Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 17 submissions in the queue.
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This discussion has been archived.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 fustakrakich on Sunday November 05 2017, @03:37PM (3 children)

    by fustakrakich (6150) on Sunday November 05 2017, @03:37PM (#592536) Journal

    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)

    by t-3 (4907) on Sunday November 05 2017, @09:37PM (#592662)

    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)

      by fustakrakich (6150) on Sunday November 05 2017, @10:02PM (#592672) Journal

      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

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @11:54AM (#592994)

        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?