Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Social Networks Facebook Twitter Linux News

Linus Torvalds on Social Media: 'It's a Disease. It Seems To Encourage Bad Behavior.' (linuxjournal.com) 305

From a wide-ranging interview of Linus Torvalds with Linux Journal on the magazine's 25th anniversary: Linux Journal: If you had to fix one thing about the networked world, what would it be?
Linus: Nothing technical. But, I absolutely detest modern "social media" -- Twitter, Facebook, Instagram. It's a disease. It seems to encourage bad behavior. I think part of it is something that email shares too, and that I've said before: "On the internet, nobody can hear you being subtle". When you're not talking to somebody face to face, and you miss all the normal social cues, it's easy to miss humor and sarcasm, but it's also very easy to overlook the reaction of the recipient, so you get things like flame wars, etc., that might not happen as easily with face-to-face interaction. But email still works. You still have to put in the effort to write it, and there's generally some actual content (technical or otherwise). The whole "liking" and "sharing" model is just garbage. There is no effort and no quality control. In fact, it's all geared to the reverse of quality control, with lowest common denominator targets, and click-bait, and things designed to generate an emotional response, often one of moral outrage.

Add in anonymity, and it's just disgusting. When you don't even put your real name on your garbage (or the garbage you share or like), it really doesn't help. I'm actually one of those people who thinks that anonymity is overrated. Some people confuse privacy and anonymity and think they go hand in hand, and that protecting privacy means that you need to protect anonymity. I think that's wrong. Anonymity is important if you're a whistle-blower, but if you cannot prove your identity, your crazy rant on some social-media platform shouldn't be visible, and you shouldn't be able to share it or like it.

Linux Journal: Is there any advice you'd like to give to young programmers/computer science students?
Linus: I'm actually the worst person to ask. I knew I was interested in math and computers since an early age, and I was largely self-taught until university. And everything I did was fairly self-driven. So I don't understand the problems people face when they say "what should I do?" It's not where I came from at all.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Linus Torvalds on Social Media: 'It's a Disease. It Seems To Encourage Bad Behavior.'

Comments Filter:
  • by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Wednesday April 03, 2019 @01:37PM (#58379574)

    I knew I was interested in math and computers since an early age, and I was largely self-taught until university. And everything I did was fairly self-driven. So I don't understand the problems people face when they say "what should I do?"

    So the advice he's really giving here, just in a roundabout way, is "Do what you like".

    That is, if some aspect of computer technology is not complying enough that you want to try and work with it for fun, move around until you find something that does so move you.

    I would say there are a lot more areas to explore now than there used to be when studying CS, so it's easier for younger students to feel a bit lost and not really know what to do. Explore niches and find out what is naturally fun and interesting, even better if it cross-correlates with any other interests you have.

    • Advice (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      That is, if some aspect of computer technology is not complying enough that you want to try and work with it for fun, move around until you find something that does so move you.

      I think this is applicable to any relatively technical profession. I remember seeing an ad for a home computer (Atari?) when I was 7 and I thought it was the coolest thing I had ever seen. Been hooked since then. I hear similar stories with doctors, lawyers, etc... If it doesn't grab your attention right away, it's probably not worth the investment in time and money to figure out, once you have a JD or MD or BS in CS, that it's just not that interesting enough. IE, if you aren't sure right away, then the an

      • I remember seeing an ad for a home computer (Atari?) when I was 7 and I thought it was the coolest thing I had ever seen.

        So where are the ads for openly programmable computers these days? I keep seeing phones/tablets which seem to be targeted for social media consumption, and gaming PCs which are likewise consumption-oriented. Well, there's also the middle ground of somewhat regular laptops aimed at students for light coursework. But the excitement of writing your own code is nowhere to be seen. I could see this was already hard in the 90s with Windows, where everything is hidden and the "users" are separated from "developer

        • So where are the ads for openly programmable computers these days?

          I think this space is now occupied by the likes of Raspberry Pi, Arduino, etc.

