'Banning Anonymous Social Media Accounts Would Only Stifle Free Speech and Democracy' (theguardian.com) 152
Owen Jones, a British newspaper columnist and activist for the Labour Party, writes in an opinion piece for The Guardian: The aftermath of the horrific killing of Conservative MP David Amess should have been a moment for politicians and the public to unite in an effort to protect democracy. Instead, the discussion has been derailed by a push to ban anonymous social media accounts, which would stifle free speech and democratic rights. Threatening online messages to politicians and other public figures should be taken seriously. As someone who has experienced online abuse, and a physical attack at the hands of the far right, I know all too well the danger. But, in this tragic event, there seems to be no known connection between the death of Amess and anonymous online posting.
While MPs are grieving, and understandably feel vulnerable, we must ask whether strengthening the online safety bill is the right approach. By shifting attention away from extremism toward online anonymity, do we hinder our democracy? There are many legitimate reasons why a citizen may not feel comfortable posting their opinion or sharing information under their own identity. Given the number of politicians who offer off-the-record quotes to journalists on a daily basis, generally for fear of their jobs or other harmful consequences, MPs will be able to empathize with this. The bill would allow Ofcom to punish social networks that fail to remove "lawful but harmful" content. Defining abuse is politically subjective -- what is seen as accountability by some could be seen as abuse by others. Mark Francois, who is campaigning for the changes, said "while people in public life must remain open to legitimate criticism, they can no longer be vilified or their families subject to the most horrendous abuse." While there is no place for verbally violent, threatening or disturbing language, what can be defined as vilification versus illegitimate criticism is harder to judge... Friendly reminder: Slashdot continues to allow users to post comments and stories anonymously as an "Anonymous Coward." This is something that's been criticized since its inception, but it's something we think is important and plan to continue for the foreseeable future.
While MPs are grieving, and understandably feel vulnerable, we must ask whether strengthening the online safety bill is the right approach. By shifting attention away from extremism toward online anonymity, do we hinder our democracy? There are many legitimate reasons why a citizen may not feel comfortable posting their opinion or sharing information under their own identity. Given the number of politicians who offer off-the-record quotes to journalists on a daily basis, generally for fear of their jobs or other harmful consequences, MPs will be able to empathize with this. The bill would allow Ofcom to punish social networks that fail to remove "lawful but harmful" content. Defining abuse is politically subjective -- what is seen as accountability by some could be seen as abuse by others. Mark Francois, who is campaigning for the changes, said "while people in public life must remain open to legitimate criticism, they can no longer be vilified or their families subject to the most horrendous abuse." While there is no place for verbally violent, threatening or disturbing language, what can be defined as vilification versus illegitimate criticism is harder to judge... Friendly reminder: Slashdot continues to allow users to post comments and stories anonymously as an "Anonymous Coward." This is something that's been criticized since its inception, but it's something we think is important and plan to continue for the foreseeable future.
Non-sequitur (Score:4, Informative)
It's unlikely that anonymous posts lead to murders. "Autoradicalization", however, is clearly aided and abetted by anonymous actors. They are associating the effect with the wrong cause.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I don't agree with banning anon posting.
I don't agree with their claim that they allow users to post anonymously here on Slashdot noir. Last time I checked, you have to be LOGGED IN to post "anonymously." To be logged in, you have to give Slashdot an email address.. A lot of the free email services (Gmail, etc) these days require you to provide a phone number linked to your account.
That means your post isn't really anonymous if law enforcement seriously wanted to track down the originator of an "anonymous" posting.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't agree with banning anon posting.
I don't agree with their claim that they allow users to post anonymously here on Slashdot noir. Last time I checked, you have to be LOGGED IN to post "anonymously." To be logged in, you have to give Slashdot an email address.. A lot of the free email services (Gmail, etc) these days require you to provide a phone number linked to your account.
That means your post isn't really anonymous if law enforcement seriously wanted to track down the originator of an "anonymous" posting.
So, like Bitcoin. Just say like Bitcoin.
