人肉搜尋=無名網民的暴力?

大陸和香港的人肉搜尋基本上是無名網民的暴力行為。因為網民認為自己的行為是”無名”(anonymous)的,所以網民便可以不理後果地攻擊別人,用上各種的”語言暴力”(verbal violence)。如果主角是位女性,往往便會加上些”語言性暴力”、”語言性攻擊”,非常可怕。

看到”趙燕平“及其他的例子,証實到這種”無名網民的暴力”正在慢慢擴散。不幸的是大陸和香港沒有一些有能力和有見地的網民或IT 人出來説句有領導性的説話。

因為大陸和香港其本上是“群蟲無首”,我想情況只有越變越壞。我絕對不想見到香港也變成像大陸或南韓一樣,上網要登記身份,全無私隱。

我絕對不想因為要減少”人肉搜尋”引發的無名網民暴力,而令到香港網上”無私隱”。因為”無私隱”之後,”言論自由”亦可能不保。想當年因為167萬,而令到第一次人大釋法,大錯才會發生。

*******

附筆: 其實香港的網民認為自己的行為是“無名”(anonymous)”,實際上很多人根本沒有足夠電腦知識同時間令自己真正”無名”。

提到”無名”,我識得一位朋友,他當年的公司曾經為美國CIA提供”無名”服務,呢位朋友連Diffie都識,攪到連我都要寫個服字比呢位朋友。

*******

Oct 9th update: “China’s new real-name requirement: another global trend

18 Responses to 人肉搜尋=無名網民的暴力?

  1. hevangel says:

    起底是把真實資料公開﹐所知大慨和CV上寫差不多﹐何暴力有之﹖
    至於所謂網上“言語暴力”﹐同現實中給人X﹐又有什麼分別﹖
    為什麼當面X人最多是冇禮貌﹐網上X人罵人就變成“言語暴力”。

    “言語暴力”不過是弱小心靈的避風港。心靈質素高的人﹐冷眼橫看千夫指﹐那些網上小白不過是制造嘈音吧。

  2. kempton says:

    hevangel,

    “起底是把真實資料公開”=”所知大慨和CV上寫差不多”?起底是將人最私人的東西也考查出來。他人的生活照、泳照、去過那裡遊玩,這些事都是私人事,唔關你同我事!

    “至於所謂網上“言語暴力”﹐同現實中給人X﹐又有什麼分別﹖” hevangel, 分別係面對面只係一兩個人同過咗一日半日就過咗氣,而網上有幾百幾千人一起攻擊一個人,重有D攪到上報紙,影響深遠好多。

    ““言語暴力”不過是弱小心靈的避風港。”當你的朋友同太太D泳照同其他私人的事比人起底時,我唔知你會點唸?

    hevangel,請原諒我的直率,有時你”簡單”和”表面”的分析真是令我哭笑不得。 你叫做比大陸和香港的”人肉搜尋電車男”讀得書多幾皮。唉,但係你的睇法和分析同D”香港電車男”其本上冇物分別。看了令我有點覺得傷心和可悲。

  3. hevangel says:

    不﹐你弄錯了。我是徹底反對人有privacy這個idea。我的thesis是transparent society﹐不過理論還未完善。早前才在獨媒和陳巧文討論藝人秘密結婚的問題。

    在人不應該有privacy﹐每個人也可以知道每個人的所有公開資料的議題上。我只是還未解決到information asymmetry這個問題。

    就算全世界知道你去過瑞士玩﹐去過淺水灣﹐游水so what?對你又有何實質傷害﹖為什麼給人知道些根本無關痛癢的事﹐就會感覺受到傷害。

  4. kempton says:

    hevangel,

    “我是徹底反對人有privacy這個idea。”唉,你自己有冇實行你呢個idea,將自己包括家人的私隱公開呢?定係你係得個講字?

  5. hevangel says:

    都話未解決information asymmetry這個問題囉。我在明人在暗﹐我咪好蝕底。不過如果全部人都在明呢﹖

    我倒不介意用自己的information去換其他人的information﹐可以減低交易費用﹐尤其是全部人都一定要咁做的時候。舉個例子﹐你請人唔洗估估下﹐可以回顧他一生﹐看看他是否適合你的工作。

  6. kempton says:

    唔駛”information asymmetry”複雜。人人都應該有自由,你唔可以將你的”獨特”/”奇怪”想法強加上別人身上。北大人獨裁的想法都不是要風得風,更何況是平民一個的”獨特”想法呢?

    A world without privacy will be a terrible world. It is unfortunate that you don’t quite see it that way.

  7. hevangel says:

    The French revolution also started as an straight idea. Man should have freedom, does not imply man should have privacy because privacy does not necessarily equals to freedom.

    Tell me how terrible a transparent world can be if the implementation problem is solved? There are lots of sci-fi write about this possible future, portrait it as a more advance alien civilization.

  8. kempton says:

    I guess you still don’t understand why some people may think different from you and want to have privacy. It is rather simple if you simply think about it.

    In your world, you need almost EVERYONE to be transparent. And a theory or idea that need that kind of total change is a bit silly, to put it politely.

