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.
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.
So he really is giving advice... (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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
That is TERRIBLE advice (Score:2, Interesting)
"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
Re:So he really is giving advice... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:So he really is giving advice... (Score:4, Funny)
You sound like a "radical"
We've got our eyes on you.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Over 20 years into a tech career I'm very aware that I wouldn't be any happier doing anything else as a job.
The many things I'd rather be doing are hobbies and although some of them can become careers that requires engaging with aspects of those disciplines that as a hobbiest I can ignore.
I mean, I could earn an income doing photography. The salary trap isn't stopping me, although it's a significant gap, it's the fact that professional photography needs far more planning, sales and sheer boredom than I can
Was that really Linus (Score:4, Funny)
This should be construed as sarcasm, in case you couldn't hear me being subtle.
He calls *code* ugly and stupid (Score:5, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Summarize (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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!
Re: (Score:2)
If you describe anything I've produced as shit, crap, stupid or any other derogatory words, I will take it as an insult and so will most people in the world.
Okay, but if it's legitimately crap, then that's your problem, and Linus' job is to tell you it's crap, though it's much better not to use those words, but instead say what, specifically, is wrong with it. That's both less offensive and provides you with actionable feedback. But still, you're likely to feel it as an insult.
However, I've also had the experience, many times, of seeing code that is so bad, in so many ways, that I don't even know where to start. In cases like that, a complete enumeration of
I just asked co-workers to point out my stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's the thing:
I'm not an expert at everything - and I KNOW that.
That's awesome because thinking "don't know" equals "stupid" PREVENTS learning.
I'm not under the delusion that I'm an expert at everything, or that I'm supposed to be. I'm grateful that nobody ever put into
my head the idea that if I have room to learn, I suck, or am stupid. I would hate to have that wrong idea because a need to insist that you know everything prevents learning.
I can't count the number of times there has been discussion here on Slashdot and somebody posts a mistaken idea of what the law is. That's fine, if they aren't an employment attorney, they aren't SUPPOSED to know everything about employment law. I'll post the actual text of the law and far too often the person who guessed wrong gets defensive and has to try to argue that the law doesn't say what it says. The actual text of the law is "employers may not ..." and they feel the need to argue it means "employers must", just because that was their first guess. They completely miss the opportunity to learn anything.
They have this crazy idea that if they were wrong, that means they're stupid, so they will go to any length to avoid recognizing that their first try was wrong, and therefore learning something. Thinking they are supposed to already know prevents them from ever knowing. Being afraid of LOOKING stupid ensures they permanently ARE stupid.
A couple of hours ago I posted a messages in my company chat practically beggingmy new co-workers to tell me what's not very good about the work I just did at my new job. I did that because I want to improve it. I would my work to *actually* be good, so I want to know how to improve it, rather than me just pretending it's good. Why? Because of how and why I got hired here.
At my last job, two months ago, I was teaching classes, making presentations to educate co-workers about security and programming topics, with a side-dish of law. I really enjoyed doing that and wanted to do more of it, but I knew I wasn't great at it. I earnestly asked my co-workers / students for feedback after every presentation, telling them I needed their help to improve. Three weeks ago I landed what may be my dream job. I'll now spend my days mentoring my a thousand programmers on security and creating robust software systems - and getting paid quite well to do it. I got this job because I was able to talk about how I had taught programmers at my last job, the successes in mentoring. I never would have had success mentoring if I wasn't constantly asking co-workers to tell me how they think I could improve.
Put your best effort into (simulated) brain surger (Score:5, Insightful)
> It IS a personal insult if you put all your best effort into something and the immediate reaction from the receiver is that it is stupid.
There are a lot of smart people here on Slashdot.
If you handed out cadavers to all of us and had us "put all our best effort" into a practice brain surgery, approximately 100% of us would make several major mistakes.
Not because we're stupid, because we haven't mastered the application of a specific skill in a particular context.
Stupid people can do things well. For example, a lot of idiots are good at getting elected. Stephen Hawking is brilliant, and his cake decorating really, really sucks. He's smart, he hasn't mastered the particular skills of cake decorating.
Smart is having the ability to learn. Stupid is not learning.
Bottom line, here's the difference between smart people and stupid people.
