cheat-master30
25th August 2009, 10:30 PM
Seriously, I see this all the time from people who apparently write 'intelligent blog articles' and such like, and from people who seem to have this hilarious deluded belief that making everyone use their 'real' name will lead to people being held accountable for their actions.
But what's the real difference between a username and real name, identification wise? Sure, if you gave a DNA, blood and fingerprint sample, name, photograph and voice recording you'd possibly be able to be held completely accountable and identified to the point, but let's be honest, a real name is pretty much useless as some way to track down anyone or to act as if it suddenly makes them more honest. Not really. Most real names are damn well common. Bob Smith or Jane Doe for an example is not going to be any more effective in holding someone accountable (or even tying it to a real world identity) than 'Videogamer1' or 'Mario'. People caring less about what they say? Not really, I say the exact same things online as I would offline. And really, do you honestly think it's easier to track down a generic real name than a more specific username? If you use your real name... it can lead to fifty million results, three quarters completely irrelevant when typed into a search engine, or just if you attempt to trace it. Millions are called say, Bob Smith, and searching that name to find some address would get you a lot of irrelevant information. However, a username is often more specific than a real name. One minor hint to personal information, or the user owning a website with a domain name could lead to them being found and be able to be held more accountable, even more so than any real name ever would.
Heck part of me thinks personally that someone with a generic name (or some bored person using either the name of a spam bot or 'Google Spider') is probably more difficult to hold accountable than a normal guy using their real name. Opinion?
But what's the real difference between a username and real name, identification wise? Sure, if you gave a DNA, blood and fingerprint sample, name, photograph and voice recording you'd possibly be able to be held completely accountable and identified to the point, but let's be honest, a real name is pretty much useless as some way to track down anyone or to act as if it suddenly makes them more honest. Not really. Most real names are damn well common. Bob Smith or Jane Doe for an example is not going to be any more effective in holding someone accountable (or even tying it to a real world identity) than 'Videogamer1' or 'Mario'. People caring less about what they say? Not really, I say the exact same things online as I would offline. And really, do you honestly think it's easier to track down a generic real name than a more specific username? If you use your real name... it can lead to fifty million results, three quarters completely irrelevant when typed into a search engine, or just if you attempt to trace it. Millions are called say, Bob Smith, and searching that name to find some address would get you a lot of irrelevant information. However, a username is often more specific than a real name. One minor hint to personal information, or the user owning a website with a domain name could lead to them being found and be able to be held more accountable, even more so than any real name ever would.
Heck part of me thinks personally that someone with a generic name (or some bored person using either the name of a spam bot or 'Google Spider') is probably more difficult to hold accountable than a normal guy using their real name. Opinion?