Help, I'm on the IRS hit list - <AUTHOR> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/help-im-on-the-irs-hit-list/article2171697/ <comment><USER2> This issue periodically makes the rounds in expatriate communities, and I think panicked blog posts outnumber actual enforcement actions by about 10,000 to 1. Anecdotally, _most_ Americans living abroad are probably non-compliant on this one. They're not going to suddenly decide to break the kneecaps of a couple million people, for the same reason that they don't audit every $50k per year small business' office expenses every single year. They'd end up hated and not meaningfully boost revenue.

All bets are off if you have signatory authority on a $30 million dollar account in the Caymans and have forgotten to report interest for the last 10 years running.

P.S. Orthogonal to the disclosure of accounts issue but worth mentioning since folks often commingle them: If you're an American living abroad, you should file your taxes every year whether you think you need to or not. Same for Americans in the US, by the way. The statute of limitations on unfiled taxes is essentially infinite, but the window to audit a return is only six years, so if you just file a 1040 with a zero on it every year and 20 years from now the IRS decides to get frisky, you're covered for all but the last 6 years automatically.

<comment><USER3> This op-ed, written for a major Canadian publication, relates the story of 2 people, and also mentions that the Finance Minister has been moved to start writing to U.S. newspapers over the issue. So, I am extremely skeptical of your 10,000-to-1 estimate on the matter.

It would make sense for the IRS right now to follow the RIAA's playbook -- send out a lot of letters and see who bites.

It would also be irresponsible in every way to realize that you're part of such a list and yet still ignore it because you don't expect the IRS to actually ever do anything about it. I've got extended family that uses that approach to life, and it bites them in the ass all the time.

\--

On a personal level, I've noticed that you seem to be the antithesis of an alarmist, whatever that is. When another round of "PayPal screwed me!" posts and articles comes around, you seem to show up with at least one or two comments along the lines of, "Hey, I use PayPal, it's never been a problem for me, it shouldn't be a problem for you either"; shortly after the Fukushima incident, you leveraged your intimate knowledge of Japanese culture to powerfully downplay the seriousness of the matter, except that it turned out that you were wrong, and the facilities did have problems before the incident, and it did turn into a serious disaster. I didn't notice any comments from you once that news started coming 'round.

So, all this is just to say that I think you have a different approach in your thinking than a lot of people in matters like this. Whereas a lot of people try to anticipate problems and minimize their future impact, you seem comfortable with waiting to see if they actually become problems and then dealing with them at that point. And, there's nothing necessarily wrong with that, but it does mean that your opinion on things like IRS penalties may not be to everyone's benefit.

<comment><USER4> I hate to be "guy sticking up for Patrick all the time" (it's a consequence of the way I read HN these days; see profile), but: I disagree with him on lots of things, and it's when we disagree that I appreciate his presence on HN the most. In fact, the most sickening comments on this site tend to be from people who _share_ my general worldview.

We should hope to have 100 people who share Patrick's habit of moderating HN's Internet-bred tendency towards hyperventilation.

I'd also like to point out that you focused on just one aspect of his comment, diverting attention from the actual practical information he conveyed.

I worked out of Calgary for a couple years; I just got an accountant to deal with all the tax stuff. That works too.

<comment><USER3> Of course. I put extra time into writing that comment to minimize the chances that it would come across as rude or impolitic. Clearly I should have spent a little more time on it.

Look, I'm a pretty mercurial dude, and I know that, so I appreciate in general people that can take a little of the huff and puff out of situations. I appreciate patio11 specifically because he's a valuable member of HN, who contributes often, and can be considered an expert on a variety of topics.

That said, he -- like everyone here -- isn't above criticism. I wouldn't have even bothered to comment except that his comment was the top in the thread, and based on my experiences, ignoring stuff like this because it probably won't actually matter isn't a good idea -- even if it's true.

I find it distasteful that I've had to defend myself on this. This will be my last comment on this matter.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I've filed my FBAR's (my wife calls them f(u)bars, I can't argue). Unfortunately, the rules for money abroad fill books. If you're an American with money abroad, you're probably unknowingly violating a list of federal laws as long as your arm.

Many contires have reciprocal tax agreements with the US so that income taxed by your host nation isn't taxed again by the IRS. It may just be a matter of paperwork for the authors of this blog to demonstrate that they've been paying Canadian taxes.

It is _very_ difficult to stop being an American and getting harder all the time. Its like a giant invisible curtain... (like its made of iron or something, heh) Not to keep you from leaving, but to make sure your money can't.

<comment><USER6> > It is very difficult to stop being an American and getting harder all the > time.

We could make it like Denmark does: Danish citizens born abroad have 4 years, between the age of 18 and 22, to elect to keep the Danish citizenship, which requires renouncing any other citizenships they might possess at that time (no dual citizenship). If they _don't_ wish to be a Danish citizen, they simply don't make such an election, and it automatically expires at age 22.

That'd be reasonable to me--- let U.S. citizenship to those born abroad expire automatically at age 22 unless they actively elect to keep it, so people who've never lived in the U.S. and don't wish to have the citizenship aren't saddled with it.

But imo it should have a deadline like that, so people actually decide if they want to be a U.S. citizen or not, with the rights and responsibilities that entails, not try to play both sides until it's financially advantageous to pick one.

<comment><USER7> _Danish citizens born abroad have 4 years, between the age of 18 and 22, to elect to keep the Danish citizenship, which requires renouncing any other citizenships they might possess at that time (no dual citizenship). If they don't wish to be a Danish citizen, they simply don't make such an election, and it automatically expires at age 22._

Is that true even if they don't have dual citizenship (i.e. are they still required in that case to explicitly elect to keep their Danish citizenship between the ages of 18 and 22)?

<comment><USER6> It appears not; one of the exceptions to the loss of citizenship at 22 is "If loss of Danish nationality will make the child stateless".

If I read it correctly, that's required under the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1961_Convention_on_the_Reductio...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1961_Convention_on_the_Reduction_of_Statelessness)), which Denmark's signed, and which commits a state to "grant its nationality to a person, not born in its territory, if either parent had that State's nationality and the person would be otherwise stateless". But in any case it's also part of Danish domestic law.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I've been watching this story develop over the last few years, and while I think that the current impact is overblown, I don't think that reduces the importance or the future impact of the story at all.

The way this story gets spun is that the law is for big tax dodgers and the IRS has better things to do than pursue the little guys. I think that's a bit of misdirection. The problem is that, as far as I can tell, every ex-pat is guilty of something and that the U.S can come take large amounts of money from them. It's just a matter of whether they want to or not. It's usually said that the amount of money is just too low and the politics of abusing so many people abroad are idiotic.

After 9-11, that doesn't wash with me any more. If citizens living in the states are subject to draconian security measures and it doesn't much seem to matter what sorts of protests there are then it's only going to be worse for people who are more out-of-sight. People in the states can easily be made to feel like every ex-pat with a dual citizenship has something to hide. If you can treat folks who live here like they do, folks living overseas are nothing but a bunch of numbers. Worse yet, we'll see monetary laws made for terrorism being brought to bear in the process.

Which leads me to my conclusion that the only thing slowing down the IRS is data processing. They're plugging more and more into the international banking community and will begin automating collection and processing on all of these opportunities. I understand my opinion is just guesswork, but there it is.

I think you have two choices. Either collection is a political activity, in which case you're saying that your wealth and freedom is basically dependent on political connections, the optics of the processing, and the mood of the IRS -- a terrible situation to be in. Or you're saying that collection is owed and it simply costs too much to pursue, which I believe to be the case. If this is true, collection is only a matter of time.

I'd love to see a U.S. politician stand up for ex-pats, but I don't think it's going to happen anytime soon.

P.S. And don't even get me started on the fact that if you're a corporation you are allowed to make money overseas and keep it overseas without paying US taxes, but if you are a regular citizen any money you make could be subject to US taxation on top of local taxation.

<comment><USER8> Stand up for ex-pats how, exactly? They owe taxes, that's all.

<comment><USER9> You don't understand the issue. The IRS is going after people who owe nothing in taxes but haven't filed. Some are senior citizens and may be totally unaware that they were supposed to file. The US gov't is bankrupt and desperate for money and they don't care who's lives they ruin. They're trying to squeeze as much money out of anyone they can lay their hands on.

<comment><USER9> @Hyena No, you don't. Which is clearly apparent based on your previous comment, which was incorrect. Calling my statement hysterical isn't an argument either. Claiming that you do understand doesn't make your statement any less incorrect.

<comment><USER10> [Psst, you can reply to deeply nested comments if you click "link" first. Note that there is a reason for the "flamewar timeout", though.]

<comment><USER9> Thanks for the Pro-Tip! Now I know. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Let's be clear about this.

The U.S., alone among the multitudinous nations of the world, asserts that people who live and work outside of the U.S. and have no financial connection to it should pay taxes to it.

These include people who have never set foot in the United States in their entire lives and have never done anything to interact with the United States in any way whatsoever.

These include people who are not allowed to vote for any U.S. office (don't correct me; you're wrong. Some of the people affected by this are allowed to vote, but not all).

It is the very definition of taxation without representation, which one might have thought would be a foundational principle of the U.S.A.

Every single other nation in the world taxes people on their income earned in that country. The U.S.'s policy is an embarrassment; a clearly unjust, illegitimate law.

