I know Lexicus does not actually mean this, but some people really do and about a lot of different subjects. Ending anonymity would kill social media and people.
Would an end to anonymous posting improve social media?
- Thread starter Birdjaguar
- Start date
Lexicus
Deity
No, i really do mean this
Cloud_Strife
Deity
Personally, i would strongly prefer those that are inciting a pogram would stop
Obviously that might offend some people on this forum because they'd need to stop, but it's a price worth paying
Last edited:
Manfred Belheim
Moaner Lisa
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2009
- Messages
- 8,550
Wishing mass death on people is kind of his thing so just believe him.
It comes as news to many of these disgusting people that the homeless have the same voting rights that they do. They wonder why a homeless person would care. Well, given that it's the politicians who decide what happens to homeless people, it's in their best interest to care.
Ditto the disabled. Someone actually said to my face, "I didn't know people like you could vote!". This is one reason why I have relentlessly advocated for disabled voters' rights, on FB and in the CBC comment pages (if an article is open for comments; most aren't these days). It makes me livid that some disabled people are either being denied a chance to vote by some lazy Returning Officer who doesn't want to bother with the couple of minutes' worth of paperwork, or they have the impression that they're not allowed. They most definitely are, and Section 12 of the online Elections Canada manual has a section that addresses this. Of course this is not something that either Elections Canada or CBC ever mentions.
As for CBC comments regarding concentration camps, there are people here who think that anyone in the at-risk population (re covid) should either just stay home - all the time - or be put in a camp so the "normal" people can just get on with their lives, mask-free and vaccine-free.
aimeeandbeatles
watermelon
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2007
- Messages
- 20,105
Or the ever-classic "what did immunucompromised people do before people started masking?"
They died.
Just to be clear, they were right to shame you over this
Ordnael
Emperor
This thread is not about shame, for I have none, it's about the right to speak your mind without being silenced or fearing real life repercussions!
Moderator Action: Speaking out here may not bring about any real-life repercussions, but everyone's free speech rights here are limited and staff can and does respond frequently to what posters post. Birdjaguar
Moderator Action: Speaking out here may not bring about any real-life repercussions, but everyone's free speech rights here are limited and staff can and does respond frequently to what posters post. Birdjaguar
Last edited by a moderator:
People saying they don't like your opinion isn't the same as being silenced. Some folks just need to work on their receptiveness to criticism
As for real-life repercussions, again, freedom of expression isn't the same as immunity to consequences. That said I'm not sure we need a new "free speech" thread yet. Especially when it always boil down to vague allusions to "consequences" that generally end up being pretty justified given the context.
Doubly so when people who defend free market capitalism get very mad when private companies opt not to coddle certain opinions. Consistency, as usual, is the problem.
Narz
keeping it real
You never know what someone really means.
He posts about how he'd like people to die so often I'm not so sure. If I was at a cfc meetup I wouldnt turn my back to him.
If someone repeats something over and over it pays to take it at least a bit seriously.
Anonymity does not protect you from criticism. Saying nasty things is the worst that can happen if you have anonymity.People saying they don't like your opinion isn't the same as being silenced. Some folks just need to work on their receptiveness to criticism
I am willing to put up with people saying nasty things if it means they cannot do "real-life repercussions".
I am not making vague illusions. I am talking about state violence and non-state actors from the ALF to the alt right. Remember, the internet never forgets.
"saying nasty things" is still an objective in itself, and I've never ascribed to the "words can never hurt you" part of "sticks and stones".
Mental health is just as important, and if "well they shouldn't use the Internet then" is the only recourse for people affected by these nasty things, that's not a proper solution either. The people running the space in question need a way to deal with the nastiness, and on some level, logistically, that requires a lack of completely anonymity (e.g. to make sure a person is actually banned from a forum).
EDIT
That said, in-context, I was saying to Ordnael that he simply needs to deal with criticism better, because he seems to be conflating criticism of his posted (or expressed) beliefs with being "cancelled" or similar.
That genie is already out of the bottle. Real-life repercussions exist. We're not really debating true anonymity; we're debating the concept of less vs. what we have now. To that end, we have to factor in the existing real-world harm that people can commit while benefiting from anonymity themselves.
EnglishEdward
Deity
There is an opportunity to plot social media use by country against various offline crime rates by country.
I totally agree, and the history of the social media is strewn with the harm it does. How this can be reduced is a big question, far larger than anonymity whatever you think on this question.