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward

          The maker movement, arduino, and raspberry pi. Those communities are full of the excitement of not only writing your own code, but writing code that interfaces with the physical world. They're also very affordable, and much more welcoming and accessible than many of the old machines some of us grew up on.

          As someone who grew up with a trash 80, survived the rise of windows, and recently returned to hobby electronics/robotics/programming, I can tell you with no uncertainty that playing with tech is much more

    • by Anonymous Coward

      "Do what you like" will leave you with lifelong debt and a degree that leaves you completely unemployable.

      Few are far between are people who have an authentic passion for something that pays well.

      If you are considering a degree in a field with a completely saturated job market, think again. On the one hand, every single one of the successes in that field will go on and on about how they stuck with it and persisted. And it makes you think "all I have to do is stick with it and persist!" But it is not true

    • by JoePete ( 4714549 ) on Wednesday April 03, 2019 @02:29PM (#58379952)
      Actually, I took it to mean "Think for yourself." It is a bit unsettling these days how much young people are dependent on outside input to inform their own opinions and interests.
      • That is because no one wants you thinking for yourself. You parents are involved with raising you and helping set your moral compass. School also tries to do this, College tries to do this, your friends try to do this, and government threatens to hurts you if you don't do this.

        If you reveal a view that is not fitting into a groups cookie cutter mantra you get labeled immediately, called names, and generally disrespected as well as at risk for being oppressed by government types.

      • After living a life being told what they want, from parents, friends and most of all advertising, is it such a surprise that people stop trying to make up their own mind?

  • by alvinrod ( 889928 ) on Wednesday April 03, 2019 @01:37PM (#58379580)
    Did they actually interview Linus? He wasn't calling anyone stupid or ugly in his response, so I can't be sure that it was actually him.

    This should be construed as sarcasm, in case you couldn't hear me being subtle.
    • by raymorris ( 2726007 ) on Wednesday April 03, 2019 @02:03PM (#58379762) Journal

      A distinction with Linus is that generally he calls some piece of CODE ugly or stupid, not a -person-. In the vast majority of cases, anyway. I've written a lot of stupid code, and I'll call my own stupid code stupid. I've written code that has a comment saying "this is ugly, but don't try to fix it because ....".

      I've written plenty of stupid and ugly code. I'm not stupid*. I think in Linus's mind that distinction is so obvious that he forgets it's not so obvious to some other people. He forgets that other people take "this code is still crap" as a -personal-insult; they hear him saying something about them, as opposed to saying something about the code. That's normal. It's just not how Linus thinks, and I personally have had to practice keeping in mind that people take things personally. -I- don't mind if you tell me my Makefile is goofy ASF. It probably is. That doesn't inply anything about me, other than that I'm not the King Guru of makefiles.

      * I am ugly

      • by MobyDisk ( 75490 )

        A distinction with Linus is that generally he calls some piece of CODE ugly or stupid, not a -person-. In the vast majority of cases, anyway

        The trouble is that he has made some very public ad-hominem attacks on not only individuals, but entire groups of people. Like when he said that C++ programmers are "brain dead" or that people who like certain commenting styles have "shit for brains."

        • Linus or Accujack? (Score:4, Informative)

          by raymorris ( 2726007 ) on Wednesday April 03, 2019 @07:56PM (#58381590) Journal

          Did Linus say that, or was that Accujack, commenting on Linus's words (on Reddit in 2013)?

          Accujack's "brain dead" comment was his reaction to Linus's 2007 response to a troll saying it's "bullshit" that Linux didn't write git in C++. Linus's actual response to the troll explained what the technical problems are with C++ for such an application, and did mention that C++, in it's brokenness, does attract less capable programmers.

          I'll skip the technical details and quote the part where Linus wasn't being very nice:

          --
          C++ is a horrible language. It's made more horrible by the fact that a lot of substandard programmers use it, to the point where it's much much easier to generate total and utter crap with it.
          [Technical details of problems with C++]

          So I'm sorry, but for something like git, where efficiency was a primary objective, the "advantages" of C++ is just a huge mistake. The fact that we also piss off people who cannot see that is just a big additional advantage.