There is a bright side. The happy truth is that the U.S. has zero enforcement power outside the country and that this edict can be ignored by anyone who truly does not live or work in the U.S.

<comment><USER12> "These include people who have never set foot in the United States in their entire lives... "

Can you elaborate on that? It sounds a bit incredulous.

<comment> barry-cotter Just US citizens. FYI a person can be credulous, meaning gullible, and a claim can be incredible, meaning hard to believe, but I'm not even sure incredulous is a word.

<comment><USER13> Incredulous is basically the opposite of credulous. It totally is a word, though the grandparent used it incorrectly.

<http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/incredulous>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> If you have worked overseas or are an immigrant or otherwise a reside of the US, you may be unwittingly in violation of this law, and at risk of penalties so extreme that it defies belief.

In some countries your employer is required to open and contribute to a retirement fund similar to a 401(k). In Canada, it's called an RRSP, in Australia, Superannuation. If you have such an account, it's considered a foreign account and subject to FBAR - nevermind that you can no longer contribute to it, or benefit from it until you are at retirement age. In some cases, the law in the foreign country prevents you from closing or withdrawing from this type of account until you are at retirement age.

If you forget to report one of these accounts, or had no idea that you were supposed to report it, you face a $100,000 fine, seizure of the account, and jail time. If you cooperate with the IRS you might "only" lose the account.

This law was designed to target off-shore tax shelters, but the way it was written, the definition of "account" is vague, and the threshold levels so low that it affects millions of people. There is simply no justification for a law this broad and sweeping which such harsh penalties - it's an example of legislative overreach if I ever saw one.

</comment><comment><USER15> I have heard that during the fall of the Roman Empire, the tax collectors were so brutal that Romans living on the outskirts of the empire sometimes welcomed invaders because they were thought to be better than dealing with the Roman Roman tax collectors.

Similar situation now?

<comment><USER16> Not at all.

Roman tax collectors were private contractors who were responsible for paying Caesar his due. Upon winning the bid, the collector would pay Rome in advance, and collect the taxation over a period of time. They had broad powers to ensure that the tax was collected. At the end of the period, the collector received an interest payment from Rome, plus he got to keep anything collected over his bid.

As you can imagine, these tax collectors were rapacious, especially if collections were under quota. Bankruptcy in Rome was not pleasant.

In the modern US situation, you have circumstances where folks are choosing to live overseas as expats, often times taking advantage of dual-citizenship, which is not prohibited by US law. Other countries, like France, require you to choose one nation's citizenship at age 18. Notice the expats aren't whining about collecting both US and foreign benefit payments.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> > Nobody can explain why the IRS has suddenly decided to enforce this law, > which is aimed at money-launderers with offshore bank accounts. I guess the > Americans need the money.

I don't think the law is necessarily aimed at criminals. The law is primarily sold as targeting people who try to avoid or evade taxation by keeping significant wealth and income overseas.

In any case, the reason for renewed vigour in enforcing the law is clear: the federal government is spending record amounts of money and needs to milk every source of income it can.

edit: fix typos

</comment><comment><USER18> It used to be that there were two countries which taxed citizens regardless of residency, USA and Libya. Now I guess there's just one.

<comment><USER19> Unrelated: when the US had its difficult moment recently, someone on my Twitter feed pointed out that "Now all the AAA countries have free universal health care!"

<comment><USER20> Universal healthcare isn't free. Maybe it's not a bad deal, but it costs a _lot_ of money.

<comment><USER6> Well yes, and "free over-the-air TV" isn't free either; it costs quite a bit of money to produce and broadcast. It's free in the sense of no payment at the point of receipt. Same with, say, a "free" library card or county park.

<comment><USER20> Well, broadcast TV is free to the recipient. But most people getting "free" healthcare are also paying for it.

<comment><USER21> Here (Australia) we have one broadcast channel paid for by the government (ie, by taxes). In this case TV is _exactly_ the same as the free healthcare we get (also paid for by taxes).

<comment><USER22> In Canada, healthcare is partially paid for by future taxes.

<comment><USER21> What does that mean exactly? You run a deficit budget?

<comment><USER22> Yep. And the !#!$ers are promising to increase funding to healthcare by 30% in 5 years. Doctors already got a 100% raise last decade in some provinces and one of the biggest cost is physicians.

Meanwhile, the doctor lobby lobbies its ass off to prevent cheaper alternatives like nurse practitioners or the reduction of importance of hospitals for anything but emergencies or weird shit.

<comment><USER21> If the biggest cost is physicians then it appears (as an uninformed spectator) that you have a well-functioning health system.

In many systems the biggest costs are administrative overheads and payments to drug companies.

<comment><USER22> I'm probably only slightly more informed than you since I live here.

However, that's not indicative of a well functioning system. I can't find a nice pie chart for you, but it's about 20% of costs. It is the largest _single_ cost.

And it is kept high by absurd education requirements in many cases. If you read a few healthcare books about the American system, you will probably find similar criticisms. There are so many government sanctioned monopolies in the healthcare system that it's impossible to change it.

In Canada, the healthcare system is basically a non-competitive rationed care system. If you know someone who personally knows the surgeon you need, you will get the care you need. However, if you do not good luck to you. I've had personal experience with this in my family (on the good side, prognosis was a minimum of x months to live without surgery, surgery was scheduled for x + y months(!) and we had to use our considerable network to get the surgery faster.)

But it was free, right?

Trust me when I tell you that the reason people are living longer is not because of the Canadian government's healthcare. In fact, the quality of life of many people is severely diminished because of the cost spiral.

But in general, it works very well for I-impaled-myself-in-my-crotch emergency care.

Edit: I should add that I have physicians in my family and they are very happy with the current system. In particular, compensation. I completely agree with their viewpoint: it's fair pay for the level of education they've had to receive. However, 90% of the work is routine and could be carried out by people who have less education. From my discussions with people in the healthcare system, this would reduce costs dramatically and potentially improve outcomes as well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> The fact that a person who has not lived in the US for 30 years, has been a citizen of a foreign power for 30 years and has never earned a penny in the US nor held directly any US assets must now worry about the long arm of the IRS is ridiculous and unjust. Regardless of whether the law's aims are necessary and just or not.

<comment><USER11> Indeed, there are people who have never set foot in the United States but the U.S. is claiming they owe income taxes on every cent of income they've ever earned.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> It's easier to shake down non-voting overseas residents for money than it is to require GE to pay fair taxes, so ... there you go. Gotta pay for those missiles somehow, after all.

We're #1!

<comment><USER6> Overseas U.S. citizens can vote in federal-level elections, including for Senator/Representative of the location they last lived in the US.

<comment><USER25> This presumes that all overseas citizens ever lived in the US, which isn't the case.

<comment><USER6> Ah, that one's trickier. It looks like, for 19 states, but not the other 31, you can register in the state if your parents would be eligible to register (i.e. because it's either where they currently live, or where they last lived before moving abroad): <http://www.fvap.gov/reference/nvr-res.html>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> > It's taxation without representation.

No it isn't. She still gets to vote in US elections if she wants to. That's WHY they still collect taxes.

I'm not saying it is right, but that is the explanation usually given. Because even though you don't live in the US, you still receive benefits, like protection from the military and other benefits that all US citizens get.

I actually don't think it is entirely unreasonable to tax ex-pats, especially since the first $80K is exempt.

<comment><USER25> That's actually not true. As the son of an American, my parents filed for US citizenship papers for me after my birth in Canada, where I've gone on to live my entire life so far.

I file tax returns with the IRS every year, but I'm not eligible to vote in any federal election, because I haven't lived in any state for more than 6 months, so there's no state's electors to assign my vote to.

For some of us, this quite literally is taxation without representation.

<comment><USER26> Fair enough. I wasn't aware that you had to live in some state for 6 months.

But are you sure you can't get a Federal only vote? I guess that would put you in the same place as DC, who also don't get representatives, which is jacked.

The should let you vote in the state closest to where you live or something. Of course, that would mostly boost the coastal states, wouldn't it. :)

<comment><USER27> There's another quirk of binding up federal, state, and local voting into a single act.

I live and vote in New Jersey (not to mention pay property taxes, etc). I also own a cabin in upstate New York, on which I've got to pay property taxes as well. The thing is, since I am an NJ resident and I vote here, I'm forbidden from voting in New York.

Given the way we structure our voting, this restriction is necessary: I'd be able to get two voices in Washington, otherwise. However, the flip side of it is a situation of "taxation without representation" -- and that's not fair, as Schoolhouse Rock tells us.

<comment><USER26> They could make it work if they wanted to. They would have you designate a "home" address for both federal and state elections, and then let you vote in all local elections for which you are entitled (because you own land). That would be fair.

In fact, I know that as a Berkeley landowner, my in-laws are allowed to vote on the local Berkeley issues, even though they vote on the state and federal stuff at home.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Does anyone know if there's any universally recognised way to cut off all connection to some country? It might be of course impossible if you have citizenship of only that country - but for people with dual citizenships it seems like there should be some way...

IANAL of course, but how is USA saying "you cannot renounce your citizenship" different from another completely unrelated country saying "according to our laws you are our citizen now"? Why is it binding if you do not have and do not want any relation to that place?

<comment><USER17> It's not so much that you cannot renounce your citizenship, but it is severely discouraged. After some high-profile cases of wealthy individual renouncing citizenship, congress passed laws to make sure that if you want to renounce your citizen ship you need to have paid all of your taxes. Additionally, you may need to pay an additional "exit tax" if you have had significant income or have significant wealth.