  9. Haricot says:

    >> … 不過如果全部人都在明呢﹖

    Theory always sounds great in an IDEAL world in which everything and everyone works under the same set of rules or assumptions. Unfortunately, anyone who has gone thru wars and chaos will attest to the reality that, among other things:

    * humans can be cruel to each other
    * man-made rules and assumptions are changed all the time (why? Because they are man-made)

    Here are some cases in point:

    * Mandatory Star of David labels on Jews by the Nazis (very transparent indeed) during the Holocaust
    * Rwanda genocide (people were labelled by race and killed)
    * 中國近史: “白色恐怖”「寧可錯殺一百,不可錯放一人」(attributed to 蔣介石’s indiscriminate killing of suspects labelled as “communists” – another reason why you should be nice to your neighbours)
    * 中國近史: “百花齊放,百家爭鳴”「引蛇出洞陽謀論」(attributed to the Hundred Flowers Campaign in which people were encouraged to identify themselves and speak freely, but once labelled, they were later prosecuted.” 『讓大家鳴放,有人說是陰謀,我們說,這是陽謀。因為事先告訴了敵人:牛鬼蛇神只有讓它們出籠,才好殲滅他們,毒草只有讓它們出土,才便於鋤掉。』)
    * Recent USA history: “McCarthyism” Senator Joseph McCarthy’s campaign against those labelled as suspected communists and/or sympathizers (Be nice to your American neighbours)
    * Civil Right activists in the US were, and still are, stalked and murdered by extremists holding opposing views.
    * 人肉搜索 as a hi-tech version of the tribal practice of mob-trial and public stoning, made popular by many Chinese bloggers.

    So, tell me more good reasons why I should disclose to everyone and anyone my birthdate, gender, religion, race, beliefs, political affiliations, where I live, place of work, phone numbers, etc, PLUS personal information of my family members and friends (in case someone wants to know my children’s names and the schools they are attending).

    If you still believe there is no harm “IF” 100% of the population is doing it (如果全部人都在明), then I have some nice prime swampland in Florida to sell you.

    • kempton says:

      Haricot,

      Thanks for your detailed and insightful reply to Horace. I hope you had some fun in researching & writing your comment.

  10. hevangel says:

    Any ground breaking idea sounds silly at first. If we limit ourselves to think inside of the box, the world will never improve. (Think democracy, think modern capitalism, think green revolution, think communism. Ok the last one is a failed experiment, but still worth mentioning)

    Yeah, people who have something to hide want to have privacy. The question is why people need to hide something and why they are allow to hide them?

    I understand some people think different, but the question is are they wrong? 100% of the population thinks the Earth is flat a few hundred years ago, are they right?

    • kempton says:

      Horace,

       唉, I kinda figured you won’t concede to Haricot’s reasoning. And then I saw your comment. 唉 … It is rather pointless to keep this going.

  11. hevangel says:

    Haricot,

    Your list of information is not complete. The key piece is the complete history of GPS location of everyone

    How about this, if you disclosure your information in exchange you can know all information about every single person within 50m radius of your kid at any time?

    Feed the information to some powerful AI agent, you can identify any potential danger your kid may face and warn him at once. Don’t you want to know whether the new school janitor is a sexual criminal or not? Or the private tutor you hire has any record of going to “hourly hotel” with underage girl?

  12. kempton says:

    Horace,

    Why don’t you spend some time addressing the various issues laid out by Haricot’s comments first?

    Do you find it easier to skip the issues you are unable to address and then simply start another discussion (in this case, another flawed idea) that will take someone else more time to address and explain to you, which you will dutifully ignore and disregard?

    唉 …

    P.S. Discussions are usually good but they have to lead to growth. We have to allow ourselves to be changed from these discussions for us to grow.

    It is less doing with who is “winning” or “losing” an argument or discussion but more with: Are we learning something new or seeing something interesting or thoughtful?

  13. hevangel says:

    Haricot’s problem layout all rooted from information asymmetric. The powerful or the hater still in the dark, so those who are labeled are in disadvantage.

    If everyone is 100% transparent, there indeed no harm can be done because there is a balance of power, you can preemptive strike closing danger and the deterrent effect make everyone behaves.

    • kempton says:

      Horace,

      There is more to life than simply “information asymmetry”. What about “power asymmetry”, in simple terms, you have a state (the Chinese government, the Iranian government, the Sudan government take your pick) against individual citizens.

      If you were not appearing to be highly educated, I wouldn’t be as puzzled. To be blunt, your assessment is simplistic and naive at times.

      We live in a world where there have quite a few sides and many things to consider in an issue.

  14. hevangel says:

    knowledge is power. information can translate into power and vice verse.

    • kempton says:

      Horace,

      Catch phrases are not always right all the time.

      Knowledge is power but it can also be horrible power. Look at Germany in second world war, look at China now. Both are examples. The “ideal world” you try to imagine doesn’t exist and, even worst, the theoretical basis are unsound.

      Just so we can discuss other postings, I have closed the comments on this post.

      Horace, lets move on to another discussion. I really have enough on this one.

%d bloggers like this: