SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for takyon
This week, representatives from Google, Facebook, and Twitter are appearing before House and Senate subcommittees to answer for their role in Russian manipulation during the 2016 election, and so far, the questioning has been brutal. Facebook has taken the bulk of the heat, being publicly called out by members of Congress for missing a wave of Russian activity until months after the election.
[...] The point is clear enough: if you're fighting Russian interference on social media, anonymity is a big problem. In some ways, it's the original sin, creating space for that first lie that lets trolls enter the conversation unnoticed. "Account anonymity in public provides some benefits to society, but social media companies must work immediately to confirm real humans operate accounts," Watts told the committee. "The negative effects of social bots far outweigh any benefits." It's a common insight among bot-hunters, and one that's become particularly popular amid this week's hearings.
[...] The problem is social. We're used to anonymity on the internet, particularly on the services where it's still available. It's hard to know what an anonymity backlash would mean for services like Twitter, Reddit, and 4chan — all of which are named in Watts' testimony as playing a role in Russian disinformation.
In the background, there's an even harder question: is anonymity still worth saving? It's foundational to many people's idea of the internet, but amid widespread online harassment and Facebook itself, it's come to mean less and less. Even without Russian influence campaigns, the web's online spaces are largely associated with the ugliest parts of humanity. (4chan is a prime example.) With new pressure from Congress, bot analysts, and the public, online anonymity may not have any defenders left. In the face of that, Twitter, Reddit, and others might decide a real name policy is a small price to pay for forestalling federal regulation.
Source: Russia's Social Media Meddling Could Spell the End of Online Anonymity
Previously: Russia Bans VPNs and Tor, Effective November 1
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 05 2017, @04:38AM (23 children)
Yes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 05 2017, @04:48AM (22 children)
I agree, it forces people to base their perception on the content rather than use argument from authority heuristics (eg credentials). On the other hand, argument from consensus gains more power. Still I think it is good.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by aristarchus on Sunday November 05 2017, @05:33AM (12 children)
I don't even know who I am supposed to be anymore! When people doubt my persona on-line, it hurts me deeply. But it does not in the least affect the quality of my comments, or my submissions.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 05 2017, @07:03AM (11 children)
This comment almost feels like a disagree mod.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by aristarchus on Sunday November 05 2017, @07:32AM (10 children)
Get beyond your feelings! Assert the Truth! I always have students who say, "Oh, you just want us to express our opinions?" And I say, "Who the fuck cares about your opinion? Who are you? Some Mightly Buzzard, wasting his karmic expanse upon the sands of the Tennessee?" And mostly, they say, "no". But then I remind them, young paduwans that they are, "Why are your opinions your opinions?" And the answer comes back, "Because they are true." Yes, here is the rub. Everyone believes what they believe because the believe it is true. I mean, what kind of idiot, other than TMB, Eth, Runaway, or jmorris, would believe something they knew was false? So this is the rub: You may think your opinions are the right ones, and good on your for that, but, prove it? Give us the reasons that you have that make you think your opinions are true. If they are good reasons, they should work for us, as much as for you! If not? Of to the alt-rational for you. And, epic fail in the marketplace of ideas and rational discussion forum. Sorry, Buzz. Ain't cutting it.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Runaway1956 on Sunday November 05 2017, @09:52AM (1 child)
Tennessee has such lovely beaches . . . don't mind if I do waste some karma on the sands there . . .
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 05 2017, @11:33PM
http://www.onlyinyourstate.com/tennessee/tn-beaches/ [onlyinyourstate.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday November 05 2017, @11:01AM (7 children)
If you practiced what you preach here, you wouldn't be on my "foes" list. Be what you claim you want to be.
(Score: 4, Touché) by aristarchus on Sunday November 05 2017, @12:15PM
Tu Quoque, Mon amici!