As far as becoming another country's citizen, that gets to be fairly complex. Some nations recognize dual citizens, others do not. How that exactly works out depends on the particular circumstances. In any case, the U.S. generally likes to keep its citizens within its grasp.

<comment><USER29> I guess what was by suggested by viraptor is the absurdity of the situation. What stops Russia to say that any person born on earth is required to fill in tax returns on their entire worldwide income. You enter Russia without paying taxes? Bam -> jail.

<comment><USER30> They could. And Russia would immediately lose a ton of business. There are no "laws" between countries. Just treaties and agreements. If you don't want to be subject to another countries laws, don't go to that country (or live in a country that enforces other countries laws).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> So the solution is don't be a US citizen. Jesus Christ, what insanity.

<comment><USER31> That doesn't work either, even if you get rid of your american citizenship, they still come after you for the past years.

<comment><USER32> And for 10 years after renouncing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> This is not only affecting the expatriates but also foreign people who work in US temporarily (like in a h1b visa). Most of them were not aware of this rule and now they have to pay 25% of the money they have in bank accounts in their native country.

<comment><USER34> Are you sure? Unless they turn into citizens (say, via green card) why would they have to report? I would think not even green card holders would have to (although looks like they do, according to [http://www.taxesforexpats.com/expat-tax-advice/green- card.ht...](http://www.taxesforexpats.com/expat-tax-advice/green-card.html)). Do you have a reference for your claim?

<comment><USER35> No reference, but I'm a H-1B holder and I file FBARs. I am part of a German Expat forum and the opinion there is pretty cut and dry that H-1Bs have to file. Every year that forum has a big thread to make sure everybody is aware of it. Having my savings confiscated for screwing up FBAR reporting is literally my number one fear I have about living in the USA.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> i for one am in favor of abolishing the IRS completely. i'm convinced a more inefficient and backwards institution does not exist in the US. sadly, though, the best solution i have seen proffered is the fairtax <http://www.fairtax.org/> (which has, sadly, been hitched to the tea-party horse). the fairtax is a consumption tax (basically a sales tax, but stated as inclusive like the current income tax not exclusive like state sales taxes) on any new final goods or services within the US.

a consumption tax, however, is the most regressive form of tax in existence. so to combat that, you do simple math. every citizen receives a something they call a prebate, a check in the mail or direct deposited for the amount in taxes up to the poverty level at the beginning of each month (about $200/month). no individual pays taxes by filling out a form, they only have a yearly form to fill out to receive the prebate. all taxes are collected at the point of sale (used goods are exempt) reducing compliance costs and the incentive to tax dodge. so illegal immigrants pay taxes without getting a prebate. corporations that manufacture within the US but export their goods do not. corporations that import goods do. tourists pay taxes. people who are crazy and live off the grid do not. SS and medicare are not collected separately. investment is not taxed. and it's price and cost neutral (that is, the myriad taxes we pay but don't realize: SS, medicare, income, payroll are already hidden in the price of everything we buy and this just makes it transparent).

as a libertarian that knows markets fail all the time, i believe the policies should be dynamic and robust. that is, use the reduction of the market to make quick and dirty decisions and heavily regulate those areas that are prone to failure (or just prone to negative externalities while promoting the positive externalities). enough with the waffling centrism—certain things need to be as libertarian as possible while others, particularly dealing with OPM (other people's money) and general welfare of individuals need to be as socialist as possible. and i am fairly confident that that will never happen. alas

<comment><USER37> In other words, you would replace the IRS with the PRS (pre-revenue service)? And Main Street with the Back Alley, where you pay no taxes at all? And incentivize export businesses over domestic businesses (b/c exported goods are never taxed)? And over-incentivize capital investment even more grotesquely than it is now with a mild capital gains preference?

There's a reason the Fair Tax was DOA. It's an over-engineered solution that's worse than what we have right now.

<comment><USER36> for tl;dr—this is exactly the type of reaction i expect from those who don't stop to think deeply before punching out a response. there is no real content in your reply, only distraction.

 _In other words, you would replace the IRS with the PRS (pre-revenue service)?_

no, i would abolish the IRS and repeal the whole damned tax code and start over. if PRS is what you would call it, i am partial to <http://www.prsguitars.com/>

_And Main Street with the Back Alley, where you pay no taxes at all?_

used goods would not be taxed since they were already taxed. and back alley deals will always be there—so what. better to keep however many million companies in line than 300 million people plus however many million companies. it lowers the tax burden, which is more efficient, which swamps any extra back alley deals that may take place under a consumption tax than the current labyrinthine code.

 _And incentivize export businesses over domestic businesses (b/c exported goods are never taxed)?_

you do understand that we are a net importer of goods (though far and away a net exporter of ideas)—this means that we consume more goods at home that are not made here than we make and send abroad. i'm no rabid proponent of balanced trade, especially since our ideas are worth far more than a million trinkets from emerging markets, but making our goods more competitive in a global market can foster actual manufacturing jobs (remember those?), especially when the cost of labor in the east starts to be less of an advantage for those countries.

nevermind that we have an economy that relies mostly on non-exportable services and manufacturing has by and large left our shores, on to the _highly flawed_ rhetorical question to which i _must_ respond: a hypothetical export company has to pay taxes on equipment and supplies to do business, and has to employ people who purchase goods and thus pay taxes, only those items which are non-finished goods are not taxed if exported. most primary and many secondary goods are non-finished goods (think rubber for primary and tires for secondary—the tires on the new vehicle are taxed as part of the whole vehicle, the tires you by at tirerack are taxed when you buy them).

now imagine a global brand that still has manufacturing in the US as well as in other places around the world wants to build a new factory that serves north america. it might build in mexico, where the lower cost of labor offsets the higher cost of shipping and dealing with another imperfect government, then all of the goods it sells to the US (it's biggest customer) will pay taxes to the US and all the goods it sells in mexico and to canada pay NO taxes to the US. now imagine the scenario that the company decides to build here in the US—it pays higher labor costs but can keep a closer eye on manufacturing that makes it worth it. it employs several thousand people, pumping a quarter of a million dollars into the pockets of americans that end up supporting many other ventures that have no relationship to that company. and guess what, it pays NO taxes to the stuff it sells in mexico and canada. which would you prefer? oh, that's right, option 3 where said company never bothers to consider the US because it would pay tons of taxes on those goods sold elsewhere, all the while lobbying to congress for a tax break.

 _And over-incentivize capital investment even more grotesquely than it is now with a mild capital gains preference?_

first, why should anyone ever be taxed for investing in the future?

second, do you understand that in this model, the investment would fund the purchase of goods and services which would employ people and pay taxes—around the world, not just in the US? do you understand that the benefit to the world of more investment is greater than houses of cards sometimes built with that investment? do you know that the fruits of investment has raised the standard of living such that i can type something of a didactic diatribe via a high quality laptop to some stranger that doesn't understand economics.

third, the capital gains is a clusterfuck, like everything else dealing with taxes.

 _There's a reason the Fair Tax was DOA_

tell that to the people who are still supporting it. and if it does eventually become DOA, it'll be because of the beloved lobbyists and special interest groups

 _It's an over-engineered solution that's worse than what we have right now._

to which i can only respond: <http://www.fourmilab.ch/uscode/26usc/www/contents.html> remember, that's just the table of contents.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Just want to point out that you could have reported missing reports of foreign bank accounts under the IRS amnesty disclosure initiative which just ended on august 9, 2011.

This program also covers 5471's, which hit me pretty hard. If you own even a single share in a foreign business AND your parents own shares, those shares are attributable to you in terms of determining if you have a controlling interest in that company. If you have over a certain percentage, you are required to file 5471's.

I just filed over 80 5471s for various companies for tax years since 2003. My tax accountant said that the IRS has been nothing other than 'foaming at the mouth insane' about collecting penalties, and that it is their attitude that any failure to disclose is treated as an attempt to defraud or conceal information from IRS, and that without exception, IRS always levies the maximum penalty possible. So, that would have been 800,000$ penalties for me.

Bear in mind that I already declared to IRS and paid taxed on any and all income earned from these foreign companies.

I can only hope they enjoy perusing my 400+ page filing. Apparently someone has to type it all in. Love to do my part to keep federal employees employed.

<http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=210027,00.html>

<comment><USER38> Sorry, I linked to the 2009 amnesty. The 2011 amnesty program is described here:

<http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=234900,00.html>

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> Here's some advice:

If you are an American citizen, file your tax return.

Easy as that.

<comment><USER40> And, apparently, if you don't know if you're a U.S. citizen, check.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> If you want the protection and support of US embassies and military while abroad then pay your American taxes.

If you don't want to participate in American society renounce your American citizenship to the IRS.

Took about 30 seconds to find the form. <http://www.irs.gov/instructions/i8854/ch01.html> (expatriation 1994 or later)

EDIT:

First, you renounced your citizenship THEN stop paying taxes, obviously. You don't get to stop paying taxes and then renounce your citizenship back in time.

Second, [http://www.businessinsider.com/senior-us-marine-says- multipl...](http://www.businessinsider.com/senior-us-marine-says-multiple- platoons-are-headed-to-egypt-2011-2)

[http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2011/03/ap-us-to- evacua...](http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2011/03/ap-us-to-evacuate- americans-from-japan-031711/)

The US Marines will come get you if you're stranded in a foreign country when shit goes wrong.