          If you want a VCS that is written in C++, go play with Monotone. Really. They use a "real database". They use "nice object-oriented libraries". They use "nice C++ abstractions".
          --

          Linus wasn't super nice to the person who called his work bullshit, and he did NOT say all C++ programmers are braindead. That was Accujack who said that, six years later.

          • by MobyDisk ( 75490 )

            Are we seriously getting into an argument about whether Linus Torvalds initiated ad-hominem attacks or not? Because there is a loooong history of news articles and mailing list posts on this. Google seems to like this particular one you and I are talking about (probably because I am putting C++ in the search). But lots go back before that one. Here's one from 2004 [lkml.org]

            In general, I'd say that anybody who designs his kernel modules for C++ is either
            (a) looking for problems
            (b) a C++ bigot that can't see what he is writing is really just C anyway

            This is an attack not only against the language, but against the people who use it. I've seen the one you mentioned a bunch of times, but I

            • Linus can be a dick, no doubt about that.

              https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]

              ad hominem
              1.
              in a way that is directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
              "these points come from some of our best information sources, who realize they'll be attacked ad hominem"
              2.
              in a way that relates to or is associated with a particular person.

              An ad hominem would be "don't listen to Rosenberg", Rosenberg is an idiot.

              Linus listed off the technical reasons that C++ doesn't work for the kernel. That's the

              • Perhaps I can summarize my point more succinctly:

                Ad hominem:
                No way I'm going to vote for that bill, the traitor Trump proposed that. He's a crook and he smells bad.

                Note it doesn't mention the pros or cons of the policy, rather it attempts distract attention away from the policy by attacking a person associated with it.

                Not ad hominem:
                Total tax rates of over 50% cause significant damage to the economy and are essentially immoral because it is taking from someone, by force. Any proposals for major policy chan

      • Which probably hurts the average neckbeard more. I mean, we know that we're ugly. That's why we spend our Saturdays at home writing code.

        But if you call my code ugly, you're pwobably gonna huwt my widdle feelings!

  • by blahplusplus ( 757119 ) on Wednesday April 03, 2019 @01:39PM (#58379606)

    ... the reality is the internet has shown us the true face of the human race - everyones reality is right and it's those other guys who are incorrect. It has been the average human being and the masses getting internet. We've seen everyone come online over the last 20 years.

    Watching the last 20 years of slashdot comments has been surreal. The rise in anti intellectualism as more normal people came online and the dumbest shit you can possibly imagine getting upvoted. The outright destruction of PC gaming and the masses falling on their own sword and falling for the mmo scam, drm and steam. As an original nerd from the 90's, the masses getting internet has just shown us how stupid the human race is from every class and every walk of life.

    Everything PC nerds in the 90's were worried about came true, and what a gift the internet has been to the corporate world that the average human being is so uncaring and unflinchingly stupid, they'd literally bend over to have their rights and freedoms taken away but do so willingly.

    • by Jason Levine ( 196982 ) on Wednesday April 03, 2019 @02:05PM (#58379780) Homepage

      The Internet is a double-edged sword. It lets communities form based on shared interests regardless of how far apart they physically are. For example, I don't have many people I know locally that I could talk with about some games I play, but online I can find dozens (if not more) of people to discuss it with.

      On the other hand, it can let communities based on falsehoods or hatred form and fester. A person who hates Group A might be the only one in his community that hates this group. If this is the case, he'll be forced to hide his hatred and it won't be encouraged. Normal societal pressure will keep to "socially acceptable levels." (Whether these levels are too high or not is another conversation entirely.) With the Internet, though, he can find a bunch of people who hate the same people he does. They can feed off each other and grow ever more extreme. Add in the anonymous nature of the Internet (either actually anonymous or perceived anonymity) and things that they wouldn't ever say in person (like physical threats) can come spilling out online. Eventually, these can flow from the online world to the physical one.