,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with being non-anonymous is that it usually means an extra level of effort. Ie in forums in the past I would be anonymous because it was annoying to subscribe merely to voice an opinion. I still see this on stackoverflow - in the time it takes me to look up my password and get logged in, I no longer care if some idiot said the wrong thing or not. So yes, removing anonymity it cuts out the noise, but it also cuts out a chorus of voices who just want to say "I agree" or "I disagree" or "won't s
Re: (Score:1)
Banning Anonymous Social Media Accounts Would Only (Score:2)
Thank you, Captain Obvious.
Does anyone seriously not understand this?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
There is no shortage of Americans who confuse “free speech” with some imagined belief which grants them the right to amplify their speech through someone else’s privately owned platform, and the folks who respond “that’s not how it works, stupid.”
There are also quite a few Americans who feel their money or their business shouldn’t contribute towards promoting speech they disagree with.
There aren’t many Americans who actually believe the government should step
Re: (Score:1)
I have no problem with people saying whatever they want on social media - the problems start when people can say hurtful or hateful things behind a veil of anonymity.
If someone walks up to you in the street and starts saying all kinds of vile or hateful things, or makes false statements about you, they can be held accountable.
You should be equally accountable when posting online.
I understand that there is an argument to be made about whistleblowers being able to have a way to spill the beans on wrongdoing
Re: (Score:2)
Even with whistleblowers, and laws protecting them, many politicians, CEOs, etc, get bent out of shape and demand to know who they are. When retaliation exists or is a real threat, then anonymity protects free speech.
Re: (Score:2)
Your use of “civilised country” is what people will be downvoting, not your idea of “the truth”.
Re: Banning Anonymous Social Media Accounts Would (Score:3)
It's also apparently illegal in the UK to call a German a schweinehund.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ne... [dailymail.co.uk]
Funny thing is most Germans think of that as a very mild insult.
Re: (Score:2)
Does anyone seriously not understand this?
From the evidence, many people do not understand this.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, politicians do not seriously understand this. Do you need more examples?
This comes to mind... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
One of the proponents of real name policies, MP Nadine Dorris, recently posted threats on Twitter under her real name. She told a journalist that she would use his own teeth to nail his testicles to the floor. It's not the first time she has threatened people either.
Re: (Score:2)
So, she's a moderate then?
Re: (Score:2)
Anonymous posting (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you should have taken the time to read the goddam summary. It ends with this:
Friendly reminder: Slashdot continues to allow users to post comments and stories anonymously as an "Anonymous Coward." This is something that's been criticized since its inception, but it's something we think is important and plan to continue for the foreseeable future.
Re: (Score:1)
That's a flat out lie though. They removed true anonymous posting. You have to be signed in. So even though it says "Anonymous coward" it's actually tied to a real account, a deanonymized person. Which means the first time someone cracks Slashdot, or maybe new management comes in, then all user data will be exposed and all anonymous comments will be tied to the real user accounts.
Re: (Score:1)
Note to the editorship: I used to post a lot more, sometimes with a now-dormant username but usually anonymously. Always fun to get a "5 insightful" with a true anonymous post. In fact, I used to read a lot more on slashdot before that turn-off change.
These days I usually stop myself from starting a comment, and if not, throw it away before the hateful "Anonymous comments are turned off" message. I throw away at least three times as many would-be posts than I get around to posting, and that's before count
Re: (Score:2)
Usually, I ignore ACs. You being somewhat relevant to this topic, I will make an exception.
The actual fact of the matter is that a "real" user account on /. is still pretty anonymous with regards to the person. It is pseudonymous with regards to tying specific comments together and with respect to moderation. Fully anonymous posting is universally broken and will remain broken, because some assholes will just use bots to spam a forum or other venue into oblivion. In contrast, we currently have one asshole o
Re: (Score:2)
Does the database actually store them anonymously, or is it like the record has the "anonymous=true" flag set?
Re: (Score:1)
It stores the account details of anonymous posters at least for a time. If you have mod points and post anonymously then your own anonymous posting doesn't carry the moderation dropdown, while other posts even in the same discussion do. So the system must know that the specific comment was posted by you.
