[...] on 10 Apr 2007 at 11:07 pm   Raph’s Website [...]

[...] died over there in mmo related incidents…. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4183340.stm http://www.raphkoster.com/2007/04/10…-or-libertine/ Having to play more because of grinds is just bad game design. Also considering this game is for [...]

[...] China’s MMO Time Limits and Identity RegistrationRaph Koster blogged about China’s new time limits on MMOs. Games will be required to give declining XP rates for playing for over 3 hours a day, if you’re under 18 years of age; and after 5 hours, no advancement at all. His focus is on the issue of anonymity, and the impact of requiring gamers to register with real names and identity cards. [...]

But I think you also are idealizing those small communities — and let’s not kid ourselves that there isn’t a ton of privacy in even those, compared to what the future is going to bring. Already in countries like the UK, there are literally dozens of surveillance cameras on a person standing in the street.

I think there’s a distinction between anonymity and privacy, though. The ability to have some level of privacy is almost undeniably a necessary quality of a healthy society. However, that kind of necessary privacy doesn’t typically involve interaction with other people outside of that sphere of privacy. Sure, I should absolutely be able to read whatever books I want without a soul knowing about it. What business is it of my neighbor’s, or the government’s?

But anonymity (and internet anonymity in particular) isn’t really about that. It’s about being able to interact freely with anyone you choose, saying whatever you want, without anyone being able to attribute those statements or actions to you (or any permanent entity). That’s not a normal state of affairs. Nobody had that ability in the past except in very limited forms, and I don’t think a healthy society can function that way. There have to be social consequences for a person’s public actions in order for them to develop into healthy social beings.

Now, you’re right that it is scary that it will be (and already is to some extent) difficult to speak with any form of anonymity in dire circumstances where it is vital to keep your identity secret in order to stay alive or avoid prison. Unfortunately, though, I think this is just a reality we have to deal with that comes from the development of technology. I’m obviously not saying we shouldn’t legislate against invasion of privacy issues and such (and again, I think there is a distinction between cameras in houses and public speaking being anonymous by default), but the fact is that we are nearing a time when “omniscient” rulers are always going to be a threat, and it’s just something we have to accept as a danger. We don’t have to throw out all hope of a healthy “online” society out of fear of this danger, however.

A poster above commented that they thought it would be a shame to lose internet anonymity over a gut reaction to some over-publicized event, and I agree. The reason to give up anonymity has nothing to do with discrete, dramatic events. It has to do with looking at online society and wondering if, as a whole, it is functioning as a healthy society.

[...] offers an insightful discussion ("Paternalistic or Libertine"), focusing on freedom vs. the issue of anonymity.  Steven Davis frames his viewpoint [...]

[...] documented on Raph Koster’s blog, China has implemented Blizzard’s first pass at the idea. Players under 18 get an experience [...]

[...] Raph points out that the Chinese limits on game play time go into effect this week. None of this matters much in China, needless to say, where the government is already firmly on the paternalistic side. But the fact is that the more we vigorously defend libertine behavior as exemplars of the sorts of freedoms we want in virtual spaces, the less likely we are to get said freedoms in today’s climate. It’s a lot harder to make the case for freedom of expression and anonymity in the wake of its use for death threats, it’s a lot harder to make the case of freedom to create unregulated virtual currencies when they are used for gambling, and it’s a lot harder to argue for unverified identities when it’s used to simulate pedophilia. [...]

[...] Raph Koster’ blog: Paternalistic or Libertine? [...]