      Social media can speed this along more, but social media is just one application of the Internet. Take Facebook/Twitter away and you'll still have sites like Reddit where these groups can thrive. Take Reddit away, and they'd set up their own forums in their own corners of the Internet. There's no way to get the good of the Internet (faster communications/building positive communities) without getting the bad as well.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward


      the reality is the internet has shown us the true face of the human race - everyones reality is right and it's those other guys who are incorrect. It has been the average human being and the masses getting internet. We've seen everyone come online over the last 20 years.

      I'm afraid I don't entirely agree with you, but I do agree with some of it. Some of what you're saying is true. Part of the problem is certainly that 25 years ago, in 1994 it was largely a bunch of academics and students online. T

      • The problem is so many people don't "get" computers and treat anything on them as gospel (disclaimer: I treat the reference section at the library as gospel - if you can fake that then... damn). So when some bad actors post things (antivaxxers) they just gobble it up.
        The problem is accountability. On the internet accountability is non-existent, there is no cost to post bullshit. For the reference section at a library you need to publish; that costs something. Would non-anonymity fix this: no, your Aun

        • Non-anonymity doesn't solve the accountability problem. For reference, see current politics. Any of these buffoons accountable for their actions? Hell, they don't even lose credibility with the masses anymore even if they blatantly lie, show off just how totally clueless they are or talk random nonsense about projects nobody can fund or that are absolutely and totally impossible on a physical level.

          This has nothing to do with the internet per se. I think people are just getting dumber somehow.

    • Maybe we can improve ourselves by not assuming that we truly know things. Even when we're not insufferable enough to think that we know everything, there are still things we believe that could be wrong, and it's probably a longer list than we'd assume. Therefore, it pays to not get too attached to them.

      That lack of attachment could help prevent future discord in social media, but I'm not really sure. It's just something I've thought about lately.

      Worst case: We can always do without.

    • ... the reality is the internet has shown us the true face of the human race

      Indeed but that hasn't changed in the past several thousand years. However people while shitty on the inside were more tolerable in the past. The overflowing of the cesspool is still on social media's shoulders.

    • by citylivin ( 1250770 ) on Wednesday April 03, 2019 @03:25PM (#58380324)

      I'd more agree with linus actually, that there is so little emotion that comes across in an email. I have a board member that i have to deal with and he is a huge antagonist over email. LIke i think the guy is just pissed all the time and outraged about every little thing.

      However when you talk to the guy in person, he never raises his voice, never yells, and is one of the most happy and compromising people that I have ever met.

      I am sure everyone knows someone like that, completely different online and off. The problem i think is what linus describes, many people don't know how to communicate over text and can appear curt, or rude or worse, when really if you had the exact same conversation offline, they would be reasonable and understanding. It probably does have to do a lot with unconscious cues.

    • ... the reality is the internet has shown us the true face of the human race - everyones reality is right and it's those other guys who are incorrect.

      I think you're wrong about that.

      Wait... Damn it!

    • by Falos ( 2905315 )

      There are some people questioning the timing of The Masses, or even saying there was never any kind of septembercaust at any time at all, that any perceived tiers/factions aren't just blurred into each other, they're uniform.

      Counterpoint: 20 years of corporate penetration. By which I mean both market reach/interest/value and the imagery of phallic infestation.

      Pick the right metrics and you can chart the influx. Because to these industries, surface dwellers meant money, they had preeeeetty adequate incentive

    • The outright destruction of PC gaming ... As an original nerd from the 90's, the masses getting internet has just shown us how stupid the human race is from every class and every walk of life.

      On a more serious note than my other reply to this, I think you have some rose colored glasses on when looking back to PC gaming in the 90s. I remember it too. You had to go to a physical store and read the packaging to figure out if a game looked interesting. Corporate hype and professional reviews were as biased and unreliable as ever, if not worse then. No user recommendations other than your friends (who were not always reliable indicators). No "let's play" videos letting you see what playing the g

    • ..no, I have to disagree with you.
      The problem with 'interacting' with people on the Internet ('interacting' in quotes because it's more like ersatz-interaction) is that there is no real accountability or consequences to what you say to people. It's easy to be a flaming asshole to someone when you don't have to do it to them face-to-face, where you'll be called out in a very personal way for being an asshole -- and that's even when people use their actual, in-real-life name; when people use an alias or are
    • It's Eternal September [wikipedia.org].