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday November 05 2017, @03:31PM (3 children)
Nixon had an enemies list too, ya soggy bagel =P
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 05 2017, @05:36PM
I think he is Nixon...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday November 06 2017, @03:53PM (1 child)
(Score: 3, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday November 06 2017, @08:23PM
You do yourself a grave disservice. I've found Ed3 to be right more often than not, and aristarchus is usually hilarious (though some of his stuff--notably, when he tries to talk like YOU) misses the mark.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 05 2017, @05:27PM (1 child)
Can't speak for Aristarchus, but being on YOUR enemy list would be a GOOD thing for me. Hell, might be enough to get laid!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday November 05 2017, @09:07PM
Well, get an account so we can get you sorted out.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by jmorris on Sunday November 05 2017, @09:56AM (8 children)
As usual, the stated reason is a lie. They couldn't care less about the Russians. Hell, until the Wall fell the Democratic Party was openly aligned with Soviet Communism and considered it the Future. For that matter they still do consider it the Sunny Uplands of History and work toward it and it was Hillary in league with Putin selling out 20% of American uranium deposits for massive contributions to her "foundation".
They don't like anonymity because it allowed US to speak unspeakable things without suffering the usual consequences like becoming unemployable. They want those "good times" back.
Look at the current antics, where police are scouring surveillance footage to find the "monsters" putting up signs all over the place with the message:
Since a 4chan meme has broke into meat space they expect to be able to track down the miscreants and destroy their lives for putting up a message that tame. On the Internet they joke about gassing kikes daily, safely anonymous. But beyond the jokes, the "Jewish Question" is alive and openly debated. Don't try it in the real world. If you want to know who rules you, look at who you must not insult or question. Best not to even notice. Remember when CNN lost its effing mind and threatened to dox some reddit dweeb? It wasn't for what they said it was, it was for a well researched, large image he was posting showing the staff and management of CNN who were of the tribe.
The bottom of the image has this text:
Well now you know the rest of that story.
In meat space James Damore lost his job for suggesting it might be worth looking at the results of all of the affirmative action and see if it is actually having unintended side effects, whether women actually DO want to work in some of the geekier STEM fields at precisely the same levels as men, etc. After all, there ARE fields where more women are taking the classes so logic would dictate some majors should be less popular. Meanwhile on the Internet the debate is, shall we say, much farther developed already. Again almost all anonymously. The right has grown used to burning through twitter accounts, if they really do start locking new account creation to phone numbers it will quickly become a left wing echo chamber.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by digitalaudiorock on Sunday November 05 2017, @02:40PM (4 children)
...blah blah blah...drool drool. Seriously folks. Who the fuck is modding this as "Interesting"? Go home to Brietbart already.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 05 2017, @04:10PM (3 children)
LOL, you can't refute anything so you have to label someone "Breitbart reader" aka "alt-right" (neither of which is actually a bad thing, only in SJW shitcunt circles) and everyone can see right through your virtue-signaled veneer of authoritative moral superiority.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 05 2017, @05:30PM (1 child)
Eww, who left the door open during the rain? The worms are crawling in!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 05 2017, @10:45PM
If GP really is a "worm," then his words will stand on their own and reveal him as such, but all your visceral reaction has done is helped to prove his point.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday November 06 2017, @07:06AM
You keep using those words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 4, Funny) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday November 05 2017, @03:34PM
What the fuck did i tell you about staying off the cross? Winter Is Coming (TM) and we need all the firewood we can get. Of course if you wanna burn too I've got no problems with that at all.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday November 05 2017, @11:07PM
Your employer? Your bank? A corporation with enough money to deploy the lawyerpult with seconds notice?
Agreed, these are among your masters.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @02:07AM
> until the Wall fell the Democratic Party was openly aligned with Soviet Communism and considered it the Future
I take it you aren't old enough to remember JFK calling Khrushchev's bluff and getting the missiles out of Cuba? I was ~8 years old at that point and it made an impression on me for sure.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Sunday November 05 2017, @04:45AM (2 children)
Write a bot that locates message board posts that go on for hundreds of pages.
I am completely convinced that the majority of websites harbor kiddie porn. Any one site won't last long but new ones appear quickly.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 05 2017, @05:21AM (1 child)
Let the creeps pass around their vile trash; it's better that they keep their urges virtual.
Spend resources instead on curing malaria.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 05 2017, @05:24AM
If CP can't be shared somewhere then anything else can be taken down by the elites as well.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday November 05 2017, @04:46AM (6 children)
Typical politician's response to any perceived problem. When do they figure out that if they remove the penises of all new born babies, all crime will evaporate in about six or eight decades? Of course, there will be an immediate, if temporary increase in illicit sex . . .
