Should Social Media be anonymous?

[nomadpete]

This could have been under the banner of Science, or Politics, or Health or even Religion. It relates to all these.

 

There is a debate to be had about the right to remain anonymous on the internet.

 

One side claims ....

 

"We do have a right to remain anonymous in public spaces, it is a fundamental invasion of privacy, to force anyone to put their name to a social media comment"

 

The other side thinks that naming the content source will help control misinformation.

 

Would the benefit be worth the loss of privacy?

Part of the issue is the plan to force ALL social media users to prove they are over 18 years of age (and who would hold the personal data that proves age,etc)

 

 

[Marty_d]

Good (and more) moderation is the thing.

 

While I agree that you should be able to post anonymously (you can imagine the murder rate increasing dramatically if everyone had the real world names and addresses of people who posted something they violently disagreed with), I also think it's the responsibility of any platform to moderate properly.

The problem comes then that these are private for-profit corporations whose owners and boards may be, in some cases, (what's the medical term? - oh yeah)  "bat-shit crazy".  The other problem is that the corporations are often based overseas.  The recent court case by Australia's e-safety commissioner against one such corporation to remove the video footage of that priest being stabbed has proved how little power nation states have against them.

The other problem is VPN's.  This allows anyone to mask what country they're actually in, and they're getting more and more common (many anti-virus programs actively encourage users to use a VPN).  However, you really don't want to stop this feature because it's the only way people living in authoritarian countries can actually get information from the outside world.

26 minutes ago, nomadpete said:

 

Would the benefit be worth the loss of privacy?

Part of the issue is the plan to force ALL social media users to prove they are over 18 years of age (and who would hold the personal data that proves age,etc)

 

 

Verifying age would be a good thing, but obviously as you say, who holds that data?  You really wouldn't want that treasure trove of ID documents getting hacked.

It's a conundrum all right.  On the one hand it's obvious these corporations need more legislative oversight (including forcing them to pay tax in countries where they're making a profit), but if they find this too oppressive / profit limiting, they'll just move to a country with laxer laws.

[spacesailor]

" spacesailor ".

I'm anonymous here , does any ' member ' object ! .

Bryan 

 

[facthunter]

It's not for us to interfere with the Life of Bryan. The way you vote is not declared so people can't force you to vote favourably for them. Nev

[spacesailor]

Pollies just ' lie ' , to get your vote .

spacesailor

[nomadpete]

If you have to put your name to your comment, are you more likely to think before you speak?

 

Is a conspiracy theorist more likely to stop spreading BS?

 

 

[nomadpete]

Being anonymous permit me to say stuff without having to deal with the consequences?

[nomadpete]

39 minutes ago, spacesailor said:

Pollies just ' lie ' , to get your vote .

spacesailor

Remember, both major parties in Australia  voted against forbidding lying in their political advertisments

[spacesailor]

OR 

Was that another ' LIE '.

Perhaps not lieing to the other pollies! .

Not much changed .

spacesailor

Edited May 19 by spacesailor

[Marty_d]

Interesting side thought,  if you could snap your fingers / rub a genie and make it impossible for any politician,  anywhere,  to lie, obfuscate, mislead or cloud the issue - would it be better or worse for the world?

[Litespeed]

Definately better in the medium and long term.

 

Intially it would shock and outrage people with the reality of the world we live in, but most seem shocked and outraged anyway esp those that only narrow cast views they agree with.

 

 

The world would be a very different place and much better for it. 

 

As far as anonymous goes, we should be allowed to express ourselves but be responsible for what we say and the actions they cause. A moniker is Ok but the government and courts should be able to access your info.  Naturally this has big risks in dictatorships esp China, Russia etc. but they would collapse in a world of truthful politicians.

 

The web titans must be considered publishers and not immune from laws, as in the USA, where they have special legislation making them immune.

 

If they don't get taxed they have no right to exist and profit from a countries people. You can argue they just publish and advertise from another country, but any smart politicians could easily stop that, VPN use or not.

 

Just make it illegal for any web provider to transmit their platform and illegal to buy advertising for any Au operating  company  and those selling into Australia on the banned platform.  Any transaction on the platform would be considered illegal and like money laundering. Treat the buggers like organised crime until they obey with our countries laws. Naturally all top executives of the platform would be liable for jail if they break these rules and fines for the company of 3 times gross sales. Here is the kicker, call it the ""Musk law", the majority shareholder or majority voting rights shareholder is legal liable for any fines or law suits the company can't meet. That stops the pyramiding of companies.

 

 

 

As far as moderation goes, needs to be fast and human based not just AI, and should be done by separate arms of the platform with a guaranteed high funding level and a separate independent board. Failure to immediately takedown after a order to do so by the regulator should be $1,000 per view, that adds up very quickly. 1 million views is $ 1 billion in fines, also delete any cross posting of the offending post/video/misinformation.

Their business model would collapse or change to be legal.  

I expect Elon Musk would wait until we fine him $100 billion but that's fine, we could be part owners in SpaceX.

 

 

Suddenly taxes would be paid, misinformation would be rare and easily debunked, and elections wouldn't be interfered with by tech billionaires, foreign governments ie Russia, China. 

 

Think how nice our world would be.

 

The truthful pollies is a pipe dream but the changes to the web are realistic.

Edited May 19 by Litespeed

[facthunter]

Truth in Media would be a big start. We won't really get far without it.   All you people who bag pollies . Would you be prepared to do the job they Do and please all the whingers and never get any thanks for doing it to the extent they can. It's easy to sit and throw rocks..  Thats not the best way to get the BEST people in.  Take more interest in what's REALLY going on, Not the BS SKY put's out.   Nev

[Marty_d]

32 minutes ago, facthunter said:

Truth in Media would be a big start. We won't really get far without it.   All you people who bag pollies . Would you be prepared to do the job they Do and please all the whingers and never get any thanks for doing it to the extent they can. It's easy to sit and throw rocks..  Thats not the best way to get the BEST people in.  Take more interest in what's REALLY going on, Not the BS SKY put's out.   Nev

Last point first, no one should ever believe anything Sky puts out, that's obvious.

However I think that we should be able to bag pollies when their statements or behaviour are not to the standard we deserve from our representatives.

They chose to become politicians to represent the people in their electorate, and knowing that they are becoming a public figure.  If their party becomes government, they have a broader duty to ALL people in the country.  So part of that responsibility includes never knowingly making false or misleading statements, but unfortunately, that's what happens.

When they use hyperbole to score a political point (eg Tony Abbott's "$100 lamb roasts") then they're lying to the country.  When they put ideology before facts (eg Dutton's blind support of nuclear power and hatred of renewables) then they're lying to the country.  When they argue against political donation transparency, against greater scrutiny of integrity, and as @nomadpete mentioned - against requiring truth in political advertising, then they're acting against all our interest and should be called out on it.

How many times have you listened to a politician on the radio avoiding the questions put to them by the interviewer, never giving a straight answer, making blanket statements and doing everything they can to push the party line, even if they don't agree with it?

Would I be prepared to do their job?  No way.  But that's not a reason for them to be dishonest.

[Jerry_Atrick]

Getting back to whether or not anonymity should be allowed on social media,  here is a good reason why not: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-05-20/kidfluencers-children-brand-army-social-media-four-corners/103820492?utm_source=abc_news_app&utm_medium=content_shared&utm_campaign=abc_news_app&utm_content=other

[spenaroo]

I think Facebook and Instagram has shown us it doesn't make a difference.

people still post with their name and image attached.

anonymity or not, its still the ease of being behind a screen and keyboard that is detached.

 

[facthunter]

Comments are more likely to be misinterpreted on line.  Sometimes deliberately. Having to qualify everything is a  great effort and not always successful. Really LONG posts are impossible to contest  in a practical sense.  Nev

[nomadpete]

How can we address the problem of multiple accounts held by 'influencers'? Or by the unknown numbers of chatbots that are set up by most countries and many criminals, with the intent of modifying public opinion?

Perhaps election influencers, etc?

 

Would mandatory identification bring greater honesty and transparency (and thereby greater trust) to social media?

[spacesailor]

I would be similar to your cell phone.

Whenever that spam finds you .

It becomes overbearing & relentless .

to be anonymous will be an asset .

spacesailor

[Litespeed]

Your phone is not Anonymous in Australia at all.

 

The gov and telcos know exactly who you are and where if needed.

That's a good thing, the only need for anonymous phones is criminals and spies.

 

Spams don't care who you are that much , they target numbers.

[Jerry_Atrick]

@Litespeed - that first post is a really well thought out and articulated post - and not much I could find fault with. I am not sure how one could hold nefarious states to account, but my shifting the obligation to the social media propviders, it would at least halt the march. In fact, it is in the interest in the more integral political parties in the west to do exactly that, so I wonder why they don't as they have power at least in the US, Canada, and Australia; and while NZ has a conserative government, compared to the right in the US and Europe, they really are more aligned to the moderates.

 

23 hours ago, Litespeed said:

A moniker is Ok but the government and courts should be able to access your info.

Agree, but there has to be strong controls and a totally independent and transparent body that has power to oversee and haul the govenment into line.. it should be funded by the industry through a tax rather than direct contribution so as to be truly independent of govenment and the industry - it probably should be a body along a commission or court so that it remains constitutionally separate from the legislature and the executive.

 

 

 

[nomadpete]

4 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

but there has to be strong controls and a totally independent and transparent body that has power to oversee and haul the govenment into line..

What a great idea.

Do you mean something like The National Anti-Corruption Commission, ACCC or ASIC?

[Marty_d]

Wonder if the scammers are using AI.

 

When I came here this morning there were only 2 threads in the "unread"... this one (should social media be anonymous), and "Buy fake passport Buy other document".

 

It's all about the anonymity!

[Litespeed]

1 hour ago, nomadpete said:

What a great idea.

Do you mean something like The National Anti-Corruption Commission, ACCC or ASIC?

Exactly, but with a rolling review every five years- keeps it out of election cycle.

 

It would need heavy powers and a public interest mandate.

No members with any link to any major business or politics or lobbying of any business interests.

It must have total powers of compulsion to testify, no immunity from prosecution on evidence provided and powers to demand prosecution of legal offences. Thus only a higher court could stop a case.. no more DPP or Attorney general decided on political reasons not to prosecute.

 

This is essential as pollies love a cover-up and love to lie with immunity- they never harm their rich mates  and media friends.

 

Telecommunications programs including IT, web services used by any employee or contractor of the Government -all levels Fed, state and local must make it illegal to use any encryption program esp those that delete the messages/ text/data and it must all be archived by law.

Such a law would be for any business or person involved in government, huge financial and mandatory minimum jail sentences would apply. It might sound tough but that gets rid of bullshit deals on sentences for their previous work as servants of the "people". Lots of fed offences are mandatory sentences.

 

 

 

The current use of such programs are common amongst politicians and public servants, contractors etc.

Their use is corruption plain and simple, it's used for secret deals, insider trading, to lie and obfuscate and game the system for profit. Also great to sell Intel to enemy or supposed friendly countries - aka spying/ treasonous behaviour.

 

As a side issue it should also mean open contracts, except for limited redactions on only parts of military contracts. If the government enters a contract commercial confidentiality ceases to exist. If we can't read it and even most in government can't, it is a corruption of government process and immune from any review.

 

If a company can't reveal its contract that's anticompetitive behaviour and corruption prone, so has no right to be a part of governments activities.

 

We waste billions every year from such commercial in confidence bullshit and have wholesale dumped public services into the greedy hands of capitalist pirates.

 

Lastly it should legally make the destruction of any documents held by any government departments, political  party offices and offices of politicians a criminal offence, esp the Prime minister's department. This is both for the person who destroys it, allows it to be destroyed  or orders such destruction, or is aware of destruction taking place and does not immediately stop it. Make it a heavy mandatory sentence.

 

Currently each election the loser shreds everything and even has departments clear the decks of any problem areas. The only reason is to cover-up misconduct in office and corrupt the system.

 

Just a few quick thoughts towards a better society.

 

I have to go sort out some crap going on in the middle East and a bloody strong coffee.

Edited May 20 by Litespeed

[Marty_d]

If you decide to run as an independent in the seat of Franklin, there's at least 1 vote for you Litespeed.

[nomadpete]

5 hours ago, Marty_d said:

If you decide to run as an independent in the seat of Franklin, there's at least 1 vote for you Litespeed.

But don't expect much support from friendly media. We don't have one.