      Back before the influx of the masses, the amount of "new guys" who had no idea how to behave and what (not) to do was manageable. And they were fewer. So they had to adapt or get out.

      Now the opposite is true. The internet is overflowing with ignorant idiots and the majority sets the standard.

      We thought that with everyone getting access to information, idiocy would die out because people can easily access information, learn, better themselves and become more informed than ever. We heav

  • by jfdavis668 ( 1414919 ) on Wednesday April 03, 2019 @01:43PM (#58379626)
    I guess we don't encourage bad behavior.
  • by mutley69 ( 941584 ) on Wednesday April 03, 2019 @01:45PM (#58379642)
    Thank you Linus for saving me from becomming nuts. I'm so happy to find out i'm not the only one - that's trying to avoid at a high cost these awful social media. Thank you for linux - thank you for this kind supportive message.
  • It's good that they're electric because people are going to travel much more when they don't have to do the driving.

    Somebody who spends three hours a night on social media now can, in the future, hop in a car and go hang out with real humans for two hours.

    Internet interaction is cheap and easy - install lots of solar panels to charge your car and real human-human interaction becomes nearly as cheap and easy. Yes, you have to put pants on, for most meetups, but the reward ought to be sufficient for the effo

  • by jbmartin6 ( 1232050 ) on Wednesday April 03, 2019 @01:52PM (#58379690)
    It's important to remember that the crappy stuff is what we tend to hear about. Meanwhile 3+ nines of usage of these platforms is perfectly bland, uninteresting, and useful. Facebook has been a great tool for keeping in touch with my dispersed sisters. No one is forcing me to read a bunch of empty shitposts, and I don't. I used to avoid Twitter until a colleague demonstrated how it could be very useful as an information source for our job. The majority of usage on these platforms is all like this, not very interesting. But the shitposts get all the attention. It's much like when I used to work in a bookstore. Co-workers used to complain all day about how these 'stupid customers' could not put books back in the right place. I admit, I made that mistake too, until one day a mentor told me to look at how many people came in and out of that store every day (I date myself, this was pre-Amazon) and think about how few actually put the book back wrong or some other annoying thing. Come to think of it, that little piece of advice may have turned my life around..anyway, stop being such a negative nellie.
  • by bradley13 ( 1118935 ) on Wednesday April 03, 2019 @01:57PM (#58379724) Homepage

    "if you cannot prove your identity, your crazy rant on some social-media platform shouldn't be visible, and you shouldn't be able to share it or like it"

    In about 99% of the cases, I do have to agree with him. Anonymity is abused. Someone who wants to spew hate, drop f-bombs, disrupt discussions with ad hominem attacks - they almost always hide behind anonymity. If they acted like that IRL, someone would punch them. Make them put their real name* to their posts, they might moderate their speech, and add in some politeness and discussion.

    The practical problem is: how do you allow speech by true whistleblowers, or by other people in a position where they genuinely cannot speak with their own voice? How can a platform allow them to use true anonymity, without allowing it for the ACs? I don't think it's really possible. Moderation systems like /. or Soylent are the best compromise I've seen: start ACs with less visibility, and let mods raise them or bury them. It's not ideal, but it's better than almost any other system I've seen.

    *Yes, I practice what I preach: my pseudonym leads pretty directly to my real identity, and that is not an accident. It's just difficult enough to dissuade most trolls...

    • The last place IRL where everybody's opinion mattered is high school. Which is typically a very dysfunctional place run my large groups of morons and future losers.

      It's not surprising, at all, that facebook etc are like _middle_ school.

      Neither HS nor MS are anon, but the shit was thick, just like social media. The problem is morons form packs. Most adults know better, but when it's anon there is no cost, which brings out their inner middle schoolers.

    • Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Wednesday April 03, 2019 @02:49PM (#58380082)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • by ffkom ( 3519199 )

        It's relatively easy for Torvalds to say whatever he wants.

