Online Anonymity?

[cuttsie]

Just now, the_bloke said:

In some countries, online anonymity brings a freedom that people simply don't have in society. Hong Kong springs to mind.

 

Not everyone anonymous online uses it as a tool for abuse, for a lot of people living in oppressive regimes it gives them a chance to express an opinion and discuss ideas with people of a similar viewpoint without the secret police breaking down their door and dragging them off to prison.

Not ours thank goodness 

[cressida]

Forummers can use their own names if they choose can't they?

[Thirsty Relic]

Our society is meant to be a relatively free one - I don't tell people they have to be anonymous online, and I certainly object to others who would stop anybody being anonymous online.  If people want to tell anybody who will listen all their business that is up to them, so long as they don't demand that I do the same.  Burglars and other "wrong-uns" love to hear people spouting their details (both online and in public) - it helps them choose their victims.

[cressida]

Yes I agree  it's too risky imo

[hackey lad]

3 hours ago, trastrick said:

Thanks.

 

I grew up with folks like you, Cuttsie, in our neighborhoods, our schools, and on our building sites. No bullsh^t, straight talk, and the ability to agree or disagree and still enjoy a pint after work together and share a non-politically correct joke.

 

It's why I enjoy living where I do today, not in some fancy hotel, but in town with the locals, who don't have two pennies to scratch together most of the time, but they manage to be happy, helpful, self sufficient and proud of who they are. I get my stuff from the vendors on the street, just like we did in Heeley.

 

Some folks, through ignorance, equate a conservative with racism, but if my black partner and black neighbors ever heard some of the accusations against me, they'd  chase them them out of town with a machette, Lol 

 

Respect!

 Great post . I feel the same way as you . 

[cuttsie]

3 minutes ago, hackey lad said:

 Great post . I feel the same way as you . 

and me

[Olive]

On 24/10/2021 at 19:04, croat77 said:

You can't take away "fridum of speach" from Karen. She has a right to express herself, after feeding her 25 cats and drinking first bottle of vodka in the morning 🤣🤣

Is there any need for this nastiness?

Heaven help all those poor ladies who are actually called Karen, whose name's now associated with any women-shaming insult you can spit out.

[altus]

Won't work, too easy to bypass and the restrictions required to make it even vaguely work would be worthy of the Chinese government.

 

Banning anonymous social media accounts would only stifle free speech and democracy.

 

If the forum's right wingers are on the same side of an argument as Owen Jones, those proposing the alternative really need to take a critical look at what they are proposing.

 

A more techie description of the issue in Online harms don’t need dangerous legislation, they need a spot of naval action

Quote

The Online Harms Bill has been floating around in some form or another for ages, with its inherent contradictions of supporting free speech and technological innovations. Meanwhile, trying to specify what sort of either one is acceptable has kept it off the agenda. It has superficially laudable goals but demands impossible means, not unless you adopt Chinese levels of authoritarianism.

Special privileges for politicians...

So guess what? There are calls to make the "vilification of politicians" a special case. Any state that grants its power-brokers special privileges from dissent is inherently corrupt - theocracies that make criticism of the state religion "blasphemy" and those who make any state criticism a libel use these laws not to protect public servants but to silence dissent.

 

Those who commit vile acts deserve vilification, but politicians have the power to entrench and extend vilemess into our entire culture.

 

Misogyny, racism, homophobia and threats of violence against anyone online absolutely includes politicians: the ability to say that a politician is vile because their acts crush the lives of the powerless and desperate should never be silenced.

 

Likewise the calls to enforce ID for users. This breaks down on every level – infosec, effectiveness and sanity – and leads to logical conundrums like: What do you do with users from outside your country? Do you ban their content from UK screens? Do you have an international ID register? Do you fine people who get around the system – and if you can find them to do this, why don't you just do it if they create harm? Who keeps the ID database, and what happens when it's hacked, or a government uses it to harm groups it dislikes, or…

 

Well, these are all old and unanswerable arguments, but let it never be said that any government surrenders to facts and logic with technology.

 

[spilldig]

19 hours ago, cuttsie said:

and me

Count me in as well.

[brown_jellybean]

Online anonymity unfortunately provides a platform for weirdos to also create fake profiles for their own sick amusement whatever that may be - pretending to be someone else, steal money, manipulate and bully others and the list goes on. I suppose one way to make sure profiles are held by genuine people would be to have the verified tick similar to what appears on celebrities accounts. It would be a hell of a big job to implement but something does need to be done because online trolls and catfish alike are using online anonymity more and more these days to deceive and bully people.

Edited November 1, 2021 by brown_jellybean