= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
HoverHell comments on I've had it with those dark rumours about our culture rigorously suppressing opinions - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
Comments (857)
Why would you need a limited access if you can be better off with strict rules (and ample banning) and anonymity (or pseudonymity) (which is recommended anyway)?
(or just post a note to take such discussions to something like reddittor—)
Bugmaster addresses this in a previous discussion of the idea. (Nothing is anonymous enough if the authorities come a-knocking, essentially.) Personally I'm still not sure how much of this approach is sheer paranoia, but better safe than sorry, I guess.
I'd phrase a similar but different conclusion: there's no silver bullet for anonymity. You can hide your IP and create a pseudonymous identity, attackers can analyze text styles for authorship, you can employ various tools and methods for decreasing identifiability of your text… and that's actually where the attack-defense opposition is now at the moment. No idea where it will go further, but matching the defense to paranoia is very close to “sufficient”.
The bit I think might be paranoia isn't the suggested defences, it's the suggested attackers.
Maybe 'approach' wasn't the right word.