Would an end to anonymous posting improve social media?

[Tee Kay]

*looks at Youtube*

*looks at Twitter*

*looks at Facebook*

lol no

I think the GIFT theory has been well and truly disproven by this point.

It's only useful as a tool by spooks and monopolists to gaslight people who care about things like civility to give up their online liberties.

 

[amadeus]

Everyone’s made the privacy point so I’ll make this one—in some cases, I don’t want to know what opinions my co-workers, family members, etc. express online.

To expand on this: it’s not as though I’m afraid of anyone I know being grossly offensive, it’s just rather that I don’t talk about some subjects with some people. If someone I know wants my opinion about something, they can solicit it from me personally rather than try and find it through their computer, and then I’ll have the choice of whether to give it or not—and I would extend the same to anyone else, I’m not entitled to know what anyone thinks about anything.

 

[Josu]

I would quit social media.

I only have Linkedin with complete real infomation. I would only maintain it due to professional reasons.
I would quit all other social media. Where I think I do not post nothing, at least I try, that should be punished or censured

 

[Arwon]

It would get a non zero number of people killed

 

[lymond]

ESPN - Caroline Garcia details online abuse after US Open exit, cites 'unhealthy betting'Caroline Garcia

I don't use social media at all, but getting rid of anonymity might help reduce crap like the above where folks are telling celebrities/athletes to kill themselves or death threats.

 

[Samson]

ESPN - Caroline Garcia details online abuse after US Open exit, cites 'unhealthy betting'Caroline Garcia

I don't use social media at all, but getting rid of anonymity might help reduce crap like the above where folks are telling celebrities/athletes to kill themselves or death threats.

It seems to me that the problem is the lack of appropriate filter software. If you have the internet you will not be able to stop people saying nasty things. The important thing is to not have to read nasty things, and giving the control of what you read to oligarchs means you read what they want you to read.

 

[Birdjaguar]

"it would kill social media" Would that be a bad thing?

 

[Gorbles]

"it would kill social media" Would that be a bad thing?

For the people who use it without being trolls or worse, yes.

EDIT

Maybe some find that a welcome trade-off. That's probably only the case for people with no investment in social media in the first place. Should we entertain a vote on its existence from said demographic? Are there other reasons why people might find that trade-off acceptable?

 

[Birdjaguar]

For the people who use it without being trolls or worse, yes.

EDIT

Maybe some find that a welcome trade-off. That's probably only the case for people with no investment in social media in the first place. Should we entertain a vote on its existence from said demographic? Are there other reasons why people might find that trade-off acceptable?

I do not think one can put the genie back in the bottle. In addition, I think each iteration of social media (FB, X, Instagram, Tik Toc, Discord etc.) has generational and demographic aspects.

 

[amadeus]

"it would kill social media" Would that be a bad thing?

Excuse me if this sounds a bit out there but I wouldn’t narrowly define social media to just things on computers or phones: posting something on a wall, delivering a speech on a soapbox, and so on are to me just all kinds of this in varying degrees.

If no one can make an anonymous comment online, why should they be able to make them offline? Have every news source on TV publicly revealed, force people to sign their names to things they’ve said, etc.—to me, the computer is just the delivery platform that we’ve all adapted to, probably because as much as AT&T thought we’d all love to have video phones, it turns out most of us don’t want to change out of our pajamas just to make a phone call.

 

[Core Imposter]

Having that requirement would only increase the power of the *******. Shame, censor, ban, exile. People are already so intimidated. It would hasten our conversion into the human hive.

Can't tell you how many times I've had conversations with friends and one of us would remark, "God forbid we say that on social media". That would be assuming we are posting under our names.

If you ******* really knew what we all think of you, you'd be hitting that "report" button so hard that your finger would penetrate reality and become entangled in quantum space.

Obviously, if you tried to eliminate anonymity, someone would simply create an anonymous social space. And there talk about you just the same.

 

[Ordnael]

Seems like another good way to realise the 1984 world we are living in already. You write in social media only what big brother approves of. Cutlery incidents make you uneasy about nu-europeans, just don't share that with anyone! Then we all wake up in a tru fascist police state because rampant autocrats got in power voted in by the unwashed ungated toothless masses that folks in rainbow ivory towers despise so much!

 

[Gorbles]

The right-wingers who self-censor their very brave views have found something new to blame for their own choice to self-censor, I see.

 

[Lexicus]

Can't tell you how many times I've had conversations with friends and one of us would remark, "God forbid we say that on social media". That would be assuming we are posting under our names.

Seems like another good way to realise the 1984 world we are living in already. You write in social media only what big brother approves of. Cutlery incidents make you uneasy about nu-europeans, just don't share that with anyone! Then we all wake up in a tru fascist police state because rampant autocrats got in power voted in by the unwashed ungated toothless masses that folks in rainbow ivory towers despise so much!

Yes, we can only lament the wonderful scholarship on skull shape, race & IQ, the need for a strong führer, and so forth the world has been deprived of thanks to all this woke censorship

 

[MrCynical]

I wonder how ending anonymous posting would change social media. One would have to be an identified real person to contribute or participate.

It would make things a lot worse, based on the effects of social media so far. One of the main negative changes with the arrival of social media was significant amounts of online activity ceasing to be anonymous. Prior to that practically all online discussion was detached from real life identity - indeed it was a basic online safety rule. With the decrease in anonymity, toxicity and bullying in particular has got far worse.

A quick stroll through any of the major sites rather disproves the idea that people won't post hate with their real identity. Forcing everyone to use a real identity just forces victims and targets of this stuff to be identifiable to their attackers, and allow stuff to spill over from online to real life. This would just be pushing it to the extreme where the only way to avoid being a target is to be totally silent.

 

[Shirotora Kenshin]

*looks at Youtube*

*looks at Twitter*

*looks at Facebook*

lol no

I think the GIFT theory has been well and truly disproven by this point.

It's only useful as a tool by spooks and monopolists to gaslight people who care about things like civility to give up their online liberties.

Yep, i agree. These examples shows that it would not change anything.

 

[Joij21]

I do not think one can put the genie back in the bottle. In addition, I think each iteration of social media (FB, X, Instagram, Tik Toc, Discord etc.) has generational and demographic aspects.

Then why speak of killing social media?

 

[EnglishEdward]

People here seem to consider this as if it is a universal either/or choice.

It seems to me that it would be perfectly possible for each
social media platform to define its own rules on anonymity.

Some social media sites may permit anonymity, others may not.

To me, the biggest threat in the West is corporate defamation lawfare.

 

[Samson]

People here seem to consider this as if it is a universal either/or choice.

It seems to me that it would be perfectly possible for each
social media platform to define its own rules on anonymity.

Some social media sites may permit anonymity, others may not.

To me, the biggest threat in the West is corporate defamation lawfare.

I agree with this, but I am not sure what the "would" is doing. It is perfectly possible now, Parler did it and it worked out great.

 

[Samson]

Obviously, if you tried to eliminate anonymity, someone would simply create an anonymous social space. And there talk about you just the same.

They could make it illegal to connect to such a private space.