Re: Anonymous posting (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
except that is not how it actually works. being able to hide your account name from readers while still having to register an account to post from is not the same as posting anonymously. nice try though
Re: Anonymous posting (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It would matter if throwaway email accounts didn't exist.
But since they do, it's just a way to slow down mass account creation.
I like to think there are places anonymous posting (Score:4, Interesting)
is appropriate.
Political forums come to mind as the most important.
AC posting on /. maybe not so much. Posting your shortcomings as an internet user, your desire to see a liberal cage match or some older german symbols, go fuck yourself.
If you think your comment is so important on a social media site, at least have the courage to post with an (non personalized) account name that may or may not be traceable.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Political forums come to mind as the most important.
Everything is political to some people.
Posted AC because that statement could be construed as being political by some.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I would argue that unless the government itself is corrupt, you would have reasonable legal defenses against genuinely unjust treatment based solely on the expression of your opinion.
Freedom of speech does not and should not entail freedom of the consequences of that speech. If your boss is going to treat you badly based on personal views that have nothing to do with work, and you otherwise feel like you need to hide your identity from him to securely make your views known, then maybe that's not a the
Odd.. (Score:2)
Anonymous posting is NOT allowed /. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, anonymous posting has been turned off. Please register and log in.
If you are not logged in, the above greets you when you try to post. I can post AC if I'm logged in, meaning someone is capable of tracking my posts. I don't particularly care about /., but Facebook et. al. have considerably greater resources to wreck my life, which is exactly the problem with authenticated accounts.
There are a great many topics I disagree with my employer on, and if/when I happen to make that disagreement public, no matter how politely or well supported I make my claim, my employer is likely to retaliate. Posting anonymously, being as anonymous as possible, is essential for people to be able to discuss issues without fear of reprisal. Even if an anon gets doxxed, there is at least some degree of plausible deniability which may help.
Re: (Score:2)
The company I work for was taken over by a multinational, and they have all sorts of rules aimed at promoting good business relationships, and proper behaviour. If I recall, they don't want the company associated with any particular political view. This might motivate posting anonymously, but unless I mention who I work for, I don't see the need for not using my name. Depending on the forum, I might use my own name, or some silly nickname. It depends on what the convention appears to be.
Shortly after the ta
Re: (Score:2)
First, almost everything is considered political these days. It's very hard to have a POV that isn't immediately bucketed to one party or the other.
Second, there are controversies which aren't strictly political, but highly sensitive in certain areas. I'm reading daily about Chapelle, who is both highly intelligent and socially aware, and his transgender controversy. He knew exactly what he was doing, however quite a few people are attacking him and drumming up support for his show via the Streisand Effect.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure your employer is more enlightened, but it did occur to you they might not be and there was nothing you could have done except be anonymous.
I am at an age when I could retire. I would do that, rather than work for an employer whose actions I disagree with on moral grounds. Right now, I am glad to have a job doing something I enjoy, and with flexible hours, because of working from home. My former boss, a company founder and technical director, resigned when the company was taken over by a multinational. He just does not like the big company mentality. I call the new owners "bloody Vikings". They are not that bad really. Maybe they will take offe
I approve this policy (Score:3)
"Friendly reminder: Slashdot continues to allow users to post comments and stories anonymously as an "Anonymous Coward." This is something that's been criticized since its inception, but it's something we think is important and plan to continue for the foreseeable future."
I do indeed approve this policy. It is a fine policy.
Re: (Score:3)
Everyone wants free speech. (Score:3)
For themselves. Others can shut up. When people you disagree with talk, it is "actionable" and "seditious" and "slander" and "libel." The oppressed make the best oppressors.
Re: (Score:3)
I want free speech for everyone - that way I can identify the idiots I want nothing to do with.
Re: (Score:1)
But there are so many of them. And they talk so much.
Ancient fail (Score:3, Interesting)
Small minds discuss people. Identity only gets in the way of idea.
Re: (Score:3)
This.
To some, it's more important who said something. It's the cult of personality.
Who decides ... (Score:3)
The bill would allow Ofcom to punish social networks that fail to remove "lawful but harmful" content.
...what is harmful?