<comment><USER42> In a sense, you are correct. They must have known of the option to renounce, yet never took it, no doubt taking advantage of the laws and protections afforded by both countries as it suited them. However, the fact that this has happened now is shocking for many.

<comment><USER43>
      > no doubt taking advantage of the laws and protections
      > afforded by both countries as it suited them.

It's more likely that they just wanted easier passage into the United States for vacationing and/or visiting relatives by using their US passport than their Canadian one.

Also, if you lived in Canada since you were 13 and committed a crime in Canada, I doubt that you would be able to claim that you were immune due to your US citizenship.

On the same token, I've heard that the US enforces its laws overseas if your a US citizen. E.g. if you go to another country to have sex with a child prostitute, you can still be charged with a crime in the US, or so I was told on some message board (want to say slashdot.org) some years ago in a US/foreign discussion.

<comment><USER8> Yep. It is illegal for a US citizen to travel abroad to solicit sex with a child. But I'm not sure the concept is so outrageous; I think most countries illegalize certain behavior overseas, like smuggling, weapons or person trafficking, or corrupting officials.

<comment><USER43> Ok, so this is for _specific_ things. When I came across that proclamation, it was something to the effect of "The US enforces its laws outside its borders, you can't escape US law" with going to Thailand to have sex with kids as the example given. It makes more sense that it's just for specific things.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


The Real Name Fallacy - <AUTHOR> https://blog.coralproject.net/the-real-name-fallacy/ <comment><USER2> The real name discussion is as old as the Usenet, maybe even older. I find it strange to see it re-appearing again and again every few years for almost decades.

Back then, the consensus was roughly:

1\. If a community accepts pseudonyms, it is polite to use either your realname or an obvious pseudonym.

2\. If a community places high value on realnames, either use your realname or a realname-sounding (i.e. non-obvious) pseudonym.

3\. Unmasking someone's nonpublic realname, or other private information, is generally considered impolite if not aggressive, regardless whether the community places high value on realnames or not.

Has anything substantially changed since then?

<comment><USER3> Yes.

People using real names on Usenet did not usually face a serious risk of being harassed and endangered in real life by an army of trolls: E.g. having their address, phone number and other private details stolen and publicly disseminated. Having armed police raid their house because someone has made a bogus 911 call. Having their utilities and back accounts cancelled because someone rang up using their details. Having the same harassment happen to their friends, relatives and colleagues. Etc.

And this is without considering people living in countries with oppressive governments, where using their real name could see them arrested, beaten and imprisoned.

Basically, the stakes are a lot higher for a lot of people. For many, preserving anonymity isn't a matter of "politeness" — it's a matter of personal security. It can literally be a matter of life and death.

<comment><USER4> If you could die using your real name on an internet service, you are much better off not using that service at all, _especially_ if they require that you use your real name.

Use of a particular service or website is not a human right. If your particular situation is such that it's unsafe or you need to violate TOS/regulations/laws by using a service... don't.

<comment><USER5> > If you could die using your real name on an internet service, you are much > better off not using that service at all

Classic. "I'm not at risk, so we need not change anything. Your behavior is therefore at fault."

> Use of a particular service or website is not a human right.

Of course not. Would you say that being able to freely live your life without threat of death (as you most likely already do) should be?

Allow me to extend your conclusion:

\- People harass me at the laundromat because of my appearance, to the point where I fear for my life. "Don't go to that laundromat ever again." OK, I'll now have to go 30 minutes out of my way every time I need to do laundry. And suppose that this other laundromat is no different?

\- People shout threats at me at the grocery store. "Don't go to that grocery store." Or, better yet, maybe I should just perfectly change the color of my skin and facial features to match theirs, so that the problem is solved!

I know you guys are going to hate this, but this attitude is _precisely_ what is meant by "white privilege." Please let me know if I am misunderstanding your attitude, or what you think about this.

<comment><USER4> > _Classic. "I'm not at risk, so we need not change anything. Your behavior is > therefore at fault."_

I'm sure you meant to say "Classic strawman:" because that's not at all what I said, or meant. Please actually respond to what I said and not whatever argument you heard other people make.

I think it's demonstrably true that if using Facebook is an acute risk to your life, you are better off not using. That doesn't mean you're _at fault_ if you use it and someone kills you. But it doesn't mean that Facebook needs to change its real name policy. It means you need to weight the pros and cons of why you want to use Facebook and why using it could get you killed, and whether you're willing to risk that.

> _Would you say that being able to freely live your life without threat of > death (as you most likely already do) should be?_

Yes.

But that doesn't mean that it's a right to do things that could engender threats to your life. A Tutsi has an inalienable right to live in Rwanda without fear of persecution or death. A Tutsi does _not_ have an inalienable right to use Facebook (nor does anyone). If you're a Rwandan Tutsi, and you use Facebook, you should understand the risks. You _should_ be able to use Facebook without fear or persecution or death but it's not a right any more than it's a right to have an email address or drive a particular type of car or eat a certain food on a certain day.

They're separate issues and it's Facebook's decision whether or not they want to require real names. To make that the issue ignores the fact that people are being killed because of their beliefs, or because they're transgender, or whatever the actual problem is.

> _People harass me at the laundromat because of my appearance, to the point > where I fear for my life. "Don't go to that laundromat ever again."_

Well no, my response would be "Call the police." There are a lot of things that could happen from there. If it's actually harassment and the police address it, potentially problem solved. If it's actually harassment and police do nothing, that's a related but separate issue, and yes I would say that not going there again is the smart move. You have a right not to be killed and you have a right to wash your clothes but you don't have a right to wash your clothes in that specific laundromat at that specific time.

If it's not actually harassment then it depends what's actually happening. A group of teenagers pointing at laughing at you is uncomfortable and wrong but probably not harassment. A group of rough looking guys in a bad part of town staring at you will make most people feel uncomfortable but is also not harassment.

> _People shout threats at me at the grocery store. "Don't go to that grocery > store."_

Call the police.

> _this attitude is precisely what is meant by "white privilege."_

I know you are going to hate this, but why is it the first person to bring up race is usually someone saying that something is offensive or privilege? I tend to agree that a certain level of privilege exists in the world and some of it has to do with race but Facebook's real name policy is a piss poor example of it.

<comment><USER6> _Call the police._

Call the _police_? You don't have enough proof, and shouting death threats at people isn't "harassment" anyway, it's just "free speech", so just grow a thicker skin already, and stop encouraging the death threats to be sent to you by being out in public like that!

 _You have a right not to be killed and you have a right to wash your clothes but you don 't have a right to wash your clothes in that specific laundromat at that specific time._

Nice how you seem to have started to realize your logical conclusion was "but you don't have a right to wash your clothes without the threat of being killed", but tried to avoid it.

 _I know you are going to hate this, but why is it the first person to bring up race is usually someone saying that something is offensive or privilege?_

A while back I criticized the "politics" "detox" on HN by saying that there are a lot of people who don't have the luxury of just saying "I'm tired of all this, I'll take a week off from it". They don't have that luxury because they're going to be bombarded with hate, and probably harassment and threats, no matter what they do.

Meanwhile there are a lot of other people who _can_ simply take a week off: they _don 't_ face that constant bombardment, nobody will try to follow them around and keep forcibly exposing them to it, etc. This is what's meant by "privilege"; the people who can treat this as just something tiresome which can be safely ignored for a week are fundamentally living in a different world than the people who will be followed and threatened by it no matter what (because, let's face it, there are dedicated ragemobs out there which don't care if somebody stops reading one site, or going to one laundromat -- they'll track down phone numbers and home addresses and keep coming).

Getting the people who "take a week off" to understand that this is something unique to them as a class, something that others can't just do whenever they want, something that really is a luxury compared to the way others are forced by our society to live, is often very difficult, because when you live in that protected bubble you often are completely unaware of its existence. _You_ don't face that kind of treatment, after all, and you think of yourself as average, so on average that kind of thing must be very rare or perhaps greatly exaggerated. Dragging people out of that bubble and making them confront the fact that no, it's not rare and no, it's not exaggerated (if anything, it's often understated), and yes, there are very clear patterns, based heavily in race and gender, which consistently appear to determine who gets the luxury of the bubble and who doesn't, is very hard, but necessary.

<comment><USER7> I'd say that everybody has a natural right to not fear malicious harm while engaging in any form of everyday commerce or public discourse.

In situations like the hypotheticals described, I would also say that the local authorities have lost their mandate to govern, and that those subject to the adverse conditions are ethically justified in securing their own safety by any means at their disposal, including against those (former) local authorities, if necessary, _while still engaging in everyday commerce and public discourse_. Making everyone stay home to stay safe is not an acceptable option. Living your life is more than just avoiding an untimely death.

You _do_ have the right to do business at a laundromat without the threat of being killed, but it is not the owner of the laundromat that has the ultimate duty to provide the illusion of physical security there. If a state exists, it is the state's duty to make you feel safe anywhere in public, provided that you do not yourself act unlawfully.

No government upholds that duty perfectly, however, so a certain measure of responsibility for one's personal safety will _always_ fall upon the individual. And in order to safeguard the benefits of trade, a certain measure will always fall upon the business owner who wishes to keep their customers (and unpurchased property).

