Author Topic: Should MSG require confirmed identities? (Read 42478 times)

rubyroo · « **Reply #175 on:** October 17, 2011, 14:54 »

Quote from: pancaketom on October 17, 2011, 14:03

I do wish there was some way to encourage civility without having to remove anonymity though.

Hear hear!

This feels like a case of 'one bad apple' (or a few) spoiling the whole bunch.

gbalex · « **Reply #176 on:** October 17, 2011, 15:01 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on October 17, 2011, 13:58

Quote from: pancaketom on October 16, 2011, 18:50
One potential downside of giving Tyler people's real identities is if the site gets hacked - unlikely someone would hack the site to get that, but it is a possibility.

So you think some agency is going to hack the site to find out who's writing things about them?

Come on this isn't National Security, people who claim they are afraid of agency retaliation I understand, an anonymous section for posts like that, might be an option. But then we get stalkers and hackers and things that can happen anywhere, including FB and Twitter and anywhere else.

What makes keeping an ID secret and not letting anyone know what your sellers name so important. If it's only about writing nasty messages about some agency, that's kind of weak. I mean, does every anonymous person here have some kind of cause and string of critical messages about agencies, that would cause them to be banned or punished? I don't think so. I enjoy the small number of people who think someone will steal their ideas. Kind of like taking a photo of you will steal your soul. I don't think anyone does anything so unique and special that it's at risk. We can see what sell, we can see best sellers, we can see top keywords, there are no Microstock Secrets.

So what's a real reason?

I'm with Rimglow, for some reason the anonymous people tend to be the trolls and rude, they hide behind their pseudo accounts. People who have a name or email connection, even if it's not real, something like a sellers name is fine. Known people tend to be a little calmer and know that their reputation is associated with their real identity. The anonymous factor just invites abuse.

No I don't think people need to send in drivers license or passports that's a bit over the top. Just that they have an email account or are actually identifiable Microstock sellers account with an agency.

I think the days of frank discussion on the net are numbered. Those of us who have been around the internet for years and have worked on sites tend to limit our exposure by not sharing information online that could be used in any number of ways by any number of people.

A few years ago I would have felt more comfortable sharing more info, these days sites have more and more people outside the industry visiting and you see more and more site hacking's. In fact I know at least four people in micro who have their sites hacked recently and on one of them member information was compromised.

In my opinion demonizing, labeling or blaming anonymous msg participants for these problems is off base, advertising practices like pulling in members by sponsoring sites and banner advertising brings more site traffic, but it also brings trolls, gurus looking to make a buck off inexperienced new members and hackers.

Site Sponsors
http://www.tutorvid.com/photoshop-tutorial/why-shoot-in-raw-format/

stockastic · « **Reply #177 on:** October 17, 2011, 15:58 »

Quote from: gbalex on October 17, 2011, 15:01

I think the days of frank discussion on the net are numbered.

I agree.

Quote from: gbalex on October 17, 2011, 15:01

know at least four people in micro who have their sites hacked recently and on one of them member information was compromised.
orvid.com/photoshop-tutorial/why-shoot-in-raw-format/[/url]

Hacking isn't necessary; you can just sue the operator of the forum. And if the forum operator openly declares that he records the identities of the posters - well that just makes it so much easier.

Here's what the American Bar Association says:

http://apps.americanbar.org/buslaw/blt/blt9-eisenhofer.html

All you have to do to invite a lawsuit is post something that damages someone else's "reputation or good name".

madelaide · « **Reply #178 on:** October 17, 2011, 17:44 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on October 17, 2011, 13:58

Quote from: pancaketom on October 16, 2011, 18:50
One potential downside of giving Tyler people's real identities is if the site gets hacked - unlikely someone would hack the site to get that, but it is a possibility.

So you think some agency is going to hack the site to find out who's writing things about them?

Yes, I think this is a bit of paranoia. I understand anonymity, but I think people are taking this way too serious.

SNP · « **Reply #179 on:** October 17, 2011, 17:47 »

Quote from: madelaide on October 17, 2011, 17:44

Quote from: RacePhoto on October 17, 2011, 13:58
Quote from: pancaketom on October 16, 2011, 18:50
One potential downside of giving Tyler people's real identities is if the site gets hacked - unlikely someone would hack the site to get that, but it is a possibility.

So you think some agency is going to hack the site to find out who's writing things about them?

Yes, I think this is a bit of paranoia. I understand anonymity, but I think people are taking this way too serious.

I agree...there is no end to what ifs...so at some point Tyler should just make a decision. it may not be the majority, but there is certainly a very close count on yay vs. nay...

gbalex · « **Reply #180 on:** October 17, 2011, 17:48 »

Quote from: stockastic on October 17, 2011, 15:58

Quote from: gbalex on October 17, 2011, 15:01
I think the days of frank discussion on the net are numbered.

I agree.