        Indeed, Linus lecturing about how unimportant anonymity is reminds me of the ex-bankers/ex-lawyers/celebrities who mid-life suddenly start telling interviewers how unimportant money is. They've had more than their fair share of it, and so had Linus in terms of stating his opinion about others.

        And I say this even though I think he was right with many (not all) of his rants.

    • by JaredOfEuropa ( 526365 ) on Wednesday April 03, 2019 @03:07PM (#58380198) Journal
      I'd agree about the 99%... if we lived in a world without what some call "social justice", or without "deplatforming". People trying to get you fired by email-bombing your employer, for having an Ungood opinion. Or not getting hired for your political views. Many, many more people than the 1% whistleblowers have very good and valid reasons to want to keep their professional, political, gaming, and social personae separated. Identity is abused more often and in far worse ways than anonymity is.
    • Considering how many people get doxxed or harrassed in real life for their online opinions, i am going to go with a big fat no on that.

      The fact that every database will be hacked one day is another reason to not tie everything all together to a unique thing you cant change (like a real name or unique ID).

      Maybe people have a work life and a home life and they done necessarily want those two to meet. Or even different groups of friends, maybe you have some good ole boys that you interact and spend time with o

    • The practical problem is: how do you allow speech by true whistleblowers, or by other people in a position where they genuinely cannot speak with their own voice? How can a platform allow them to use true anonymity, without allowing it for the ACs? I don't think it's really possible.

      It's not possible. The trolls are a relatively small percentage of the "problem." The bigger "problem" is that what half of the population sees as legitimate whistleblowing, the other half sees as toxicity that must be silence

    • by ffkom ( 3519199 )
      I disagree. I favor an honest anonymous rant over any signed text where the author felt pressured into not stating his true opinion, as ugly as it may be, to avoid negative repercussions.

      Authors should be as free in their expression as readers should be to respond in equally clear responses, if they dislike the authors stated opinion.

      The fact that you seem to support the idea of responding to dislikeable opinions with physical violence leads me to believe that you constitute a bigger risk to a peaceful s
    • by MobyDisk ( 75490 ) on Wednesday April 03, 2019 @07:06PM (#58381414) Homepage

      The founding fathers of the United States wrote many anonymous articles in newspapers, and even printed their own newspapers under pseudonyms. They believed that anonymity is a key feature of a democratic society.

  • by ganv ( 881057 ) on Wednesday April 03, 2019 @02:04PM (#58379768)
    The problem with social media seems largely that we have not have time for the culture to learn what are helpful and unhelpful ways to use it. We just assumed it was wonderful and everyone should be on Facebook. Slowly a set of principles will develop about how to use the new media and parents will teach their children to use it wisely. But the first decade of social media has indeed been a disaster as Linus indicates.
  • by JoeyRox ( 2711699 ) on Wednesday April 03, 2019 @02:05PM (#58379772)
    Linus giving lessons on subtlety of language and expression, lol. Social media was precisely made for screaming zealots like Linus Torvalds.
    • by lorinc ( 2470890 ) on Wednesday April 03, 2019 @05:19PM (#58380996) Homepage Journal

      No I think it's quite different. Linus has never been an attention whore, posting silly content for the sake of increasing his popularity. He cursed a lot of times in a way that wasn't subtle, sure, but the goal was not to increase his popularity or lower that of a competing guy, which seems to be the primary goal of social media. That's the tragedy of social media: it encourages to focus on the links instead of the content, up to the point where negative content creates more links and is thus more valuable than anything else. That's a damn low SNR.

      Disclaimer: I don't do social networks, and I've never seen anything tagged social media in the regular press that I have found positive or worth anything.

  • by future assassin ( 639396 ) on Wednesday April 03, 2019 @02:10PM (#58379822)

    were no different than current social media.

  • you associate with. I dont get that on FB, its a great way to keep updated on how family is doing, sisters, grandkids, nieces nephews, Its nice in that regard.
  • Stay away.

    Stay far away.

    Stay very very far away!