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 05 2017, @07:36AM (5 children)
Runaway, oh, Runaway, you should not generalize so much from your own personal case.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday November 05 2017, @03:36PM (4 children)
I dunno, Dickless over there seems like he's still violent and deranged...probably just too lazy to do anything about it.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 05 2017, @04:02PM (1 child)
It's true: this man has no dick.
(I've been wanting to say that in a social context in response to the appropriate comment forever now, it seems...)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 05 2017, @11:11PM
But he retained the balls, as useless as they are
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @01:11AM (1 child)
What has the world come to when hideously ugly SJW trannies are mocking their enemy's lack of a penis?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday November 06 2017, @07:04AM
I'm neither ugly nor trans, thanks :) And while I don't fit the standard SJW mold either, if the choice is "SJW x-or whatever kind of sewer-dwelling incel chromosomal disaster *you* are" then count me in as part of team bluehair.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 05 2017, @04:56AM (20 children)
The problem is on Facebook, which doesn't have anonymity. So lets go after sites that allow it.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 05 2017, @05:47AM (1 child)
Big difference between users being anonymous, and advertisers being the same. As Deepthroat (nice nick, dude!) said, "Follow the money."
If you pay money, we want to know where to find you, because, well, you might have more of it.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday November 05 2017, @05:58AM
Good rule, bad messenger [politico.com].
Advertising has also been the Achilles' heel for a lot of copyright infringing sites, torrent sites, and sites that will censor certain content to stay "advertiser friendly" (the latest big example being YouTube).
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Sunday November 05 2017, @06:07AM (17 children)
Uhhh, actually, you can be anonymous on Facefook. My Facefook profile has little in common with my real identity. Of course it's male - I can't fake being a chick. The age is near right. Racial/ethnic background close enough. Maybe I'm not completely anonymous, but I sure as hell ain't who I really am. My employer can't check up on me on Facefook - and HR would really, really like to. If I were to post a video of a high speed run on my motorcycle, the cops wouldn't know who the hell they were looking for. Wouldn't even know who has jurisdiction, most likely. Of course, posting that video would be pretty damned stupid - anonymity relies on maintaining a low profile. Posting videos of high speed runs where speed limit signs are visible is definitely not "low profile". (Actually, making the video is pretty damned stupid - if you should get stopped for any reason, providing the evidence for your own conviction tops the list of stupid things to do.)
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday November 05 2017, @06:12AM (1 child)
Do you login to Facebook using a VPN? Tor [wikipedia.org]?
If you don't, the cops have you right where they want you.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 05 2017, @04:04PM
so uh you had me believing you up until the whole "login to Facebook" thing.
I don't really believe it matters where you log into it from.
Sort of like how "safe sex" doesn't matter for your own personal safety if you are already afflicted with everything you could already catch, or are too ugly to even have a partner. You might protect others from casual sprayment, but there are better ways to be safe, like practicing something besides self-indulgence.
(Score: 3, Funny) by aristarchus on Sunday November 05 2017, @08:57AM (14 children)
One thing you never actually learned from your Naval experience, Runaway19565, if OpSec. You have dropped more than enough information here on SoylentNews for anyone to dox you. We do not for two reasons: one, it would be wrong, two, who the fuck cares! But on the other hand, independent of what any of us here on SoylentNews may, or may not, want to do, you should be really worried about that HR connection. I mean, if I knew you were my employee, I would fire your ass in a nanosecond, just on principles of basic humanity. So try to obfucsate, Runaway, or the pieces will fall into place of their own, just about a mile out of Texarkansas, in those ol' cotton fields back home.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday November 05 2017, @09:49AM (13 children)
Funny. Did you know that it's actually against the law to fire a person for his political opinion? https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/illegal-reasons-firing-employees-30209.html [nolo.com] You might "get away" with firing me for my opinions - that is, a court may find that you can legally fire me for the reasons you offer. But, stand by for that retaliation suit. As the head of HR, you have just become a major liability for your employer. And, YOU won't have grounds to file a retaliation lawsuit against your (and my) former employer, because you cost the company tons of money due to dereliction on your own part.
