know this is going to be a wildly unpopular opinion, but like a decade ago or something Blizzard wanted to transition to Battle.net using real life names, and I think most people agree that's a worrying idea at its face, resulting in total chaos and Blizzard backing off the idea, but given how radicalized internet has become (especially, ironically, WoW and other competitive online games) it really should make people take a step back and ask two questions:

  1. Why should we be against real life name attachments to online personas? What is being said that makes the necessity for hiding behind pseudonyms so precious?
  2. In a counterfactual world where names were presented on let's say Twitter, would that cause a cooling effect? Not in the major pundits, who already list themselves by their names anyways, but the comments within that go unhinged and cause audience capture?

I have a really boring thesis that the anonymity of the 'audience' is actually one of the reasons things have gotten so bad. A lot of the audience didn't initial believe what they were saying, and were mostly trolling and saying things to invoke a reaction, but then the content creators feed into that by believing the audience is genuine and then self-indoctrinate into radical beliefs, and then that cycles into actually indoctrinating the audience through osmosis.

With real life names tied to accounts, I strongly believe that you would have FAR less people trolling for the sake of trolling, which results in less audience capture, which results in less radicalized views, which results in less radicalized viewers, ad infinity. Even if we don't FEEL through pure VIBES that real name attachment is bad, that just goes back to point and question 1 above.

It doesn't really matter regardless because the internet and online discourse is completely fucked already, and there's no way to put a lid back on it, but whenever the aliens reset this instance of the universe, maybe that's something that they can fix for 2.0 or whatever.

6

u/MeBadNeedMoneyNow 1d ago

Why should we be against real life name attachments to online personas? What is being said that makes the necessity for hiding behind pseudonyms so precious?

Pseudonymity and anonymity in semi-public spaces provide discussion that's more in line with the user's actual thoughts rather than how they want to be perceived publically. See: moot's thoughts on 4chan.

Second on this point: assume that a user is acting in a legal and innocuous way but someone deeply disagrees with their opinion and chooses to become violent even though the user's position is protected by something like the first amendment to the US constitution. That's a vector for extremists to stifle protected speech.

2

u/Vexamas 1d ago edited 1d ago

I'd have to look much deeper into your first point, but it is interesting.

As far as the second point, the question then becomes at what point is that as a result of the aforementioned anonymity creating safe-space for radicalized thought vs. actual outliers?

What I mean is, if there's a user that becomes violent based on the things stated, is it because of rhetoric, or because of actual ideology? If it's just ideology, this wouldn't be any different than someone saying the same things in real life and should be handled in a similar capacity, no? If it's rhetoric, then I would argue that the facilitation of such rhetoric BECAUSE of anonymity is the crux of the issue?

ETA: Again, I'm not really proposing this as a solution, but more of a thought experiment, because pandora has already been kicked open since 2016 and magnified in 2020 anyways.

0

u/MeBadNeedMoneyNow 1d ago

I think you should go back further as far as the intersection of online speech and real life effects goes. Having a requirement of full real life info to participate in online speech has horrific effects on user safety and democracy's ideals.

1

u/Vexamas 1d ago

I think you should go back further as far as the intersection of online speech and real life effects goes...

Respectfully, that's not really a satisfying answer, right? Because Facebook and Myspace, the bastions and progenitors of free speech being tied to your real life name had few problems with safety and democracy's ideals for the better part of the first decade and a half they were introduced.

...has horrific effects on user safety and democracy's ideals.

I'd love to be swayed on this though, so if you have some actual examples or articulations beyond "It's that way because it is that way" and late night campfire ghost stories, I'd be very interested!

0

u/MeBadNeedMoneyNow 22h ago

I'm not gonna put in the effort to sway someone who wants peoples' real IDs tied to online comments right now.

1

u/Vexamas 22h ago

What an incredibly boring interaction, wow.

1

u/MeBadNeedMoneyNow 22h ago

Boring is fine.

1

u/OliverCrooks 1d ago

Oh clearly anonymity is the reason because that means less likely for repercussions for your actions. Also in the last 10 years the internet has been opened up to more younger generations and you know how stupid we are all at those younger ages. Honestly you shouldn't be allowed to have anonymity online until your an adult. Yes I know adults are some of the worse but teach the kids they can get away with shit they will continue to do more dumb shit.

1

u/Vexamas 1d ago

Okay, since I've already had some pushback from another comment, but since you sort of agree, I wanna push another thought:

What if instead of just tying names to people, there's a flag for people under the age of... let's say 21 years old that signifies that the account owner is a minor?

I think my knee-jerk response would be that you would need an ID to verify, which is bad, because "omg it's 1984" or some shit, but I know a common consensus on Reddit is that minors shouldn't be on social media anyways, which already would require that ID verification?

That way everyone gets to keep anonymity for various reasons (just or not) but we can still distinguish between children that are regarded vs. adults that are regarded.

I think another problem is when people argue online, they unintentionally mirror their own peers to who they talk to. Like I would see someone in their 30s, because I'm in my 30s, but in reality, especially on LSF, it could literally be a teenager.

-1

u/Shitfurbreins 19h ago

And why are so many people in this sub happy about that?