  • by uncqual ( 836337 ) on Wednesday April 03, 2019 @02:50PM (#58380090)

    Anonymity is important if you're a whistle-blower, but if you cannot prove your identity, your crazy rant on some social-media platform shouldn't be visible, and you shouldn't be able to share it or like it.

    One person's "rational statement" is another person's "crazy rant". Defending the Second Amendment or each state having (as the Constitution specifies) equal suffrage in the Senate or deportation of illegal immigrants would qualify as "crazy rants" in some circles and companies.

    In a world where technology companies have gone overboard with political and societal issues unrelated to their product, anyone who doesn't adhere to the hive-mind is putting their career at risk by posting under their real identities. It's easy for Torvalds to take this stance as he doesn't need to work for anyone else on a regular basis and he's already known as a "flaming asshole" (which, by the way, was something I used to like about him -- as a thought leader in his area, he made high contrast statements without sugercoating which got the message across to all much more effectively than carefully worded "policy statements" and advice to "you may want reconsider introducing an error not previously returned by an API").

    So, no, it's not just whistle-blowers who should enjoy anonymity. Apparently when Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay were publishing the Federalist Papers under the anonymous pseudonym "Publius" they didn't think so either.

    Of course, being a native Finn, perhaps Torvalds doesn't quite grok a diverse culture for some reason.

  • Not the way browsers treat plaintext HTTP vs. self-signed HTTPS, not the DNS or BGP security clusterfucks, not the CA system, nothing? Really?

  • Social media is a wasteland where relationships go to die. I was thinking about this just yesterday, the number of times that people say dumb shit online that ruins their chances with a woman they've just met, or when they have a brain explosion in a depressed moment that would have only been shared with one friend in the past, which now blasts out across social media permanently imploding that person's social standing. Facebook especially, is a toxic cesspool where people read and see things about people t
  • by duke_cheetah2003 ( 862933 ) on Wednesday April 03, 2019 @04:19PM (#58380654) Homepage

    I absolutely detest modern "social media" -- Twitter, Facebook, Instagram. It's a disease. It seems to encourage bad behavior.

    Couldn't have been said any better. This 100% on the mark. Now let's start discussing the cure.

    I don't think taking away anonymity for everyone is going to help very much. So let's just skip that thought.

    Quite frankly, my only idea is to just shut all that stuff down. It's ills far outweigh it's benefits.

  • I don't always agree with Linus and he has a well deserved reputation for being...well..prickly at times. But his comments on social media are bang on. Even at work, I don't know how many times I have sent an email to someone and it was misinterpreted. All they have are the words on the page. They don't hear my voice or see my face and sometimes when all you see are the words it can come across as more harsh than it was intended. If it starts going back and forth I usually just pick up the phone and it all

  • by istartedi ( 132515 ) on Wednesday April 03, 2019 @05:47PM (#58381144) Journal

    If I provide my real name, my reputation just might make you believe the subject. Alternatively, it might make you *disbelieve* that 2+2=4. That's how propaganda works. The only reason we're paying attention at all is because it's Linus. Let's see some AC put forth a good argument against anonymity. If it's a compelling argument, it won't matter that it's an AC.

    Otherwise though I agree with him about simple thumbs up/down and re-tweet being garbage. That's why I'm still here, still pseudonymous after all these years. It's stood the test of time better than sites that require your real name, and better than sites that try to distill everything into a simple up/down vote, and sometimes, Sometimes, ACs put forth the best arguments right on this very site..

    I submit this site as empirical evidence against his opposition to anonymity, and for his arguments against simpler moderation and sharing schemes.

  • Social media is the foundation for a lot of the problems of our age. The messed up times we live in now will be remembered for the copy-cat mass murderers, fake news, and large scale state-sponsored social manipulation. Do something good for yourself and everyone in your life - delete your social media accounts and get back to being human again.

  • I did some web searches the other day and I've concluded that you can find a Torvalds quote to the effect that "____ is a disease" for most values of "____".

    Not that I think he's wrong about those socmeds.

The bomb will never go off. I speak as an expert in explosives. -- Admiral William Leahy, U.S. Atomic Bomb Project

Working...