If it's really that bad, get a law passed. Problem solved.
Re: (Score:2)
Passing a law is hard. People might complain about the right to free speech and the courts might even agree with them! It's much easier to tell social media companies to do the dirty work for them.
Re: (Score:2)
...what is harmful?
More to the point: what isn't harmful? Anything spouted b a Tory MP or crony thereof. Everything else is up for grabs.
Re: (Score:2)
One way of deciding what is harmful, without legislation, is a complaints procedure. This has been used to take down offensive adverts, though it has to be said that the organisations handling the complaints are often pretty toothless.
The problem I see with Facebook and the like is that most users do not see the offensive content, because they are not in that sort of group. If what you are doing on Facebook is sharing recipes, holiday photos, and so on, you are unlikely to see neo-Nazi propaganda. In my cas
AC's provide worthless commentary (Score:2, Insightful)
In the 10+ years I've been a Slashdot user, I have not had nor seen any meaningful comments or discussions from an AC.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you should try reading at 0 instead of +2.
Re: (Score:2)
I use my mod points and look at all the drivel posted here.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, here's [slashdot.org] an AC comment in this story that has a fairly insightful take on how anonymous you really are on /.
A pseudonym or heck, even a real name is no barrier to people saying stupid stuff. Just look at Facebook.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's all opinion. I don't believe you, but you are free to your opinion. To me ACs are just mostly worthless trolls.
Re: (Score:2)
It depends on the discussion, however IMHO there's been quite a bit of insightful stuff posted as AC and in some discussions of corporates really key information has been included. I strongly disagree.
There used to be more when you didn't have to log in to post anonymously, on the other hand there was massive spam just before that was turned off.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, "Nukenerd" is not my real name anyway (and I guess "Berkyjay" is not yours either) but I would not have posted those comments without that extra layer
Re: (Score:2)
this account is ~anonymous (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I've shitposted but what else is good karma for?
Unpopular ideas. I get karma by sharing information people find valuable, or saying things which mostly seem obvious to me but which get modded insightful. Then I spend it by opposing people who I think are full of shit who are talking about how great nuclear is, or how conservatism (not conservationism) is wonderful, or capitalism is the highest form of society or whatever, all of which get me modded down even when I'm perfectly calm and use literally only facts in my reply. (I do not restrict myself thus
Problem is too much known... (Score:2)
There are degrees of having an identifiable account. On one hand, there is Facebook which mercilessly hunts down anyone who might have more than one account using many parameters. Then, there are places who just ask for an email address, type in a CAPTCHA, and one is in... and gradients in between.
Both the extremes make a site useless.
What a site can do is add tiers of users. If a user has 2FA with a unique phone number, has a positive karma, has donated to the site a non-trivial amount, has email from a
serious F.C.U. (Score:1)
Seriously,
anonymity on the internet is a real fuckup
my real email account is connected to this Slashdot account
it is verified by multiple sources to my phone, bank and government ID.
I am who I am
and it doesn't stop me from saying fuck you to girly man anonymous cretins
Re: (Score:2)
and it doesn't stop me from saying fuck you to girly man anonymous cretins
Is there something wrong with girls that makes being girly bad? It would be weird being married (to a woman) if I essentially despised a core aspect of her being.
Re: (Score:2)
Is there something wrong with girls that makes being girly bad?
OP was refering to girly men not girly girls. With the former It's the dick that's off-putting.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow you sound fragile.
The headline is false (Score:2)
It might be more correct to say that banning social media accounts certainly has every potential to stifle free speech and democracy to an unknown extent, and given the imperfect society in which we live, that is certainly liable to be a result.
But I believe it's safe to say that those would be quite far from the only effects it would have.
As unpopular as the sentiment might be, there could be some good that might come from such a move. And I'll admit it's unlikely that the benefits would outweigh the
Well, duh (Score:2)
'Banning Anonymous Social Media Accounts Would Only Stifle Free Speech and Democracy'
Obviously. That's why it is planned.