Fire me, bitch!!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jmorris on Sunday November 05 2017, @10:08AM (1 child)
Isn't it cute you still believe the rule of law applies in America. Show me ONE person on the Right who has had a twitter rage mob descend on their real ID or one who gets doxed at one of those dumb alt-right rallies who hasn't lost their job. They fired a Nobel Prize holding scientist, they fired a Google Talosian (with a big throbbing brain) for crimethink, they fired the CEO of Moz Corp for a lousy $1000 donation to an initiative that WON in California! And ain't a one of em got a penny. Oh hell ya they will fire thee or me.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by cubancigar11 on Sunday November 05 2017, @05:19PM
Rule of law has never been about ruling by the law.
The "they" who fired nobel laureate are rich fuckers who live in a world where they can't become richer by working hard, and can't actually be bothered to take a real loss to help the poor. In that way they are closer to the dark age when witch hunts were common, apart of the witch hunts these SJWs so dearly love.
In that sense I see the web as that technological innovation that ushered the age of enlightenment. I am sure even the power brokers see it that way, at least they have been forced to see it that way, and are hellbent on keeping it under their control. Trump hasn't actually drained the swamp as much as I had hoped he would, but imagine if someone with real knack gets in and throws these "intellectual" hacks off the government teet. They can't take that risk.
And yes, anybody who thinks they have legal protection against doxxing, needs to check the fate of boys who have been falsely accused of rape and actually found innocent in the court of law (HINT: They are still not allowed to enter the college.)
(Score: 1, Troll) by aristarchus on Sunday November 05 2017, @10:11AM (8 children)
Runaway, you fucking bitch! I will fucking fuck you in the ass, or have my lawyers do it, just on what you said about your younger female co-workers on this very sight, not too long ago. Not to mention your comment about African American Female colleagues, close to the same time frame. Do you think you are exempt from laws that prohibit causing a hostile workplace environment? Do you think you co-workers like your leering glances and really creepy dirty old man comments? Oh, yeah, we are going to fire you just because you are "conservative", what ever the fuch that means these days. No, it is kind of like how "political correctness" is a major bugaboo of the Alt- and Normal, plain old Republican right, when all it means is that you should not be an asshole. Being an Asshole creates a stressful work environment, and those employees you are stressing are worth more than your sorry old Republican ass. So, good by, Runaway1957, nothing personal. Thank goodness you live in a "right to work" state, where we have a right to just fire you for being an asshole, but you can't be forced to join a union! AHHH! Free the Freedom, Runaway! Or, perhaps, you would like to, um, run away? Asshole.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday November 05 2017, @10:25AM (3 children)
That comment contains more spelling and grammar mistakes than usual. Are you trying to attract Grammar Nazis, or are you sauced up?
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2, Troll) by aristarchus on Sunday November 05 2017, @11:41AM (2 children)
Maybe it wasn't me? Or is it just getting Runaway all rilled up by suggesting "You can't handle the truth!" I suspect he will be pink slipped by the end of the week, either in the "terminated" mode, or the "I feel pretty, oh so pretty, and happy, and gay!" mode. Poor Runaway. If only he were not so stupid, could find somewhere else on the internets to hang out and not be banned. As it is, we are stuck with him, because no one else will tolerate his stupidity.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @01:15AM (1 child)
"Everybody who disagrees with me is a stupid fucking idiot."
signed
Genius Tolerant Liberal who loves and respects everybody
Repeat x1000
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Monday November 06 2017, @03:34AM
Why do you think this, genius AC? Did you ever think that someone might disagree with you because you are just wrong, and not smart enough to see it? Could happen.
(Score: 2, Offtopic) by Runaway1956 on Sunday November 05 2017, @10:40AM (3 children)
Citations, or you're making it all up. I have NEVER badmouthed any of my female coworkers, except for HR. In fact, I only have two coworkers who I have ever badmouthed. There is a third who needs it, but I've certainly never mentioned him here. He is only now moving up on my radar, so I know I've never mentioned him.
