[eitland]

> As an example, HN could start requiring users to link their LinkedIn accounts. Every comment could show the user's current employer (if it's a major one) without revealing the user's real name.

I downvoted you. If it makes you happy, know that this downvote is completely organic.

I'm just annoyed by someone suggesting that we remove one of the real advantages of HN: availability of real pseudonymity.

Edit: I also sometimes vote in the same direction as supposed voting rings and I am starting to see Dans frustration with all these accusations.

I have been here for more than 10 years and I have started to get a feeling for some of the weird voting patterns here now. It has even gone so far that I am joking that I want do go to university to hopefully do a study of group dynamics in online communities :-)

[staunch]

I get the impulse. But think it through. There is no real possibility that the claim I made is actually false. Of course not every Google employee upvotes Google submissions and not every upvote is from a Google employee. But the influence is clearly large enough to have a huge amount of undue influence.

And how is:

1 point by starfox9833 (Google) 22 minutes ago

not pseudoanonymous? Google has 100k employees.

HN already has email addresses for many (most?) users and could easily map most of those to LinkedIn accounts one way or another. It also knows the IP addresses of users, which are often coming from FAANG corporate networks (at least pre-Covid).

It might cost some amount of theoretical privacy but gain us a huge amount freedom from the dominance of a few major organizations.

[eitland]

You are right that it would still be pseudonymous. Some problems:

1. LinkedIn is probably easy to game to create fake accounts.

2. HN already has email addresses for many (most?) users and could easily map most of those to LinkedIn accounts one way or another.

One of the really great things about HN is that they've been trustworthy (AFAIK). Unlike a good number of other sites they haven't done all the things they could do.

3. The more you do to identify users the lower concentration of really high quality users one get it seems. As newspapers decided on Facebook comments the only one that would show up to comment were:

- those who didn't realize or didn't care about the privacy implications

- those who just had to anyway because they felt so strongly about the topic

- trolls with faked Facebook accounts

[staunch]

I don't think it's that easy to game LinkedIn accounts. Faking the account age and number of connections is non-trivial, for example.

I don't think it would limit the high quality participation, at least not by very much, and that could be mitigated. Maybe users that do not link their accounts could still comment but not vote?

There would definitely be some trade-offs but the current wholesale domination of corporations on HN is a huge trade-off in one direction as well. It seems a very high price to pay IMHO.

[eanzenberg]

Yo but what about privacy and freedom of expression bruh.