I am talking about anonymity that needs a quantum computer (or an opsec fail) to break. I could be always posting here on tor and no one could find me.
The fact that most people do not go to this length is kind of irrelevant. The difference between your anonymity here and someone who went for the "no anonymous" solution of Parler is big enough to make all the difference for most people.
I'd argue it does make a difference, and that to the people who want to commit harm, sure, Parler might make it easier, but if people wanted they could cross-reference my being Gorbles online to build up some kind of a profile. To the extent I've sanitised my online footprint considerably because while that cat is mostly out of the bag due to having a more open presence when I was younger, I've been stalked and attempted-doxxed enough times that I'd rather keep my family and IRL circles uninvolved.
I would say you underestimate the effort bad-faith actors can and will go to.
That said, I hope this doesn't read as defending Parler
If people choose to put publicly-identifiable information out there about themselves, that's different from it being made accessible through incompetence, greed, or some other lack of care.I am not sure what you are saying here, the only thing I said do NOT make a difference was "The fact that most people do not go to this length is kind of irrelevant". Obviously it actually makes a difference, in that if everyone was communicating over tor and we all would care.
What I mean is that as long as we have the legal right to hide our speech then the important speech can be hidden. The Stop the Oil people using Zoom was their fault, if it becomes illegal for them to use Veilid then it is our fault.
I said this based on the reports that "Among a trove of personal data is said to be driver’s licenses that Parler users uploaded to the website as part of a verification feature on the social media service." However looking for a more authoritative link it seems that may be wrong. It is going to happen though, if we all have to provide ID anytime we want to post.and that to the people who want to commit harm, sure, Parler might make it easier, but if people wanted they could cross-reference my being Gorbles online to build up some kind of a profile. To the extent I've sanitised my online footprint considerably because while that cat is mostly out of the bag due to having a more open presence when I was younger, I've been stalked and attempted-doxxed enough times that I'd rather keep my family and IRL circles uninvolved.
I would say you underestimate the effort bad-faith actors can and will go to.
That said, I hope this doesn't read as defending Parler
For reference I have done KYC checks once in my life, and they lost the data to hackers 10 days later. How long will it be before 90% of the populations personal data would be on a dark web database if you had to hand it over to post online?
One of the primary bad-faith actors is the government, and second big tech. I suspect I have a reasnoble idea of their capacity.
Last edited:
I disagree on the former, I think. The problem is Zoom being porous. Like Veilid is a Tor-like, right? So its benefit is it is bulletproof. Quantum computer territory. But blaming people for the choice of using a popular piece of software when activism doesn't necessarily go hand-in-hand with technological aptitude is . . . I mean, I see where you're coming from. But enforcing technological constraints on peoples' choices actually reduces the efficacy of group work (this is more of a vibes thing from me, but honestly born out from experience).
Yeah, that's kinda a yikes from me, if true haha.
Probably has already happened. Not even with hackers, but given the amount of interplay between government agencies and the private sector, who are either greedy and / or just bad with security generally.
We're possibly talking at cross-purposes. For me the scale is at the personal level, cause and effect.
I do not trust either the government (any, really), or private tech sectors to work for the benefit of the population at large. So for me it seems to boil down to the individual, and the damage that can be done to them. I think this ties in with what I'm trying to say about Zoom, above.
Lexicus
Deity
I think it would be a bad thing to lose anonymity. Why?
I think the foundation of intellectual debate and progress comes from the free sharing and challenging of ideas. In this way topics can be debated and the best ideas rise to the top. For this to work requires two things:
- the culture where people are open to share without fear of repercussion
- the culture where people are able to criticise / challenge with candour
These both rely on the concept of ‘psychological safety’. Psychological safety is easy amongst friends, but with people you don’t know it’s hard. Anonymity allows it to be created within groups of strangers.
I think the foundation of intellectual debate and progress comes from the free sharing and challenging of ideas. In this way topics can be debated and the best ideas rise to the top. For this to work requires two things:
- the culture where people are open to share without fear of repercussion
- the culture where people are able to criticise / challenge with candour
These both rely on the concept of ‘psychological safety’. Psychological safety is easy amongst friends, but with people you don’t know it’s hard. Anonymity allows it to be created within groups of strangers.
Speaking of which, how long has it been since the last meet up?
Similar threads
- Poll