Facebook has chosen, perhaps wrongly, to implement its policies such that it is easier (and cheaper) to hold misbehaving individuals accountable after the fact than to protect innocents from misbehavior before it happens. This is a business decision, and it reveals by its failures that state authorities are not effectively investigating and prosecuting criminal harassment to the extent necessary to make people feel safe, and in the worst cases, it is the state authorities themselves that are harassing identifiable individuals.

<comment><USER8> In fact, in the United States of America, the Supreme Court has ruled _several times_ that police do not have a duty to protect citizens from crimes. For instance: [http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule- pol...](http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do- not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html)

<comment><USER7> Quoting from a cousin post that I wrote:

> _The police aren 't there to protect_ you, specifically. _They are paid to_ > enforce the law, _as directed by their superiors._

Those people who say " _Just call the police._ " have likely never _actually_ called the police (in the US).

<comment><USER8> Yup. Agreed. Wasn't specifically replying to you, but to the "call the police" people.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I think this is probably the key takeaway from the article here:

> Designers need to acknowledge that design cannot solve harassment and other > social problems on its own.

Trying to remove anonymity will not 'fix' trolling and harassment. After all, a lot of people simply don't care what others think of them, know they're too far away to be affected (in most cases) or just have nothing to lose to begin with.

What can 'fix' trolling is evenhanded, firm moderation of a community site. There are tons of forums and wikis and other such sites out there which do well here, because they simply lay out clear rules for participation and ban people for being scumbags and breaking said rules.

Facebook and Twitter struggle with this, partly because it's impractical to manually moderate a site with so many users and partly because their model doesn't really allow it. And maybe in part because they're very clearly inconsistent with who gets banned for saying what (like say, banning more conservative accounts than liberal accounts for trolling). Which itself undermines confidence in the site's rules.

So yeah, the key to an online community without harassment isn't removing anonymity, it's having clear rules in that place and enforcing them equally regardless of a member's status or political views.

<comment><USER10> >Trying to remove anonymity will not 'fix' trolling and harassment. After all, a lot of people simply don't care what others think of them, know they're too far away to be affected (in most cases) or just have nothing to lose to begin with.

While that is true, many times what person A considers to be harassment, the person that is harassing them does not consider it to be harassment at all.

This is not to say the person is not being harassed, although I have seen many examples of people claiming to have been "harassed" but when I view the twitter history for example I do not consider it to be harassment. That said often abusers do not self identify as abusers for example a Wife beater does not believe they are abusing their victim.

>>Facebook and Twitter struggle with this, partly because it's impractical to manually moderate a site with so many users and partly because their model doesn't really allow it.

Facebook and Twitter struggle with this because they refuse to create the clear rules for participation you stated other sites do. They proclaim to be "Free Speech" platforms welcome to "All Ideas and discussion" while creating mushy and lose rules that are highly subjective and makes enforcing those rules problematic.

Where as the sites you describe are normally subject matter sites so it is somewhat easier to define a more ridged rule set.

Facebook, twitter, and to a lesser extent Reddits problem is it impossible to be both a "Free Speech" platform and a censor... These are mutually exclusive concepts

<comment><USER9> Reddit definitely suffers from the free speech and social acceptableness clash. That's in part because the site was founded specifically on the assumption that it would allow freedom of speech, without realising that 'true' freedom of speech is basically 'anything goes if it's legal, social norms and rules be damned'.

It's why they're struggling with communities like The Donald and had a lot of previous issues with the likes of Fat People Hate. Because they realised that their original philosophy doesn't really scale well and puts off more 'moderate' users, yet also realise a large portion of their audience joined on the promise of freedom of speech and go ballistic if things get censored.

<comment><USER10> Reddit suffers because people in general do not believe freedom of speech is a right.

I disliked the Fat People Hate subreddit, you know what I did... I did not visit the Fat People Hate subreddit.

The communities I join and participate in on Reddit are moderated well and do not suffer from the problem, if you do not like what is talked about on The Donald, don't go there, not that hard.

The problem is people do go, get "offended" then complain or raise hell because the mere existence of speech they dislike is what they want to end. This is not Freedom of Speech, but censorship.

Reddits Original model is the correct one, Allow Communities to form on the platform, and if people do not like the content of those communities they can unsubscribe, or avoid them.

<comment><USER9> I agree with you here.

However, Reddit and similar platforms usually can't operate under this logic. Why? Because they need to make money to stay online/keep operating. And unfortunately, that means content that alienates advertisers (like a lot of the more controversial subreddits) ends up actively hurting their revenue stream.

They could try and get round this by monetising in other ways (micropayments, subscriptions, purely donations, etc) or by looking for ad networks with real low standards, but those methods likely wouldn't pay enough to keep them afloat.

It's why in the long run, I suspect the answer to the problem isn't a centralised platform that hosts a lot of different communities, but a system that connects individually hosted communities into a 'network' of sorts with similar features to Reddit.

That way, you can have both controversial and non controversial 'subreddits', with the latter paying their own hosting bills and the former either doing the same thing or getting subsidised hosting by the network owner.

It also shuts down any future attempts at censorship by not giving the company running the service any way to edit what happens on any one community.

<comment><USER10> This is one of the problems with Standards vs Platforms

Usenet vs Reddit

IRC vs Slack/Twitter

etc

I believe the internet is harmed by these Platforms in general and we should go back to Decentralized Standards for communications vs For profit Platforms

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Thing is, if I had to guess, I would say Facebook doesn't attempt to make you use your real name to make the community better in the first place. That's almost certainly just its pretext for everyone who's willing to fall for it. Most likely, it does that to make sure it can identify you globally and uniquely for commercial/advertising purposes. Think about how much more valuable your online identity is if you go solely by Jon Doe rather than by foolover123, bar456fudger, and nighthowler789?

<comment><USER12> I doubt this, since Facebook doesn't seem to care much about fantasy names.

They get most interest data about you from within FB (what pages and posts you like etc.) and from pages across the internet you visit through like buttons embedded there (even without clicking them). So there's a lot of relevant meta data directly linked to your account and no need for them to know your real name.

<comment><USER13> Last time I tried to create an alt account they insisted on a phone number, though.

<comment><USER12> That's more about uniqueness than using your real name.

Spam and fraud accounts are a rather big problem, and this is one way of raising the barrier for creating those. And yeah, Facebook surely has other motivation too, like not having your metadata scattered across multiple accounts.

But I still don't see how knowing your real name would make a strong difference to them. I have quite a few FB friends that use obvious fantasy names (mostly for privacy reasons I think), and they don't seem to be banned or forced to change it.

<comment><USER14> As other people and myself have said elsewhere, they buy information from many personal information brokers, and this data (presumably) wants a real name to be linked. They can't know that fake names are fake in all instances (and have gotten a lot of backlash by trying to do so), but there real name policy would have a real effect on their ability to link offline data to your online profile so they can better sell your eyeballs to advertisers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I think that this overall push towards eliminating anonimity and trolls from the internet can only have negative outcomes. Sure, nobody will ever be offended again, but at what cost? And who are these easily offended people for whom we're sacrificing freedom of speech?

It baffles me how nobody sees a parallel with 1984, here, and it's not the usual cliche claim. From: >do not say anything against someone To: >do not think anything against someone The step is incredibly short.

Moreover, how are we supposed to have true bipartisan information if we can only see one side of the coin because the other one would require to talk bad about someone?

I can see every dictator of the world smiling, as proposals like this are being considered throughout the world.

<comment><USER16> Nobody's claiming that nobody will ever be offended again (straw man); the idea / theory is that by using real name, there'd be less anonymous trolling.

Offense might become even worse when it's not done anonymously though. Then it becomes a real person kicking a target's shins. Can be good (the argument improving, becoming more of a critique than just brainless insulting), can be bad (the offender not giving a fuck).

Linus has been offending people for a long time without using a pseudonym. But he knows what he's talking about, and is not ashamed of himself for the language he uses / has used.

<comment><USER17> > the idea / theory is that by using real name, there'd be less anonymous > trolling.

> Offense might become even worse when it's not done anonymously though. Then > it becomes a real person kicking a target's shins.

If you completely ban pseudonyms, the trolls will just impersonate other people. The effect is that it will be even more harmful for personal well- being for both those who get trolled and those who get to be impersonated.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> One of the great benefits from an online alias is being able to build relationships in a community while retaining the ability to cease (and resume) that contact at any time. The alias may as well represent its own individual, with minimal risk to the underlying user(s) as to its reputation. It's a huge relief and a boon to expression to be able to communicate without worrying about the reputation of a sole "real name".

<comment><USER19> And this is actually even more reflecting of real life interactions. In all the activity circles you go IRL most of your acquaintances know only your first name.

Only people you really bond with usually known your last name.

So why on earth should every person you talk to online should be provided your full name and possibly start stalking you?

<comment><USER20> Taken even further, even in real life you are likely to have different circles of friends and colleagues - it is likely that you behave differently for each group (knowingly or unknowingly), because they each have an established way of behaving, mannerisms, etc. Just think of an inappropriate joke that one group might find hilarious and another would be appalled by.

The internet is no different, except we are now expected to behave in a singular way in a group conversation of 500 people.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> The internet was better when we were all anonymous. It felt like we could do anything, be anyone. The world was ours.

Then social media came and destroyed that dream.

Consider the difference in mood between the idea of creating a metaverse in the 90s/00s to creating one now.