The other foot (Score:2)
Interesting that when social media was more or less exclusively a tool of the left, it was celebrated (cf the paens to the glory of the 2008 and 2012 Obama campaign's aggressive datamining and data-driven targeting of GOTV efforts all the way down to door-knocker levels).
Now that social media is no longer just the medium of choice for woke protesters and vegan college girls, but being used by BOTH sides to promulgate, persuade, lobby, and organize...now it ain't so great, according to conventional wisdom.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
For the same criticisms to be in play, leftists would need to have consistent principles, which of course is absurd.
Anyone who lets themselves be shamed by these clowns, and masters of double standards, deserve to be told what they are allowed to say on social media.
Some people have their head so far up their own ass, that "defeat fascism" by empowering corporations as tools of political censorship, actually sounds like a good idea.
/. DOES NOT allow anon posting (Score:1)
As long as it's identified as anonymous (Score:2)
Although anonymity has been shown to bring out the worst in people far more than it brings out the best, I don't have a huge problem with people being able to post things anonymously as long as the post is clearly identified as being anonymous.
The main problems come in when people can post pretending to be someone they're not.
Democracy... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Why terrorism? Are you frightened by other people's ideas?
Granted, many AC comments are worthless. If you can't stand behind your own words, etc, etc. But there are the occasional valuable insights made by people who might be terrorized by others (groupthink, social credit scores, the good of the collective takes priority, etc.) The growth of this category of AC posters is a good indication of how far we have wandered from our founding democratic principles.
"Anonymous" Cowards (Score:3)
If I remember correctly, back in the old days you didn't need a Slashdot account to post as an Anonymous Coward.
Re: (Score:2)
Friendly reminder: Slashdot continues to allow users to post comments and stories anonymously as an "Anonymous Coward." This is something that's been criticized since its inception, but it's something we think is important and plan to continue for the foreseeable future.
Also Slashdot:
Sorry, anonymous posting has been turned off. Please register and log in.
Fully anonymous posting is broken (Score:2)
And it will remain broken. The problem is that as soon as anything of any value is discussed in a fully anonymous venue, some asshole will use a bot to spam the venue into oblivion. No, Captchas do not solve the problem. People hate them and will just go elsewhere.
Hence some kind of sign-up effort or the like is required because otherwise people that are simply disruptive or are paid low-quality trolls cannot be filtered out. That said, things like pseudonymous posting, where you at least have some reputati
I support a ban on anonymity (Score:2)
Anonymous posters and anonymous postings are two different things. Compare the internet to a speaking on a soapbox in the public square. You can say what you want to anyone who will stop and listen. If you stand on your soapbox and spew racism and hate, people will notice. If you wear a mask, you will be quickly unmasked. You are not an anonymous speaker. Keeping posters anonymous has led to doxxing stalking harassment and more toxic behavior that would never be possible in the public square. I think the co
Re: (Score:1)
"You do not have a right to anonymity."
Oh that sounds familiar... hmm.. "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear."
Maybe someday if the leftist tyrants get their way, they'll finally be able to punish everyone who refuses to comply with their demand to publicly admit 2 + 2 = 5, but not yet.
As it stands, anything you say online is tantamount to a legal affidavit, and it can and will be used against you; especially by the sanctimonious leftist scum that move the goal posts for being a domestic te
Oh f*ck off please! (Score:1)
Don't bullshit about things you can't understand. Facebook INTENTIONALLY flooded their platform with MILLIONS OF ALT-RIGHT FAKE ACCOUNTS because Zuckerbitch is the protege of the vicious fascist supervillain Peter Thiel!
two ways of telling the complete truth (Score:2)
"There are only two ways of telling the complete truth, anonymously/posthumously" --Thomas Sowell (b. 1930)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Here is an example of why its necessary to at least moderate anonymous accounts.
It's really more of an example of why we need to spend more on mental health services.
Public education in America is long dead. (Score:2)
But you didn't need to propagate the Subject.
Changing subjects only when the subject changes. (Score:2)
But you didn't need to propagate the Subject.
It's a logical follow on from the original post which we are discussing and, for once appropriately. Normally that subject is okay to propagate until there's a complete change of topic and, for example we start discussing the subject of subjects.