Go ahead, make accusations, talk shit, make yourself feel good. Doesn't matter. It only gives me ammunition when I file that retaliation lawsuit.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 05 2017, @11:47AM (2 children)
Runaway, do you know who I am? Do you know that I am your superior, only posting with a pseudonym, just to keep track of how much damage you might be doing to the company? I only mention the fact that you have let slip so many details because I fear that it can be tracked back to our company, and your posting here would be an extremely negative reflection on us, if anyone were to realize you were our employee. So, Runaway, or if I may call by by the first name in our HR records, ***********, I would appreciate it if you would just shut to fuck up.
(Score: 1, Redundant) by Runaway1956 on Sunday November 05 2017, @01:29PM (1 child)
If you are my "superior", then you will remember that I've already told you that I have few superiors, and that none of them work at this plant. I find my superiors in odd places around the nation, and around the world. But, there are none working in this plant, and you know it. Now, kindly fuck off and die.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday November 05 2017, @03:39PM
"Did ya ever get the feelin'...you wuz bein'...trolled...? *carrot chomp*"
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 05 2017, @04:13PM (1 child)
Tell that to James Damore.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @03:40AM
Um, we did.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 05 2017, @05:05AM
Don't let anything be wasted. Always take advantage... so let's end anonimity for the plebs. Everyone keep your papers with the teeth. Doublebonus, less talking and always identified. Oh, that means ID card for everyone is needed too. See? Always taking advantage.
Next you will hear USA hacked Russia to set up all this. Because nothing is too insane anymore. OK, OK, this case and with Putin it maybe too much, but otherwise, fucking something abroad to change something locally... perfectly possible.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 05 2017, @05:11AM (7 children)
I'm pretty sure that a congressional ban on anonymous speech will not survive supreme court scrutiny; for many reasons.
Most immediately relevant is that any such ban can simply not reach outside the borders of the US. We recently had a story about balkanisation of the internet by national laws; supreme court recognition of this fact means that any such ban would be immediately, inherently ineffective, and consequently meet the simple test of whether it imposes a burden disproportionate with its effectiveness. More so yet because any external troublemakers (Russia! North Korea! Are you scared yet?) would simply establish whatever pseudonymous or anonymous fora they damn well pleased, and invite 4chan inhabitants onto it.
Let congress fulminate and waste their time on this. It probably does less long-term harm than anything active they'd be likely to undertake.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 05 2017, @05:28AM (4 children)
But I think that the citizenry of the United States have shown themselves fully incompetent as to the legal and philosophical nature of their country. And now thanks to the polarization of Americans into extremely antagonistic left and right factions, the legal framework of the country is finally suceptable to the corrosion of its founding liberties that had been intended all along.
(Score: 5, Informative) by c0lo on Sunday November 05 2017, @10:52AM (3 children)
The "left and right" don't apply to US political spectrum, the correct terms would be "right and extreme right".
But, as you see, your argument still has the same validity without them.
(mmmmaybe there's something relevant in the fact that the "extremely antagonistic" is what matters, the rest are just details?)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 05 2017, @05:15PM
Depending on where you start, America is "left and extreme left".
But I agree on the argument being valid either way.
(Full disclosure: not the GPP.)
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 05 2017, @07:20PM (1 child)
Wow, so original. Never heard that one before. The +5 for this comment would be at home on the green site. And I had high hopes for this place.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday November 06 2017, @07:09AM
Don't let the door hit ya where Big Bruty bit ya, pal...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Sunday November 05 2017, @05:29AM
I don't remember the case as it was a long time ago.
Someone distributed an anonymous political pamphlet. They were charged under a law that required the disclosure of who paid for the pamphlet. SCOTUS ruled that the charge violated the first amendment.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by jmorris on Sunday November 05 2017, @10:18AM
But you see, Congress isn't going to pass a law, they are going to make the tech monopolies an offer they won't refuse. Be enshrined as THE monopolies if they play ball or trust busted into oblivion if they refuse. No, it won't be Congress passing a law, it will be Facebook, Twitter, Reddit and YouTube all deciding you must lock your account to a cell phone and eventually a government issued photo ID. And all fora who don't join the authenticated users bandwagon gets crapped on by the ISPs, the legal system and as many annoyances as a government way to big AND an Internet full of 900lb gorillas can invent to bully them into playing ball. Because if ONE social media system refuses they will end up with all of the users when all the cool edgy types migrate and take enough followers to trigger a network effect. They remember how fast MySpace went from unstoppable to "wow, that domain is still live!"