When they become aware that they did something stupid:
Smart people learn from it and then know next time.
Stupid people get offended.
Re: (Score:2)
Stupid people can do things well. For example, a lot of idiots are good at getting elected. Stephen Hawking is brilliant, and his cake decorating really, really sucks. He's smart, he hasn't mastered the particular skills of cake decorating.
It's also difficult to decorate a cake from beyond the grave, even if you aren't mostly paralyzed.
Uhh it's not social media.... (Score:5, Interesting)
... 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.
Re:Uhh it's not social media.... (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
The problem is already that people simply accept any claim to authority instead of questioning it. And with questioning I don't mean to brush it off as useless but to ask for proof.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Behavior Problems (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that the idiot is convinced of his opinion while the wise man doubts his.
Re: (Score:2)
... 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.
Re:Uhh it's not social media.... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
... 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!
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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 is about the toxicity of social media. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
He left /. off the list (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Would be more funny if you were allergic to peanuts.
it's such a nice message (Score:3, Insightful)
Self-Driving Cars to the Rescue (Score:2, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:3)
Poe's law, in the e-flesh. Well played, sir.
The empty bucket makes the most noise (Score:5, Insightful)
Facebook vs. straight email vs. hobby web boards (Score:2)
It was possible but less practical. Say someone switches to another ISP and loses access to his or her old email. Using email directly puts the burden of continuing to stay in touch after the change on the other participants. Using a web board allows each user to update his or her own authentication. And Facebook is somewhat less likely than hobbyist-run web boards to remain in operation as opposed to shutting down due to lack of money or interest.
"Anonymity overrated" (Score:5, Interesting)
"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...
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
You claim HS isn't basically tribal and dominated by the large dumb groups (like social media)?
Re: (Score:2)
HS was very much a popularity contest. Everybody got a vote, the the stupid majority ran the place. The last place they ran (before facebook).
Now they just bitch about minimum wage being too low, everybody ignores them.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:"Anonymity overrated" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
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
Two sides of the same coin (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re:"Anonymity overrated" (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Then again, since one cannot always read everyone's opinion, pre-filtering based on prior knowledge of the author seems like a very pragmatic approach.
culture develops slowly (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
"On the internet, nobody can hear you being subtle (Score:3, Funny)
Re:"On the internet, nobody can hear you being sub (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
News Groups and IRC (Score:4, Insightful)
were no different than current social media.
No its the people (Score:2)
Social Media (Score:2)
Stay away.
Stay far away.
Stay very very far away!
SJW's make anonymity necessary (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Nothing technical? (Score:2)
Not the way browsers treat plaintext HTTP vs. self-signed HTTPS, not the DNS or BGP security clusterfucks, not the CA system, nothing? Really?
He's right you know (Score:2)
Spot On! (Score:3)
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.
Spot on (Score:2)
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
2+2=5 (Score:3)
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.
Agreed. Social media is cancer (Score:2)
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.
Torvalds is the cure (Score:2)
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.
Re:Bad behaviour, like his own? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think Linus would disagree that he's often an utter prick either. In most cases I think he fully intends to be.
Re:Bad behaviour, like his own? (Score:4, Informative)
Many flavors of social media are not broadcast to the world. Some do.
Not advocating it, but ultimately Facebook allows you to choose who your message reaches.
One of my more favorite social networks is /. And it is one of those that is broadcast to the world.
Re: (Score:2)
Linus underestimates the psychological damage you do to yourself when posting with your name. Facebook exploits this human trait like sugar industry exploits our being wired to get as much historically rare carbs as possible.
Re:Bad behaviour, like his own? (Score:4, Interesting)
Linus underestimates the psychological damage you do to yourself when posting with your name. Facebook exploits this human trait like sugar industry exploits our being wired to get as much historically rare carbs as possible.
This is a most insightful comment. Social media is looking more and more like a shared psychosis. Even a cursory study of the reward related dopamine responses in the brain with respect to UI behavior reveals what FB is doing to make people addicted.
In time I suspect that social media will be recognized as toxic as smoking.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, you could argue there's some better tool for an ong
Re: (Score:2)
WTF?
