De mon point de vue, mettre en place des politiques visant à ce que les gens utilisent leurs vrais noms au sein des espaces en ligne est donc un abus de pouvoir.

#DanahBoyd / Google Plus, la dictature des vrais noms (2011)

Et il est inacceptable de voir les plus puissants et les plus privilégiés dire à ceux qui ne le sont pas qu’il est admissible que leur sécurité soit ébranlée. Vous ne garantissez pas la sécurité en empêchant les gens d’utiliser des pseudonymes, vous sapez leur sécurité.

#DanahBoyd / Google Plus, la dictature des vrais noms (2011)

Les individus qui se fient le plus aux pseudonymes dans les espaces virtuels sont ceux qui sont le plus marginalisés par les systèmes de pouvoir. les règlements de type « vrais noms » ne sont pas émancipateurs ; ils constituent une affirmation du pouvoir sur les individus vulnérables.

#DanahBoyd / Google Plus, la dictature des vrais noms (2011)

Si les gens font le nécessaire pour s’adapter à différents contextes afin de protéger leur sécurité, et pour s’assurer de ne pas être jugés en dehors d’un contexte précis, cela ne veut pas dire qu’ils sont tous des escrocs. Il s'agit au contraire d’une réponse responsable et raisonnable aux conditions structurelles de ces nouveaux médias.

#DanahBoyd / Google Plus, la dictature des vrais noms (2011)

Tout le monde n’est pas plus en sécurité en donnant son vrai nom. Au contraire. Beaucoup de gens sont beaucoup moins en sécurité en étant identifiables. Et ceux qui sont le moins en sécurité sont souvent ceux qui sont le plus vulnérables.

#DanahBoyd / Google Plus, la dictature des vrais noms (08/11/2011)

@scottspeaking There's a growing set of literature, though generally you could look at the rise and fall of movements, social groups, religious movements (look up the Second Great Awakening and Burned Over Districts sometime), etc.

My basic take is that there are two forces at play: (1) network effects though not the n^2 of Metcalfe's Law but some diminishing-return function (Odlyzko and Tilly suggest log(n): https://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/doc/metcalfe.pdf) and (2) frictional costs which are more-or-less constant per node instance (though which can be modified across the network as a whole through various network-hygiene measures).

So, if you've got diminishing returns and constant costs, at some point adding another node no longer breaks even.

The pathological death spiral occurs when high value nodes start defecting from the network. This is the Yogi Berra effect: "Nobody (who's anybody) goes there anymore, it's too crowded (with everybody who's nobody)".

Danah Boyd has some great early work looking at the dynamic between Facebook (upstart) and MySpace (incumbent) in the mid/late aughts: http://www.danah.org/papers/talks/ICA2009.html

That's related to the Nazi At the Bar problem as described by @imaragesparkle at Birdsite: https://old.reddit.com/r/TalesFromYourServer/comments/hsiisw/kicking_a_nazi_out_as_soon_as_they_walk_in/. There are some founding / infiltrating cohorts who are so toxic that they lead to the flight of others. See generally Brain Drain and recognise that this can work in multiple directions for multiple groups, e.g., European Jews fleeing to the US whilst American Blacks fled to Europe. Same fundamental reason, but different dynamics affecting different groups. (This is also a #GreshamsLaw phenomenon, which is another trope of mine.)

I've written my own thoughts on why Usenet died, which Fedizens might want to consider. Not all the factors apply, though some do, upshot: it simply became too high-risk (and low-reward) to host Usenet: https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/3c3xyu/why_usenet_died/

#Usenet #MetcalfesLaw #OdlyzkoTilly #AndrewOdlyzko #SocialNetworks #RiseAndFall #DanahBoyd

@ct_bergstrom “When we don’t learn the nature of consensus, how science tends to be self-correcting and how community as well as individual incentives bring to light discrepancies in theory and data, we are vulnerable to false beliefs and antiscience propaganda. Indeed, misinformation is now a pervasive threat to national and international security and well-being. Giving people more facts is insufficient.” 👏 https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/to-fight-misinformation-we-need-to-teach-that-science-is-dynamic/

But. Do you really believe that a populace better educated in these five tenets of science (uncertainty, consensus, peer review, expertise, agnatogenesis) will be less vulnerable to conspiracy thinking? I am reminded of this tidbit from @pluralistic via #DanahBoyd's epic keynote

'We’re not living through a crisis about what is true, we’re living through a crisis about how we know whether something is true. We’re not disagreeing about facts, we’re disagreeing about epistemology. The “establishment” version of epistemology is, “We use evidence to arrive at the truth, vetted by independent verification (but trust us when we tell you that it’s all been independently verified by people who were properly skeptical and not the bosom buddies of the people they were supposed to be fact-checking).”

The “alternative facts” epistemological method goes like this: “The ‘independent’ experts who were supposed to be verifying the ‘evidence-based’ truth were actually in bed with the people they were supposed to be fact-checking. In the end, it’s all a matter of faith, then: you either have faith that ‘their’ experts are being truthful, or you have faith that we are. Ask your gut, what version feels more truthful?”' https://points.datasociety.net/you-think-you-want-media-literacy-do-you-7cad6af18ec2

Reviewing this, I am not remotely sanguine that the science education improvements proposed in the link will help bridge these two epistemological methods. Grounding students in uncertainty and peer review etc. will likely wedge the two camps wider apart, not bring them together.

@onepict Oh holy hell, Dana's on the board?!!!

I am on the board of @CrisisTextLine. Many people are asking us to account for our decisions. To do so, I wrote a blog post detailing my ongoing struggle to govern responsibly and ethically: http://zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2022/01/31/crisis-text-line-from-my-perspective.html

https://nitter.kavin.rocks/zephoria/status/1488308977087647745

Danah Boyd, YOU ARE IN THE WRONG

#DanahBoyd #CrisisTextLine #Surveillance #MentalHealth