Online Anonymity?

[El Cid 210]

LONDON — British ministers are facing growing calls to clamp down on online anonymity after the shocking killing of an MP. But it's not as easy as it sounds.

https://www.politico.eu/article/ending-anonymity-is-not-easy-for-uk-ministers/

 

We are all annonemous on SF and everything is ok? But there are no celebs in here, unless you count The_DADDY 

Some people are carefull no to post personnal things, so their indentity is not revealed. It is usefull to discuss issues with anonymity, for finacial, DIY and personal advice etc, but it is not a human right and the world might be a safer place if anonymity was removed.

 

[the_bloke 17]

Never going to happen. Totally un-enforceable.

 

The most you could wish for is social media companies requiring some real evidence of who you are when you create an account which could be passed onto the authorities if needed. 

[El Cid 210]

1 hour ago, the_bloke said:

Never going to happen. Totally un-enforceable.

 

The most you could wish for is social media companies requiring some real evidence of who you are when you create an account which could be passed onto the authorities if needed. 

At the moment that is done with an email address, which is ineffective.

Identity could easily be confirmed by the transfer of 5p from a bank account.

I dont think ID confirmation would make any difference on SF, but may be usefull on sites that radicalize, threaten and bully.

[Thirsty Relic 206]

99% of users of social media platforms are fine - they allow free exchange of opinions etc.  In trying to "police" the internet for all the right reasons, you are cutting down the freedom of the great majority, and handing the power to do this to ... who exactly?

 

We've already got legislation allowing the Government to see what web pages we go to, so we're all already under surveillance,

 

I don't get the link between an individual killing an MP and clamping down on online anonymity.  MP's have to talk to constituents, and have been doing that for many years before the Internet.  Social media companies have teams working on radicalisation - and strong links to the police, who also have teams dedicated to this.  Would curbs on anonymity be effective anyway?  If someone is intent on doing something, they will do it, whether they can be identified or not. 

[melthebell 862]

not very often youre 100% annonymous online anyway, the police can get the ip address you used on a certain website and can use it to find you if they so wished

[El Cid 210]

1 hour ago, Thirsty Relic said:

I don't get the link between an individual killing an MP and clamping down on online anonymity.  MP's have to talk to constituents, and have been doing that for many years before the Internet.  Social media companies have teams working on radicalisation - and strong links to the police, who also have teams dedicated to this.  Would curbs on anonymity be effective anyway?  If someone is intent on doing something, they will do it, whether they can be identified or not. 

Anonymity gets used as an excuse, I dont know if its a factor. I dont have a problem with harrasment or being radicalised.

I wouldnt have a problem with proving my ID, although I wouldnt be quite so open in discussing some things.

Perhaps proving your ID would only be seen by the service provider and people could still be anonemous.

So where is the problem, cost?

[Guest]

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 🤣🤣

[The_DADDY 3,450]

5 hours ago, El Cid said:

LONDON — British ministers are facing growing calls to clamp down on online anonymity after the shocking killing of an MP. But it's not as easy as it sounds.

https://www.politico.eu/article/ending-anonymity-is-not-easy-for-uk-ministers/

 

We are all annonemous on SF and everything is ok? But there are no celebs in here, unless you count The_DADDY 

Some people are carefull no to post personnal things, so their indentity is not revealed. It is usefull to discuss issues with anonymity, for finacial, DIY and personal advice etc, but it is not a human right and the world might be a safer place if anonymity was removed.

 

Awww shucks. You made me go all red faced and giggly 😁

Re the original post I'm pretty sure similar things were said after the murder of Jo Cox but I'm not sure anything came of it. For me personally I think anonymity is not only important but also my right unless specific terms and conditions of a site I'm using deny me that right in which case I then have the choice to still use that site or go elsewhere. Any information I choose to disclose I do so because I want to not because I have to. As for abusive account holders, they can be banned whether anonymous or not. Making everyone give up their anonymity because of a few nutters is overkill in my view and just smacks of Big Brother.  

[cuttsie 1,089]

On line posters should all be prepared to use their own name .

[El Cid 210]

57 minutes ago, The_DADDY said:

Re the original post I'm pretty sure similar things were said after the murder of Jo Cox but I'm not sure anything came of it. For me personally I think anonymity is not only important but also my right unless specific terms and conditions of a site I'm using deny me that right in which case I then have the choice to still use that site or go elsewhere. Any information I choose to disclose I do so because I want to not because I have to. As for abusive account holders, they can be banned whether anonymous or not. Making everyone give up their anonymity because of a few nutters is overkill in my view and just smacks of Big Brother.  

I cannot understand why people, women/celebs, go on Twitter if they get abuse; but the same could be said for Facebook.

But Facebook can be a very powerfull tool for advertising, was it was for Vote Leave.

[jane2008 15]

4 hours ago, cuttsie said:

On line posters should all be prepared to use their own name .

No they shouldn't.  What if you had things in your past and someone posts 'Oh are you the Joe Bloggs that did ------ or that ============ happened to.?  Of course you can say no that wasn't me but it could changed how you are perceived online.

[cuttsie 1,089]

9 hours ago, jane2008 said:

No they shouldn't.  What if you had things in your past and someone posts 'Oh are you the Joe Bloggs that did ------ or that ============ happened to.?  Of course you can say no that wasn't me but it could changed how you are perceived online.

so people can just go on saying things that are untrue about others , who are then perceived to be bad people online and can do nothing about it .