Quote from: gbalex on October 17, 2011, 15:01
know at least four people in micro who have their sites hacked recently and on one of them member information was compromised.
orvid.com/photoshop-tutorial/why-shoot-in-raw-format/[/url]

Hacking isn't necessary; you can just sue the operator of the forum. And if the forum operator openly declares that he records the identities of the posters - well that just makes it so much easier.

Here's what the American Bar Association says:

http://apps.americanbar.org/buslaw/blt/blt9-eisenhofer.html

All you have to do to invite a lawsuit is post something that damages someone else's "reputation or good name".

As far as hacking goes I was thinking more in line with the use of email info and passwords etc. But yes you see more and more sites protecting themselves per your link and conversely you see more and more ISP's and large business sites which have been hit with legal actions against them for disseminating or even hosting deceptive advertising statements which are considered false advertising in violation of sections 17200 and 17500 of the Business & Professions Codes.

Snufkin · « **Reply #181 on:** October 17, 2011, 18:32 »

I think MSG functions very well as it is now. Why fix something that ain't broken?

I can think of at least 2 individuals whose identities were known to everybody and yet they got kicked out for crossing the line.
1. Shankster the gangster
2. Do you remember the guy called "Contact" a.k.a. "Editorial"? He was here when I joined MSG in 2008. He was "pretty good" too and got banned.

On the other hand there are numerous people who prefer not to reveal their identity but whose input is very valuable.
The most visible effect of requiring confirmed identities would be a reduced member base.

ProArtwork · « **Reply #182 on:** October 17, 2011, 18:53 »

Quote from: SNP on October 17, 2011, 17:47

Quote from: madelaide on October 17, 2011, 17:44
Quote from: RacePhoto on October 17, 2011, 13:58
Quote from: pancaketom on October 16, 2011, 18:50
One potential downside of giving Tyler people's real identities is if the site gets hacked - unlikely someone would hack the site to get that, but it is a possibility.
So you think some agency is going to hack the site to find out who's writing things about them?
Yes, I think this is a bit of paranoia. I understand anonymity, but I think people are taking this way too serious.

How many nays are anonymous and does it really count? Does anonymous have a right if they are anonymous? The last question is really a rhetorical one and no need for an answer.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #183 on:** October 18, 2011, 00:15 »

Quote from: madelaide on October 17, 2011, 17:44

Quote from: RacePhoto on October 17, 2011, 13:58
Quote from: pancaketom on October 16, 2011, 18:50
One potential downside of giving Tyler people's real identities is if the site gets hacked - unlikely someone would hack the site to get that, but it is a possibility.

So you think some agency is going to hack the site to find out who's writing things about them?

Yes, I think this is a bit of paranoia. I understand anonymity, but I think people are taking this way too serious.

Yes I agree and I should just STFU, I've had my say, I'm not anonymous, and some people are, which in the end, everyone has already voted by their account.

Some people have made good points and in the end, it's the person not the type of account. It won't ruin the site and won't make it much better. The paranoid people can come up with all the extreme hypothetical answers, but there are thousands of forums that require real people and some even charge a subscription. It has not chased the users away or brought them lawsuits. In fact some people are attracted to a site that demands real people.

What might ruin a site is someone posting some libel. Any written communication can be libelous as long as it's transmitted to a third party. Any of the agencies who feel they have been libeled by an untruth could bring charges and Leaf would be required by law to disclose who the real person is. So there's no protection by being anonymous from legal issues. For the people who seem to be in the majority saying they are most afraid of retribution from the agencies, maybe you should consider that you are not anonymous and the forum by law must disclose records and account information. I was handed a subpena by the FBI when I ran a BBS. Not that I wouldn't have given them the information, it was someone selling stolen computers from home invasions.

Like I said, I need to drop it. No harm here the site is just fine the way it is.

rubyroo · « **Reply #184 on:** October 21, 2011, 00:15 »

This news article may be of interest on the subject of anonymity. Hopefully, once all voices are considered, a sensible compromise is reached that allows anonymity but discourages aggressive trolls and trouble-makers. That's really all that's required, no?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15364774

lisafx · « **Reply #185 on:** October 21, 2011, 16:33 »

The bill proposed in that article certainly would have a chilling effect on internet discourse. If website owners are considered responsible for anonymous postings on their forums, then it will make moderating a really tough job. Anything remotely critical or potentially controversial will have to be removed right away.

I bet you'd see forums disappearing all over the place. Not worth the hassle or liability to operate one.

SNP · « **Reply #186 on:** October 21, 2011, 18:41 »

^ I agree - I think that bill takes things to an absurd level of control...there's a happy medium somewhere

Mantis · « **Reply #187 on:** October 21, 2011, 18:42 »

Kill Bill, volume IV.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Poll

Would you find this community more valuable if everyone shared their identity?

Author Topic: Should MSG require confirmed identities? (Read 42478 times)

rubyroo

gbalex

stockastic

madelaide

SNP

gbalex

Snufkin

ProArtwork

RacePhoto

rubyroo

lisafx

SNP

Mantis

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors