Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Sunday March 15 2015, @01:34PM   Printer-friendly
from the tweet-tweet-choke dept.

Wired's Parker Higgins writes:

Tor users started reporting last week that they are being prompted more frequently than ever for a phone number confirmation when creating a new Twitter account—or in some cases when using a long-standing account. This development is disastrous for the free speech the platform generally stands for, and will likely not curb the abuse for which it has come under fire.

Only Twitter can determine what the tell-tale indicators are and how they’re balanced; if the company considers Tor use a very strong indicator of bad behavior, then Tor users will be disproportionately targeted for measures like phone number checks. Unfortunately, that undermines the anonymity of the people who need it most, without necessarily providing protection for targets of harassment.

Abuse on Twitter comes from accounts using real names, and from accounts using pseudonyms. It comes from accounts with massive follower bases, and from so-called “egg” accounts that are freshly made. It can come from a user with a handful of sock puppets, or a small army of one troll’s dedicated fans. Very few of these categories rely on Tor for their trolling, and they’re not likely to be affected. But other people that rely on strong anonymity will.

Cracking down on anonymity tools may seem like something to do, but Twitter—and the other online platforms we count on—need to do better than just doing something.

 
This discussion has been archived.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: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 15 2015, @09:00PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 15 2015, @09:00PM (#158109)

    Also, why is this a problem? If we accept that free speech is supposed to have some limit (fire in crowded theaters, blah blah), how can that limit exist in the absence of consequence?

    You can't forbid a certain type of speech (anonymous speech) just because certain people abuse it. Any country that claims to be free and does that is an authoritarian hellhole. Since you brought up that idiotic "fire in crowded theaters" example (which came from a court case that decided it was okay to arrest war protestors, by the way), I'm presuming you're talking about the government. In the US, it would be a violation of the first amendment to prohibit anonymous speech. The government prohibiting someone from communicating in a certain way (without transferring an identity) definitely infringes upon people's free speech rights. If they want your identity so badly, then they can try to get it through the proper procedures (i.e. constitutional warrants). Our rights do *not* disappear just to make it easy for law enforcement to do its job (to hand out "consequences"). I will take freedom over safety any day, so stuff it.

    And do you honestly not see the problem when people form lynch mobs any time someone disagrees with the "for the children" crowd? Anonymous speech can be the difference between life and death, and you are shortsighted for not realizing that.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 3, Touché) by BK on Monday March 16 2015, @05:22AM

    by BK (4868) on Monday March 16 2015, @05:22AM (#158226)

    You can't forbid a certain type of speech (anonymous speech)

    Anonymous isn't a type of speech, it's a type of speaker. Just a detail I know...

    You can't forbid a certain type of speech (anonymous speech)

    Sure I (well, a government) could. You already re-mentioned the fire and theater thing. Half of Europe bans all positive discussion of Godwin's buddy. Governments ban all kinds of speech.

    Any country that claims to be free and does that is an authoritarian hellhole.

    Fine. All places are authoritarian hellholes. Some also claim to be free. Moving on...

    Our rights do *not* disappear just to make it easy for law enforcement to do its job

    Reread my post. This isn't about actual laws or your rights. At least not directly.

    Big international corporations do not exist without the consent of... a government. Probably lots of governments. The governments of authoritarian hellholes (the only kind of place there is) want warrants, when served, to lead to actual traceable information. It is in the interest of companies like Twitter (who actually wants to make a profit some day) to keep some governments happy.

    And do you honestly not see the problem when people form lynch mobs

    If you want hyperbole, I'm using evil terrorists using anonymous Twitter to gang rape your daughter(s) and sell her into slavery as my counter example.

    people's free speech rights

    It's not the job of a corporation to protect your rights. Corporations exist to create value for the shareholders. Except maybe B corps.

    --
    ...but you HAVE heard of me.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 16 2015, @06:51AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 16 2015, @06:51AM (#158249)

      Anonymous isn't a type of speech, it's a type of speaker. Just a detail I know...

      You are wrong. Communicating without your identity and communicating with your identity produces two different types of messages. The content itself is different, since the data you transmit is different. You can't prohibit anonymous speech without banning a certain type of speech.

      Sure I (well, a government) could.

      I speak not of ability, but of ethics. You could also murder someone; you have that ability. But I care not about your abilities.

      Fine. All places are authoritarian hellholes. Some also claim to be free. Moving on...

      Yes, indeed, there is no country on this planet that doesn't have monumental problems that need to be solved. All are authoritarian hellholes, even if some are worse than others.

      It is in the interest of companies like Twitter (who actually wants to make a profit some day) to keep some governments happy.

      Since you mentioned that "fire in a crowded theater" nonsense, I simply presumed you were talking about how it wouldn't be a problem if the government banned anonymous speech. That would simply be false.

      You already re-mentioned the fire and theater thing.

      Indeed. It has no constitutional basis in the US, despite the Supreme Court's rulings. And it was used to arrest war protestors, yet everyone likes to cite it as an example.

      Half of Europe bans all positive discussion of Godwin's buddy. Governments ban all kinds of speech.

      And they're worthless scumbags for doing so.

      If you want hyperbole

      That was not hyperbole. Have you ever seen the way the "for the children" crowd acts? Look up the documentary Witch Hunt for one example, and look at the absolutely insane laws designed to 'protect' children in many countries in the world. Anonymous speech is important for protecting people (for reasons other than that too) so that there is not a chilling effect on their freedom of speech. Otherwise, people who oppose the status quo might not ever get a chance to discuss anything.

      Freedom is simply more important than safety. If we really want to be free, rather than just pretending that we are free, we need to stop sacrificing all of our liberties to the government in the name of safety.

      • (Score: 2) by BK on Monday March 16 2015, @07:41PM

        by BK (4868) on Monday March 16 2015, @07:41PM (#158540)

        That was not hyperbole. Have you ever seen the way the "for the children" crowd acts?

        And have you ever seen the way ISIS (ISIL, Daesh) acts? There's more than one slippery slope here.

        --
        ...but you HAVE heard of me.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @04:44AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @04:44AM (#159204)

          You're an idiot. You cannot compare governments that are supposed to be of the people, by the people, and for the people violating people's rights to terrorists attacking people. It is far worse for a government to violate people's rights, for when they do, your government--which is supposed to be just--becomes a mere group of thugs. Infringing upon everyone's fundamental liberties merely because some people could make use of those liberties in a way that you don't like is disgusting.

          Fact: Anonymity is important for protecting your privacy and can protect you from aggressors. It can protect Bad People (TM) too, but that does not debunk my point, so fuck off.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @04:48AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @04:48AM (#159206)

            Indeed, nothing I said was hyperbole; the "for the children" crowd and others is filled with evil scumbags who are all too happy to violate people's rights.

            And so are groups like ISIS, of course, but everyone already knows that. Let's not let our governments infringe upon people's liberties like these scumbags.