Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by mrpg on Sunday November 05 2017, @04:29AM   Printer-friendly
from the I-refrain-from-commenting dept.

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


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by ElizabethGreene on Sunday November 05 2017, @02:39PM (4 children)

    by ElizabethGreene (6748) Subscriber Badge on Sunday November 05 2017, @02:39PM (#592515) Journal

    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)

    by Phoenix666 (552) on Sunday November 05 2017, @03:02PM (#592522) Journal

    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)

      by dry (223) on Monday November 06 2017, @04:40AM (#592853) Journal

      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)

        by Phoenix666 (552) on Monday November 06 2017, @02:24PM (#593045) Journal

        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

          by dry (223) on Monday November 06 2017, @04:02PM (#593129) Journal

          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.