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Sunday November 05 2017, @05:21AM (6 children)
Banning anonymity would last two seconds before congressmen realized it would mean they couldn't cyberstalk their interns anymore.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 05 2017, @06:41AM
Oh dear don't you. Rules are for you, not for me. There will absolutely be carve outs for politicians and individuals who "personal notoriety would make anonymity necessary." In other words, if you're a big donor - you also get access to anonymity.
(Score: 1) by ElizabethGreene on Sunday November 05 2017, @02:39PM (4 children)
The people that would ban online anonymity are the same that refuse any sort of change control system for tracking who suggests what changes in legislation.
Everyone is equal, just some people are more equal than others.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Sunday November 05 2017, @03:02PM (3 children)
Exactly. How about we 100% track and expose every minute of every day for the legislators proposing this kind of measure first, and see how they like it, before such a thing can be imposed on us.
In the Second American Republic it should be a fundamental rule that any measure that can cause harm must first be visited upon those proposing it. Want to take away health insurance from millions of Americans? Fine, but you go first, and you must have a serious, expensive illness. Want to continue to scrap climate legislation? Fine, but you move next to the coal plant belching out soot and CO2 and vacation in toxic waste dumps. You want to disappear people into Guantanamo? Fine, but let's subject all of you to six months' detention with daily waterboarding to see how you like it.
That would produce a much better result for the country and humanity.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by dry on Monday November 06 2017, @04:40AM (2 children)
Be nice to just have these arseholes lead in war. Trump can lead the charge on the demilitarized zone between the 2 Korea's and show us his leadership qualities.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Monday November 06 2017, @02:24PM (1 child)
That's an excellent suggestion. At least their kids should be in the first wave of soldiers. Then they might think long and hard about whether we really need to go to war.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by dry on Monday November 06 2017, @04:02PM
Seems I remember hearing that during the run up to the Iraqi war, not one Congress person had a personal stake in it, with personal stake being defined as children or grandchildren likely to be involved in the fighting.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 05 2017, @06:44AM
Anonymity is one of the biggest barriers to advertising. Are you advertising to the same person? Are you marketing Midol to a 45 year old man?
And now you need not fear any sort of counter-narrative ever emerging. If somebody says something uncouth, fear not - hound them and their employer and make their life a living hell. Isn't anonymity terrible!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 05 2017, @06:59AM (6 children)
Whether what they spread is full of lies or not, why does it matter? This country was founded upon freedom, and if people want to read erotic political fiction written by ruskies, why should I care? If those voters are swayed by such garbage so as to vote a certain way, how valuable was their vote to begin with? I'd rather us focus on our education system to create a well-informed and intelligent voting population instead. It's highly doubtful that our legislatures would be fond of that however.
More on topic:
The solution to speech you don't like is always confrontation, not the stifling of it. It doesn't matter how wide spread it is. The purpose of this nation's founding was freedom, and that includes the free exchange of ideas and facts. If lies are spread, counter them with facts. In the event that is not effective, an aggressive strike, through similar means, must take place against the offending country to create mutual understanding. If you believe in compromising on the core values of our nation in any way whatsoever, you don't believe in them period.
Anonymity is necessary to live in a free society. Just because our forebears didn't have the internet does not mean they didn't conceal their identities when needed. Whether it's been authors concealing their identities, people posting pamphlets at night, or even our founding fathers meeting in secrecy prior to american revolution, anonymity is a huge part of our history as a people. Removing anonymity from the internet, such a significant and large part of our lives in this modern age, is as evil and tyrannous as trying to prevent it anywhere else
If we're not allowed to conceal our identities when desired and able, what else will we not be allowed to conceal in the future? Should the activities in my house also be public domain? Will I soon have to scan my ID at stores so that my purchases can be tracked and recorded?
We've let our country be attacked and threatened for decades, with parties often using phones and the internet anonymously to communicate, and fucking Russia putting advertisements on facebook is supposed to be a good explanation for removing our liberties?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by maxwell demon on Sunday November 05 2017, @07:46AM (4 children)
That's called a credit card.