One is the freeing experience of Second Life or Active Worlds and the other is that widely circulated image of a large crowd, all wearing GearVR headsets while Mark Zuckerberg strolls past[1].

[1] [http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/02/22/16/3173A1BA0000057...](http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/02/22/16/3173A1BA00000578-0-image-a-4_1456157766857.jpg)

</comment><comment><USER22> The Real Name Fallacy is social nostalgia- if we all could go back to the village, then everything would be good?

The solution for this and fake news, would be chains of trust. I do not trust my government, i do not trust my media, but i know two or three guys, i would trust too know. If these guys vouched for the guys vouching for the knowledge i see to be true, i would trust that.

In return, i can fade the crack-pots opinions with a filter, based upon a similar chain of trust.

But this system would need to be decentralized, it would need to allow to withdraw this trust in an instant. Centralize this, and the inherent distrust breaks free time after time again.

<comment><USER2> _> But this system would need to be decentralized_

Back in the times of Usenet, this already existed: The client-side (hence decentral) "Scorefile" and "Killfile".

<comment><USER23> I so often wish that web fora, social media, etc., all worked on a common protocol like a modernized Usenet so that we could use our choice of clients and have useful features like scorefiles.

So much ink has been spilled about how Facebook's algorithm chooses what to show you, but imagine having complete control on the client side over both the algorithm, and the parameters tuning it. We used to have this, the only thing stopping it now is bad incentives.

<comment><USER24> That's RSS.

Too bad it was a mess of half-articles, intro paragraphs, fake submissions, and a very rare full article mixed in there somewhere.

<comment><USER2> Although there is some truth in this, this is not the full picture.

I believe that Usenet has been replaced mainly by mailing lists, not by blogs.

Having long-text conversations through blogs is possible, but mailing lists and (what's left of the) Usenet are better suited - the same way as IRC and instant messangers are better suited for chats than email, although you could chat via email as well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Been at this battle for a few years. Check out [https://nymrights.org/](https://nymrights.org/) (and [https://nymrights.org/nymrights-info-flyer/](https://nymrights.org/nymrights- info-flyer/) for the info flyer)

</comment><comment><USER26> Facebook hate groups are real (anti-immigrant, anti-lgbt, ...). They're getting better at skirting the rules, so there's no way to disband them. I'm seeing dozens of such groups form for a country with a population of ~2 million (Slovenia). I think the mentality those bubbles breed is even more dangerous than Twitter harassment. Instead of manifesting itself in bullying and conflict, it's nurturing the different flavours of toxicity in nicely compartmentalised jars.

I can't agree with the author's statement, that design itself is not primarily responsible for a solution, as it is instrumental in enabling such an environment in the first place.

<comment><USER16> And being anti-immigrant or anti-LGBT is their right; it's freedom of speech, which extends to freedom to hate. Lots of people hate Trump, that's their right to have. There's a line drawn when it becomes harassment or incitement to violence (then they veer towards becoming a terrorist organization).

<comment><USER27> I feel like today this freedom profits more to awful people than to the good of society.

<comment><USER9> Well not really. Freedom of speech is meant to protect all views, including those other people might find wrong, abhorrent or against social norms. This can easily be both a 'good' (in the case of say, a pro gays right campaigner in a conservative theocracy) or 'bad' (in the case of a Neo Nazi in Germany) thing.

But your view kind of sums up in a nutshell why freedom of speech is a hard battle. Because it's all too easy to only see 'horrible' people and views benefiting due to them being the type of views people would want to ban if freedom of speech didn't exist.

It's the same kind of problem Tor advocates have when arguing that privacy and anonymity are rights people should have. Because people only see the drugs, crime and illegal porn and think that privacy is only something 'bad' people need.

Either way, both freedom of speech and privacy benefit everywhere, yet get a bad rep due to people only seeing the negatives they allow rather than the people and rights they may save.

<comment><USER28> > Freedom of speech is meant to protect all views,

Too often one person's freedom of speech is a megaphone used to drown out some marginalised group.

[http://imgur.com/a/LKiRU](http://imgur.com/a/LKiRU)

<comment><USER29> Freedom of speech concerns censorship, it doesn't guarantee an audience, and doesn't mean anyone can be forced to listen.

Do you have examples of freedom of speech used to disproportionately drown out opposing views, i.e. "marginalis[ation]"?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Here's a data point: I was working at JPL when it instituted an internal usenet newsgroup (this was the mid-90s) for discussing work-related issues. It was initially anonymous to encourage people to speak frankly. Almost immediately it devolved into a cesspool of insults and epithets. It was my first experience with this phenomenon, and at the time I was shocked by it. (Nowadays, of course, this sort of thing is just business and usual on the internet.)

After a month or two it got so bad that management decided to remove the anonymity. The tone of the group changed literally overnight, and people started behaving in a civil manner. The sad fact of the matter is that if you want human beings to behave, you have to be able to hold them accountable.

<comment><USER31> There is also a difference between anonymity where no profile or pseudo- identity is created and one where you have an identity that you carry with you as you use a service or forum.

<comment><USER30> True. The JPL forum was anonymous, not pseudonymous (which made it very confusing in addition to being a civility train wreck). Pseudonyms offer some limited accountability because it allows people to ignore postings from a particular source. But you still need some enforcement. For example, there has to be some sort of cost associated with creating a new pseudonym, otherwise trolls will just keep creating new ones.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> _Who is harmed by a "Real Names" policy?_

[http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Who_is_harmed_by_a_%22Rea...](http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Who_is_harmed_by_a_%22Real_Names%22_policy%3F)

</comment><comment><USER33> Real Names on the internet only create problems and the things it intends to solve get shoved into a backroom and forgotten about.

Moderating the content is far more effective if done right. It's probably a bit like IT security and should be thought of as such.

Real names are something you _can_ do but it's most likely on the same level as whitelisting programs and hotglue-ing all unused ports shut. Even with all that, a determined hacker will just use the office copier and the installed OCR Text Recognition to infiltrate a microsoft office script. (DEFCON talk that I recommend to watch).

There is no 100% safety from trolls and every defense measure also hurts legit users in some way.

TL;DR Know your threat level. Real Names are not necessarily the thing you want and most likely are very rarely and still won't be 100%.

</comment><comment><USER34> I really don't want to say this but, the real names policy does help in terms of trolling behavior for certain communities. When TechCrunch switched over from Disqus to Facebook comments, the amount of trash and trolling was immediately reduced and stayed at a minimum permanently. A lot of the media outlets (Motherboard, Vice, NPR) who've disabled commenting altogether were using Disqus. I've noticed media outlets that use Facebook comments seem to still have commenting turned on.

I know anonymity in comment systems is as touchy a subject for internet freedom lovers as gun rights are for people in high crime neighborhoods. Those that hate them have already made up their mind and won't look at contradicting evidence, those that love them have already made up their mind and won't look at contradicting evidence. The truth seems to lies somewhere in the middle.

So "Real Names Policy" definitely has it's place. Maybe not everywhere, but definitely in some communities.

<comment><USER23> I voted you up in order to remove some of the downvotes you're getting, because there's nothing wrong with the tone or level of documentation in your comment.

However, you are also completely wrong. I'll produce two anecdata points.

Look at the Facebook comments on a local newspaper that uses them (e.g., thestate.com). Note that on any article that touches on a partisan issue or a scandal, the tone and contents of the comments are vicious, personal, and frequently harassing.

I admin a large-ish meme page on Facebook. The comments section is a wretched hive of scum and villainy.

From what I can tell, some communities have better norms than others, in terms of promoting civility, but the use of real names doesn't make a significant difference.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> In my experience it eliminates a particular kind of drive-by trolling, but leaves the other kinds unaffected. Only constant moderation really keeps it out.

<comment><USER36> Probably. I've definitely never seen a _good_ Facebook comments section on any site. Nasty arguments and low-grade garbage. Real names simply don't stop most people from being vile on the internet.

<comment><USER37> Public Facebook comment sections on third party sites have the ugly effect of self-selecting users to those who either really don't care at all about appearances or who have that special level of righteousness that makes them believe that any opinion they might voice would be universally applauded. Those with a more balanced opinion tend to not put out their flag in a place like that. It's a recipe for the perfect storm. Real names do stop most people from being nasty on the internet, but that also makes them invisible, so that only the unstoppable minority remains.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> My real name doesn't uniquely identify me, because there are more people in the world with the same name. According to some web searching, I have already died a long time ago, I am a technical illustrator, I collect model trains, etc. So a "real name" could be compromising even if totally unjust

<comment><USER39> I am in the opposite situation. My real name is so rare that it uniquely identifies me globally, as far as I know. I have angered a religious group which is known for intimidation and even physical threats to critics. This makes me very uncomfortable in using sites that demands "real names". I would never sign up for Facebook, for example.

<comment><USER29> My girlfriend has a name so unique that I put it into google images along with my town name (a capital city), and her picture shows up...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> One of my relatives uses a pseudonym on Facebook because they were harassed at school under their real name because they're gay.

</comment><comment><USER41> If harassment is a social and cultural problem, then in my view, so is the desire for anonymity, which is a natural byproduct that aids both sides. Banning anonymity would negatively impact both sides. But who is harmed more? And who is harmed more in the other scenario? The article just focuses on one side of the former. Sure certain individuals need more protection if a real name policy is enforced, but at least it's easier to identify and punish the bigots.

