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: 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!"