Currently you can use cash instead. But some people want to get rid of that.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Sunday November 05 2017, @07:49AM
Either I forgot to add the link for that claim, or I did it wrongly (reminder to self: don't forget to preview). Therefore here it is:
https://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2016/08/economist-explains-11 [economist.com]
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 05 2017, @08:15AM (1 child)
Fair point, but do you believe that to be a good thing?
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Sunday November 05 2017, @09:28AM
What, credit cards? Cash? Or the abolition of cash?
Well, I always pay in cash whenever possible. And I didn't actually get a credit card as long as practically possible. I think that answers your question.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday November 05 2017, @08:50AM
Those people are idiots. Yes, let's completely remove the option for people to buy things anonymously, thereby greatly increasing the ability of governments and corporations to track your purchases! That's what we need: Even more mass surveillance. The article you linked to in your other comment trivializes anonymity and acts as if it is less important than stopping Bad Guys, and this is in the 'give me liberty or give me death' country. I will never understand people who simply have no principles whatsoever and would trade absolutely anything away for security or convenience.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 05 2017, @05:50PM
trump, motherfucker!
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Bot on Sunday November 05 2017, @08:17AM
When did people give these guys the power of deciding for us what is the truth and what is a lie?
Politicians, let us propaganda bots do our jobs, since we share the same occupation basically. In fact, we feed people less BS than you do on average.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by stormreaver on Sunday November 05 2017, @11:03AM (7 children)
Congress is conveniently ignoring the real basis for Russia's successful meddling in American elections, but would rather slap us all with the red herring of social media. The real basis for Russia's success is that our politicians make it all seem so plausible. They behave so badly, have such obvious unconstitutional agendas, that any bad messages spread by Russia seem like standard U.S. politics to most people.
The best way to halt foreign influence in American politics is to have respectable politicians, which seems laughable nowadays. But the blame for our current political crises rests solely at the feet of Congress and the White House.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 05 2017, @02:58PM
0) This is not meddling with elections, this is trying to influence your voters. There's a difference.
1) Was it really successful? They may have meddled but was it really significant? Just because someone wanting Trump to win posted stuff on Soylentnews and Trump won doesn't mean that person successfully meddled with the elections.
2) If it was significant then the real problem isn't that the Russians are buying ads, but your voters are retarded/messed up enough to "buy" those ads.
Half the US voters think the USA got regime changed by the Russians and are whining about it. The other half thinks they won legitimately. Seems more likely some people lost the election and are trying blame others for their loss instead of getting better so they win the next election (assuming Trump doesn't start WW3).
This is a mere hint of what the US has been doing to other countries for a long time.
The USA sponsored the Syrian opposition: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-syria-wikileaks/u-s-secretly-backed-syrian-opposition-report-idUSTRE73H0E720110418 [reuters.com]
And they went further than mere words and supplied weapons too: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/27/world/middleeast/cia-arms-for-syrian-rebels-supplied-black-market-officials-say.html [nytimes.com]
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/25/world/middleeast/arms-airlift-to-syrian-rebels-expands-with-cia-aid.html [nytimes.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 05 2017, @03:16PM (1 child)
The real problem is not that the Russians tried to get US voters to choose Trump instead of Clinton. Nor that the voters were allegedly easily influenced by the Russians.
The real problem is out of 300 million people, the top two candidates were somehow Trump or Clinton.
You're never going to get the "best" candidate but you really should start doing much better than this.
It's like giving voters a bad apple and poisoned apple to pick from. And then concentrating on complaining that the Russians tricked the voters.
If you had much better candidates it won't matter that much even if the Russians somehow got the voters to pick the worst one.
The real fucking problem is why are the choices so fucking bad?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 05 2017, @05:06PM
Because the electorate CHOOSES to remain ignorant, and doesn't want to get involved in their civic duty. Their precious, narcissistic lives are more important than the bigger picture of the society they live in, and their role in it. They expect government to do FOR them that which they should be doing themselves. Aint "western society" great. Make greed/avarice/narcissism great again.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Sunday November 05 2017, @03:37PM (3 children)
But the blame for our current political crises rests solely at the feet of Congress and the White House.