That said, I don't think pseudonyms should be banned in order to prevent harassment, but where people go to discuss complex and sensitive topics, I would expect to see more thoughtful responses from a Real Name vs. a_guy_with_nothing_to_lose, barring a decent karma system.

</comment><comment><USER42> Step -1.) Demand real name's to protect the childrens.

Step 0.) We did it! Everyone has to use real names now! Equality unlocked!

Step 1.) Put in someone else's real name instead of your own.

Step 2.) Troll as that person or use that real name to infiltrate that person's social network

Step lulz.) Doxx brigade/morality police now target the wrong person.

Step 3.) Congratulations, not only did you not solve the problem you were trying to solve, now your rules are a robust breeding ground to cause actual social and economic damage to people YOU ALREADY AGREE WITH because "pixels are feelings, too".

Step 4.) Hang your head in shame for such short-term thinking.

Step 5.) Downvote me because of tone.

<comment><USER43> so, make them prove their id. Sure it doesn't scale but now you would have to actually steal someone's identity rather than just use a fake name.

<comment><USER42> Sometimes, I can't tell if the newer generation understands that Photoshop is a thing or not.

Also, I'm pretty sure they have no idea that when you create a massive repository of identities to try and protect the childrens, you're just painting a huge bullseye on the back of it's database.

It's like people believe Russians hacked the election, but no one could EVER hack a central repository of identities! Why, it's protected by good intentions and saving the childrens! Oh hey, another 1 billion Yahoo! identities got leaked...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Many "real names" cannot even be used in the "real world" because systems don't support it.

</comment><comment><USER12> I think it largely depends on the specific community and people in it. While some try to use online anonymity as an outlet to say and do things they wouldn't dare on Facebook or IRL, others seem to want a reality-like reputation around their username/account. A large portion is probably caused simply by community rules; just see /b/ and HN...

And to be fair, I've hardly ever seen serious insults on Facebook, but been called dipshit on anonymous platforms regularly. But again, this could be due to community standards.

<comment><USER45> >I've hardly ever seen serious insults on Facebook

Every once in a while curiosity and boredom get the better of me and I visit ESPN or some other mainstream news site that uses FB profiles for the comments section and I almost always walk away shocked at the kind of comments people are willing to post while directly linking to their real name and profile, often containing their place of employment. Respectfully, if you haven't seen serious insults on FB, or at least on sites using FB profile logins, you haven't been looking hard enough.

<comment><USER46> I've seen similar and can't help but wonder if at least some of those people don't realise that's happening. Maybe they see the "login with Facebook" as a convenience without knowing their names, jobs etc. will be visible. The rest probably just don't care.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> The problem isn't just discrimination/harassment (though that's huge - I used to use a male pseudonym on my github & stackoverflow accounts, and still do on medium.) It's also just pragmatically impossible.

I have changed my first name legally three times.

I have changed my last name once.

I currently have different legal names in three countries, on my undergraduate & masters degrees, and on my 401k, and none of those are the name I am known by to my colleagues & friends.

What is my "real name"?

<comment><USER48> Frank Abagnale?

<comment><USER47> Hah - if I'd changed my name so often for malicious intent, instead of family & marriage reasons, it'd probably be much more rationally arranged.

Not having a canonical "real name" is a giant PITA.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> While I agree that expecting users to use real names is a bad thing, this knocked the air out of me:

> In societies including the US where violence and mistreatment of women, > people of color, and marginalized people is common, we can expect similar > problems in people's digital interactions [1] > [1] Sarah Banet-Weiser and > Kate M. Miltner. #MasculinitySoFragile: culture, structure, and networked > misogyny. Feminist Media Studies, 16(1):171-174, January 2016.

I reject the assertion that these issues are "common" in the US, even if "violence and mistreatment" is broadly defined as people acting rudely on the internet. A post by ESR was even flagged off HN because its message was that he expected evidence to back claims of harassment, which is a microcosm of the trend of "feelings > reality". This is absolutely ludicrous and I'm surprised Mozilla is funding this junk.

Further, it's getting rather tiring that the US is always listed as an example when countries/societies exist without legal protection for all races/genders and where slavery and forced labor is still legal.

<comment><USER50> > _I reject the assertion that these issues are "common" in the US_

On what grounds do you reject that? Do you have hard evidence that women and ethnic/sexual minorities in the US are not at increased risk of violence and mistreatment? Or are you basing this on "feelings > reality", as you put it?

> _Further, it 's getting rather tiring that the US is always listed as an > example when countries/societies exist without legal protection for all > races/genders and where slavery and forced labor is still legal._

The "I can't be bad as long as someone, somewhere, is worse" argument is a classic excuse to get out of ever having to improve anything.

<comment><USER51> > The "I can't be bad as long as someone, somewhere, is worse" argument is a > classic excuse to get out of ever having to improve anything.

Recently learned the awesome names for this fallacy. "Tu quoque"[1] is the general name. Whataboutism[2] is the awesome term for its use in soviet propeganda.

[1]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque) [2]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism)

<comment><USER49> I don't think I was committing a logical fallacy -- I took exception to the article author's attempt at establishing alleged certainty, especially using relativistic terms.

In any case, based on your mention of learning new fallacy names, you'll probably like this site: [https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/](https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/)

<comment><USER52> I vouched for this comment as I didn't see anything particularly egregious: looks like the included URI triggers some automatic down-voting behavior (perhaps to encourage better discourse rather than calling out fallacies?) Regardless, it's probably not worth including that link in the future :)

<comment><USER29> > encourage better discourse rather than calling out fallacies?

How is calling out fallacies not the best kind of discourse??

<comment><USER52> I agree with you that identifying weaknesses or fallacies in an argument is a good thing. What I am trying to express is that it can sometimes be reduced to little more than name calling if not done well. Say, for example, I identify what I believe to be a straw man. If my response is only "That's a straw man", while it may be accurate, it's not very useful to the discourse. It should include at least why I believe the argument to be building a straw man.

It can also lead to a desire to score points rather than to reach some kind of mutual understanding (if not agreement), which also doesn't lend itself to constructive discussion.

I hope it's clear that my explanation as to why that particular URI is banned is just speculation, and not very strong at that. I can't think of a better explanation, however.

For what it's worth, it looks like I'm not alone in thinking along these lines:

 _citing a logical fallacy is often employed by those who are lazy and aren 't genuinely addressing a given argument._

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7195076](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7195076)

For reference, a couple of other HN threads where this URI has been discussed:

\- [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5391743](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5391743)

\- [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5660078](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5660078)

<comment><USER29> The context in that first link is:

[https://web.archive.org/web/20140404202911/http://plover.net...](https://web.archive.org/web/20140404202911/http://plover.net/~bonds/bdksucks.html)

This adds a little more nuance:

1) LOGICAL FALLACIES ARE USUALLY IRRELEVANT OR CITED INCORRECTLY...

2) CITING LOGICAL FALLACIES IS USUALLY COWARDLY AND LAZY ... " Rather than engage with the ideas in a text, it's much easier to skim through it trying to spot a quick fallacy; and once a fallacy is found, a baloney detector can safely ignore everything else. "

I wouldn't say this at all demonstrates the weakness in identifying fallacies. Falsely identifying fallacies is not identifying fallacies (the fallacy fallacy?); and nothing says that one fallacy invalidates an entire text; also, I find there argument there weak, e.g "these people seem to have no other opinions on the text" \- so what?

<comment><USER29> Also, I just read the section about the sexist skeptic. I find it deeply flawed, many of the arguments are sound, and just because the author thinks they are inappropriate doesn't mean they are - that's just the authors subjective, emotive opinion.

<comment><USER52> I'm sorry, but I don't understand how this relates to pointing out logical fallacies, which I understand to be the subject at hand in this branch of the thread.

Are you perhaps responding to something (much further) upthread, such as here?

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13316770](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13316770)

If so, please respond there.

<comment><USER29> No, I'm referring to the content of the link above, [https://web.archive.org/web/20140404202911/http://plover.net...](https://web.archive.org/web/20140404202911/http://plover.net/~bonds/bdksucks.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> I think a lot of the commenters on this thread would do themselves well to read about Gamergate from women's perspectives, and learn about extreme online harassment.

Real names make it a little harder for attackers to hide behind anonymity, but a _lot_ easier for those crossing lines to find their targets.

</comment><comment><USER54> Very thoughtful article... we are having this debate now in Italy and this would need to be translated.

<comment><USER55> do we? I'm out of the loop besides major news because there's almost no hope left, so I missed it. who's pushing it this time?

<comment><USER54> [http://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/premium/articoli/controlli-d...](http://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/premium/articoli/controlli- dannosi-e-inutili-basterebbe-vietare-lanonimato/)

<comment><USER55> ugh, Mentana, tu quoque

I don't know where this "ministry of truths" resurgences come from but really needs to be stopped. between this and Grillo promoting a 'randomized popular college vote' to determine "The Truth", situation is increasingly scary for freedom of speech.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> I have been using this pseudonym online for over 20 years. I have been using it for so long that I have since found others who have started using it too but there are far fewer of them than there are of people who share my actual first and last name.

I am a member of a Facebook group that has over 60 members who share the same first and last name.

So, it's more descriptive when I use this pseudonym than it is when I use my real name. I'm only aware of about 3-4 people using this pseudonym but more than 60 who use my real name.