What is the Subject of this reply? (Score:2)
But there was no actual Subject there. Perhaps best described as an anti-Subject? Vacuous. Insane, too. FP abuse.
Such should not be propagated. Both of the replies were actually meta-replies that rejected and ignored the FP content, but they still propagated the Subject. Bad Subjects on FPs sometimes (often?) produce long strings of replies where the Subject lines have no discernible relationship to the content.
(I threw in that "education" Subject as related to the content of the second reply, but maybe I s
Re: (Score:2)
But there was no actual Subject there. Perhaps best described as an anti-Subject? Vacuous. Insane, too. FP abuse.
In some sense that's the point. It's an arbitrary bit string which now has no value. Mere repetition means it has no power or meaning beyond "refer to stupid post by that idiot that spends his time refreshing Slashdot often enough through a proxy to regularly get first posts". Everyone who's ever cared about it, been offended, tried answering it and realised there's no intelligence behind it is already long over it. The entire post and subject is fully redundant and the human brain automatically filters i
Re: (Score:2)
But the purpose of the Subject should be to give the readers some idea of what the comment is about. My theory is that the example in this thread is from a lunatic who wants to feel like he's "dominating" the discussion because his anti-Subject is propagated throughout.
So I opened this discussion up in another tab and expanded it. There are 144 comments now. Considering my filter settings (which basically cut the ACs to single lines), there are 90 comments and replies displayed in the All tab. The scrollbar
Re: "The Beating of a Liberal" (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Here is an example of why its necessary to at least moderate anonymous accounts.
It's really more of an example of why we need to spend more on mental health services.
This, it's a sad fact of life that to defend freedom (in many of its forms, expression, association, gathering) you sped a lot of time defending scoundrels. The law needs to be equal on freedom, the same law that lets "tommeh" Robinson (real name: Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, because when you're cause is noble and just, the first thing you need is a ski mask and a pseudonym) spew his bile is the same one that lets us criticise him or protest against laws we find onerous.
The fact is, many of the extremists are
Re: "The Beating of a Liberal" (Score:2)
Also the useless spamming of irrelevant crap like ascii art and porn is hurting the ability to provide anonymous opinions.
Remember that a hot topic easily can result in hate attacks on the poster. But sometimes the limits have to be stretched outside the norms to create change.
If you are reading that stuff it's your choice. (Score:2)
Also the useless spamming of irrelevant crap like ascii art and porn is hurting the ability to provide anonymous opinions.
99% of these get modded into oblivion. are never seen and nobody cares unless someone else chooses to respond from a non anonymous account. If you choose to read comments with a score below 2 then you have to learn to ignore and move on. If you read comments below the default value of 1 then that's your decision and you have an actual responsibility to mod down when you have points and ignore and move on when you don't.
Whoever's posting the original comment here is wasting a ton of time relatively harmless
Re: Utter garbage and peak hypocrisy (Score:1)
Agreed. He'd not be speaking out against this plan if it were Labour driving it. This is the guy who claimed that 'cancel culture' doesn't exist, taking that position because it's overwhelmingly lefties doing the cancelling. He's right for the wrong reasons.
It's appalling that the Conservatives are using this unrelated death to give themselves greater power. Ames died because a Muslim murdered him. Given that Islam is the ideology of the majority of terrorist groups worldwide, and accounting for a majority
Re: (Score:2)
Given that Islam is the ideology of the majority of terrorist groups worldwide, and accounting for a majority of terrorist attacks in the UK
In the last decade. I remember when Christians were responsible for the majority of terrorist attacks in the UK, but then again I remember the 80s and 90s. Toe 2000s were a bit of a wash.
We had only one ginger extremist, but he was stopped before he managed to do anything.
Re: Utter garbage and peak hypocrisy (Score:2)
I said 'is', not 'was'. Also, you'd be hard pressed to find Christian scripture or doctrine referenced by the IRA, assuming that's what you have in mind. This stands in contrast to Islam being very proudly proclaimed by terrorists today. Finally, Islamic terrorists in a decade quickly eclipsed the body count of decades of Republican terrorism.
Re: (Score:1)