Linus is known for rudely telling off people that needed to go away and stop bothering him. Like a 'gentleman', he is never rude by accident. He doesn't start there, just ends there.
Re: (Score:2)
Go away and stop bothering me, you snotty nosed malodorous pervert.
Re: (Score:3)
It's trivial to not use a real name on Facebook, and I assume it's true elsewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
You do know that YouTube's algorithm actually allows people to sink channels they don't like? All that (quite a few, but still, if you piss off enough people...) people have to do is go there, downvote it and flag every video in the "related" list that belongs to you as "not interested".
And unlike them flagging it for improper content, you can't even report it. Hell, you don't even notice it. At least 'til YouTube no longer recommends your videos to people because enough people flagged your videos as "not i
Re:Advice (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Requiring someone to know at least three programming languages by the end of high school is a particularly idiotic form of gate keeping because it ensures that everyone who 'passes' has wasted their time learning the syntax for various languages rather than actually learning how to program in those languages.
2) Nobody has ever said "must know three programming languages" is sexist and nobody would. That's entirely in your imagination.
3) Nobody has claimed college is faster than self-training. It is, however, more thorough and forces you to study subjects you would otherwise skip and forces you to follow through with projects rather than abandoning them. The breadth of knowledge and discipline that you have to develop to get the degree is what people value about college over self-training.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd have to say "Pascal and BASIC" and you'd have to say, "Get the hell out of my office, Grandpa!"
Re: (Score:2)
Ohh! What wouldn't I have given to have Pascal! I sometimes would hang awake at night dreaming of a practical language.
BASIC and Assembly (in DOS's Debug). I didn't get access to a compiler until I got to Uni.
I guess I'm too old for HornWumpus. He'd rather have the kids that know 10 languages and make a chat program that takes up 500MB.
Re: (Score:2)
haha yep I'm a whippersnapper.
Although, to be fair I made a TCP/IP server in Python in a couple of hours with a bit of time on stack exchange.
Couldn't do that in Pascal. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you didn't learn 6502 assembler, you are lame.
Re: (Score:2)
Drinkypoo. You need to get out more. 24x7 /. trolling is making you even _more_ stupid and insane.
Re: (Score:2)
Everybody's happy!
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you would know a good programmer if you met one.
I don't think you _are_ a good programmer. 99% of non-coders can't tell the diff.
Re: (Score:2)
Translated to remove ego: You're such a shitty coder, the only jobs you can get are 'pissing on fires' for organizations that build broken shit.
Re: (Score:2)
And it's bullshit.
CS isn't BA. You can't just cram it into your head, add a lobotomy and you'll excel in the field. Provided you're a psychopath. When trying to write code, at least if you don't want to be a copy/pasting cargo cult programmer, you first of all have to understand what you're doing. And this is something you will not be taught in any school. Because that's not what our tests test. What's tested is whether you managed to soak up the curriculum and barf it onto the test before forgetting it aga
Re: (Score:2)
What you know at the end of high school doesn't matter. That's unnecessary gatekeeping.
What matters is what you are willing to teach yourself when you have the opportunity.
Someone with the potential who develops interest later--or who just didn't have the time/resources early on--is just as capable if they do it later. If that happens to be in college when they decide to "go into computers" without knowing what that entails, then so what? As long as we're advising them up front that this is a self-teachi
Re: (Score:2)
Should Julliard also accept students that will go on to 'develop interest later' or should they continue to only accept people that play instruments?
Computers are everywhere today. Sure the 'coder market' in 1970 was different.
Face the fact: You learned much quicker when you were younger, everybody does.
Re: (Score:2)
Spoken like a true "Anonymous Coward"... ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Your opinion has no value even if it does have your real identity attached.
The content of an that opinion, however. . .
Re: Fuck off Linus (Score:5, Insightful)
Congratulations on proving Linus Torvalds correct.
Re: (Score:2)
I think what he is trying to say is that anonymity means you can be careless with your message and generally not give a crap about accuracy or who you piss off. As it can't be traced back to you, you have no skin in the game.
Being held accountable in your opinions means that you are much more careful in phrasing your opinion. You have to ensure that your point of view is interpreted correctly, otherwise there are consequences. This - I believe - gives rise to more reasoned debate and a better signal to nois