</comment><comment><USER57> I'm biased by empirical data - e.g. look at youtube comments (anonymous) vs. amazon reviews (real identity owned by amazon).

Human nature demonstrates that a fraction of people really like to put down / bully / see others suffering because they are personally unhappy (e.g. the shock talk shows). Anonymity allows bullying behavior with no consequence.

More simply, why do people spend time and energy online "trolling" others. Clearly a sizable portion of people like trolling others, though I don't personally see why.

<comment><USER10> I often see this comparison, it is hardly "empirical data"

Leaving a product review is a completely different social activity than commenting on a Video, videos that are often political, religious or other personally controversial topic

Comparing YT comments to Amazon Product reviews holds no value at all.

It is telling that you dismiss actual research for your own anecdotal and flawed observations to accept the idea that Real name Policies are a good thing

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> I wrote about this before as well, from a technical point of view:

[http://magarshak.com/blog/?p=114](http://magarshak.com/blog/?p=114)

</comment><comment><USER59> I like how Roblox register form tells new users NOT to use their real name:

[https://www.roblox.com/](https://www.roblox.com/)

</comment><comment><USER60> I think that in practice the problem comes down to preventing sociopathic sadists from annoying everyone in complicated ways. The actual level of anonymity doesn't really matter but there are classes of solutions that work better without.

The only possible non-technical solution for that class of user would be to track them down in real life and fine them. The possible abuse associated with such a scheme make that sort of solution unattractive.

</comment><comment><USER61> (This was a reply to a now-deleted comment.)

>Is there actually a widespread "life and death" issues here? There have some very publicized cases, but I have yet to see any data that there this is a significant problem beyond having the police called to your house or getting bunch of pizzas delivered that you didn't order. That said, there are definitely dangers with governments who deny basic human rights.

>The bank account issue is really more just about normal identity theft and isn't really part of the topic either.

>I should add that things like "harassment" do not qualify here as those are normal parts of everyday life anyway regardless if your personal information gets revealed online.

>Are we sure we're not just participating in the typical online habit of blowing regular issues into 10 alarm fires?

>beyond having the police called to your house

That's understating the danger of the situation due to the militarization of US police (and also their duty to respond to what they think is a real threat).

These "SWATing" attempts usually go like this:

"Help, someone's being held hostage at [X] address, they have rifles"

SWAT team arrives and kicks in the door, guns blazing, kills all your pets [1], and might shoot you too [2]. So far there hasn't been a human death from SWAT hoaxes, just animals and injuries, but it'll probably happen at some point.

Is this a "widespread" problem? I don't know. In the communities I've been in, it is, though it probably isn't for the Internet at large.

Even ignoring the risks of SWATing, though, there are so many people out there who will try to find your personal information and make your life a living hell on a daily basis due to online disagreements. I deal with such people on a daily basis. Anonymity is absolutely critical and me to others who might cross paths with sociopaths and "e-road rage" types.

[1] [https://archive.is/nu4Lv](https://archive.is/nu4Lv)

[2] [http://www.theblaze.com/news/2015/07/16/swatting-prank- ends-...](http://www.theblaze.com/news/2015/07/16/swatting-prank-ends- horribly-for-victim-and-he-has-the-injury-to-prove-it/)

</comment><comment><USER62> Does anyone have any good examples or resources that they can point to that possibly show an online community switching one way or the other with real/pseudonyms and the results that showed? Would be curious to see some first hand data about the issue.

</comment><comment><USER42> Thought experiment from 2,000 years ago.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_of_Gyges](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_of_Gyges)

Until the Internet can guarantee that I will not be targeted by petulant ideological zealots obsessed with doxxing people to win online arguments, Goons who infiltrate the State Department to steer it's considerable resources against it's political enemies, social justice warriors who try to get people fired because someone doesn't agree with Rachel Maddow, or state agencies who scour my tax records to Al Capone me, I'll keep whatever anonymity I can preserve, thank you very much.

EDIT: I'll happily deal with an endless torrent of honest deplorables who occasionally troll every so often over politically-motivated psychopaths any day of the week.

</comment><comment><USER63> We should have better protection of our rights to be anonymous online when we want.

BUT ALSO

We should have better methods to reveal our identity online in a guaranteed way if we wish to do so.

Currently, both options are often non-existent or broken.

</comment><comment><USER64> The article focuses on improving online behavior yet doesn't acknowledge trust-- a key reason that user identity matters in online communities.

<comment><USER65> Surely trust can be achieved through consistent identities which aren't real names, or by allowing the option of (but not mandating) user names which are real names.

</comment></comment><comment><USER66> The only reason using real names affects behavior is because people fear retaliation, so the policy suppresses behavior likely to offend people and groups with the known will and ability to retaliate. This, to the powerful, is equivalent to improving behavior.

edit: what's the alternate proposed mechanism? There's no magic in a name other than a method to track people and _hold them responsible._

</comment><comment><USER64> This article cites many excellent papers. I highly recommend checking them out before closing off the page.

</comment><comment><USER67> I dislike forced real name policies too, but I really would like some of the problems with using real names to be fixed if possible.

</comment><comment><USER68> I am posting this with my real name. I agree with this article.

</comment><comment><USER69> Can't ID'd and anonymous forums coexist?

</comment><comment><USER70> Facebook drank the Kool-Aid and failed.

</comment><comment><USER71> Wow a 5.6 MB background image...

It took me 13 seconds to load it on a 20 Mbps connection. And there we are worrying about how many Kb our JavaScript libs are.

<comment><USER72> That's completely nuts. Tried to upload it* to [http://compresspng.com/](http://compresspng.com/) , and after what seemed like a few hours (Australian upload on cable is 100x slower than the download) I got a 72% reduction in size to 1604kb. That is, an identical image if you absolutely must insist on that quality.

Without having a checked, I'd venture to say that a 200-300KB jpeg would look very close and more than good enough for the purposes of the article header.

*) [https://blog.coralproject.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/hat...](https://blog.coralproject.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/hats.png)

</comment></comment><comment><USER73> Real names is one thing, but I'd really like to see a "real age" system on the internet. That would make ignoring trolls -- who I suspect are frequently not old enough to drive -- a much easier task.

It would be more akin to real life, if a 14 y/o tried to bully us in the street we'd laugh them off, but when they're anonymous on the internet it doesn't seem to occur to us that we may be dealing with a child.

<comment><USER11> In theory at least, you're supposed to look at what is being said rather than who is saying it...

Not at all claiming I always do that myself, but some food for thought.

<comment><USER73> That's true, but I'm thinking of situations where there is no context other than pure abuse. I wonder if Charlotte Dawson would have taken her own life if she found out that the majority of trolls telling her to kill herself were kids living in their parents basement.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlotte_Dawson](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlotte_Dawson)

<comment><USER74> What makes you think that they were kids? I highly doubt that.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


100 years of general relativity - <AUTHOR> http://motls.blogspot.com/2015/11/100-years-of-general-relativity.html <comment><USER2> I certainly learnt a couple things about general relativity from that article (e.g. the "modern view" (meaning largely, the view from string theory) that "we understand Einstein's equations just as the equations of an "effective field theory""), although it was way over my head.

That blog (Luboš Motl's) has an amazingly large number of long and technical or topical articles on physics. I found this one on Boltzmann and thermodynamics especially insightful and relatively non-technical:

[http://motls.blogspot.co.nz/2013/02/ludwig-boltzmann- birthda...](http://motls.blogspot.co.nz/2013/02/ludwig-boltzmann- birthday.html?m=1)

</comment><comment><USER3> When I took the basic physics sequence at MIT 40 years ago Special Relativity was a first semester elective and General Relativity in the seventh semester. You can derive much of SR with high school algebra and additional integration. But the GR field equations were rather hairy.

</comment><comment><USER4> Is anyone else being directed to an ad page that when you click on 'Go to Site' it directs to another ad site?

</comment><comment><USER5> I admire the general theory of relativity, the theory of gravitation and the field equations. Einstein proofed this way equality of inertial and gravitational mass, in my view his biggest merit. - But I can't understand why still today physicists allow to mess the beauty of the field equations by applying it to the universe as a whole. - It's wrong to apply the field equations cosmologically, as I have shown here: [http://ow.ly/MrQgy#einstein_was_wrong](http://ow.ly/MrQgy#einstein_was_wrong)

<comment><USER6> Wow, it's like timecube for a new generation.

<comment><USER5> I just checked on wikipedia what time cube is. - You are right, my theses would be more fun (and more successful) when I could be more relaxed and dada - I'm indeed grimly..

<comment><USER6> It wasn't a compliment.

<comment><USER7> Don't feed the trolls, they'll only come back for more.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Zynga Now Worth Less Than Its Own Office Building - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/halting-problem/zyngas-offices-now-worth-more-than-zynga-the-company-47a704d48249#.igxo9hmlw <comment><USER2> I didn't know they bought the property. I too thought that they were still leasing it from Sega or something like that.

Didn't Macromedia used to live in the same building?

</comment><comment><USER3> I thought that Zynga leased it's office space -not bought it.

<comment><USER4> They bought it in 2012 and are in the process of doing a sale-and-lease-back deal.

About the headline of this story, it's a little silly not to count cash as part of a company's valuation since that money had to come from somewhere. But the fact that 3/4 of Zynga's value is cash indicates that people think the company is on the decline.</comment></comment>