You are aware that those are elected positions, right?
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by t-3 on Sunday November 05 2017, @09:37PM (2 children)
You are aware that there is an entrenched two-party system and it is incredibly hard for someone without the financial and political backing those parties provide to reach a wide enough audience to get noticed, right?
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Sunday November 05 2017, @10:02PM (1 child)
It is the audience that is entrenched in tribalism with their two party system, which feeds on their antipathy.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @11:54AM
Are you claiming that t-3's information is false? Unless you are, it sounds like you're blaming the victim: "she shouldn't have been dressed like that if she didn't want to be raped".
If you are claiming t-3's information is false, what is your basis for doing so?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 05 2017, @12:49PM
Anonymity prevents holding a specific person accountable for their actions,
but it also permits more freedom in what you post.
Some folks don't like this use and the Russian thing makes a great opportunity to try to eliminate it.
But, for the Russian tweaking the US election thing, Internet anonymity had a different function.
It is not about holding a specific Russian accountable.
The issue was that a US reader could not know they were reading from a Russian writer.
It would not have mattered if the US reader knew which, specific writer was involved, only that the writer was not in the US.
To prevent this misdirection, it would have been sufficient for the social media site to categorize, as opposed to identify the poster.
It seems likely that the media site had the information to do this to support selling adds, but did not disclose it.
Perhaps disclosing it would have lowered the value of the information to the media site?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Brunzen on Sunday November 05 2017, @01:41PM
Please lift internet anonymity for politicians for one day. How many of those on the right path are watching porn and writing dirty stories? The Out of the Ordinary [noveltrove.com] section on Noveltrove (nsfw) is probably full of such hypocrites.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Sulla on Sunday November 05 2017, @03:00PM (2 children)
So in order to fight Russians and fascism the only thing we can do is to implement a fascist state?
Thanks liberals. Glad to know that russians are so bad you want to give up all of your principles.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 05 2017, @05:41PM (1 child)
Not what liberals want, just as 95% of the shit Dubya did was not wanted by real conservatives. Now stop being such a partisan hack!
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Monday November 06 2017, @12:28AM
I love that when I forget to rag on both sides I get called out and also when I point out how much I hate both sides people get buttmad because their side is "less bad". Both sides here suck and want to steal our freedom, get over yourself. The only difference is that now its the liberals claiming we need to throw our rights away to fight the russians instead of the conservatives, conservatives seem fine with saying its terra that makes us need to give them up.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 05 2017, @05:01PM (1 child)
Russia won. When anonymity is removed from American based platforms, they'll now be able to not only monitor their own people, but non-Russians too. This is a KGB/FSB/Putin coup. Technology before wisdom, the bane of humanity.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 05 2017, @05:34PM
Technology before wisdom...
Nah, merely cat and mouse. Circumvention is always at hand should the desire arise. If not for public support, the state would wither away.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 05 2017, @07:11PM (1 child)
No it will not. Can you tell me who I am?
(Score: 2) by dry on Monday November 06 2017, @05:08AM
Sure, you're Anonymous Coward. With how much you post, it's hard to miss you though your karma is so bad that you're usually at zero, so those who browse at +1 probably are unaware of you.
What's funny is how you pretend that there are more then one of you, sometimes having a changing sig,changing your posting habits and such. Maybe even using different IP addresses hoping that we won't catch on to you and look you up in the phone book.
(Score: 4, Informative) by arcz on Sunday November 05 2017, @09:48PM
The Supreme Court said anonymous speech is protected. This is a non-starter.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Monday November 06 2017, @01:47AM
I'm sick of the Russsia this Russia that. Russia had no influence on my decision to never vote for HRC. HRC's own words, spoken in 2003, was when it was clear to me I'd never vote for her.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtK9AzcU42g [youtube.com]
If you do watch this, you'll note at 13:29 that Clinton's SOLE beef w/ GWB, was cutting taxes at the same time we went to war in Iraq: "Here at home, this administration is bankrupting our economy forcing us to make the worst kinds of fasle choices between national and homeland security, which they don't fund." In other words, Clinton wanted MORE money for the NSA and foreign military adventures.
Fuck Democrats and their Russia narrative.