https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20151207/21225233018/two-leading-presidential-candidates-clinton-trump-both-mocked-free-speech-internet.shtml
Give your rights away or else the terrorists will get ya.
:57:
I feel sorry for the fool ... who is surprised by any of this. I will protect you they say ... just make me dictator! Also no encryption ... math and privacy must be banned, or the Muzzies will get us! The ideal country that everyone wants to be, including the US ... isn't the US anymore, it is China. Even my cat is saying ... Mao, mao ...
Sorry, but I'm with them. There is no such thing as ABSOLUTE free speech. You can't scream "fire" in a theatre because of the potential loss of life in a human stampede that cry would trigger. Similarly, terrorists who use the internet to recruit and perpetrate their atrocities should not be able to operate so freely. You might argue that the authority might abuse and stifle freedom. I'd rather have that any day than let a bunch of barbarians chopping off heads on the internet.
ffs
Quote"You’re going to hear all of the usual complaints, you know, freedom of speech, et cetera. But if we truly are in a war against terrorism and we are truly looking for ways to shut off their funding, shut off the flow of foreign fighters, then we’ve got to shut off their means of communicating. It’s more complicated with some of what they do on encrypted apps, and I’m well aware of that, and that requires even more thinking about how to do it."
Shut off their means of communicating? These tools are tools that everyone uses -- and, in fact, which Hillary Clinton herself did a tremendous amount of (good) work helping to spread around the globe as Secretary of State. And now she's trying to cut it all off?
Oh noez, Clinton is going to shut down the internet!
"Clinton said at a Washington event that ISIS is “using web sites, social media, chat rooms and other platforms to celebrate beheadings, recruit future terrorists and call for attacks,†and asked Silicon Valley to crack down on the terror group." Source (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2015/12/07/hillary-clinton-wants-tech-companies-to-help-disrupt-isis-what-does-that-even-mean/)
Or maybe she just wants to squelch jihadi social media and websites that ISIS uses. You know, like we've more or less been doing already.
So yeah, not exactly the best evidence of her wanting to police the internet and dismiss free speech.
Yes ... we must have separate water fountains (and Internet) from law abiding people and brown people ... and shut down the water fountains (and Internet) that the brown people are using.
Josephpalazzo ... so will you be ready when the Gestapo come for you? After you have thrown everyone else under the bus.
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 09, 2015, 11:15:32 AM
Oh noez, Clinton is going to shut down the internet!
"Clinton said at a Washington event that ISIS is “using web sites, social media, chat rooms and other platforms to celebrate beheadings, recruit future terrorists and call for attacks,†and asked Silicon Valley to crack down on the terror group." Source (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2015/12/07/hillary-clinton-wants-tech-companies-to-help-disrupt-isis-what-does-that-even-mean/)
Or maybe she just wants to squelch jihadi social media and websites that ISIS uses. You know, like we've more or less been doing already.
So yeah, not exactly the best evidence of her wanting to police the internet and dismiss free speech.
she literally hand waved free speech... as if that is not a valid argument, the fight against Islamist rhetoric is about creating a counter narrative not trying to censor them, definitely not giving the government the power to circumvent internet privacy and private websites policies to do it. Most popular social media platforms already have TOS that banS them, thought obviously this is the internet you can always avoid bans and use encryption and if you open a door for the government there you fuck up the entire concept. This "solution" could bring much more problems considering who this candidates are and who pays them. And the constant push by governments to end anonymity online and criminalize victim-less activities online.
Personally, I'm against anonymity on the net. You should use your real name and you should be responsible for every word you put on the net. What the internet has encouraged is bullying, spreading false rumors, lies, falsehoods and all that is the lowest in human nature. Any media, be it books, TV or the net, it should strive for the best in enlightenment, and those who abuse them should be taken to court. My two cents.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on December 09, 2015, 04:09:02 PM
Personally, I'm against anonymity on the net. You should use your real name and you should be responsible for every word you put on the net. What the internet has encouraged is bullying, spreading false rumors, lies, falsehoods and all that is the lowest in human nature. Any media, be it books, TV or the net, it should strive for the best in enlightenment, and those who abuse them should be taken to court. My two cents.
fine as long as people keep their freedom to remain anonymous, I only oppose attempts to forcefully remove anonymity.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on December 09, 2015, 04:09:02 PM
Personally, I'm against anonymity on the net. You should use your real name and you should be responsible for every word you put on the net. What the internet has encouraged is bullying, spreading false rumors, lies, falsehoods and all that is the lowest in human nature. Any media, be it books, TV or the net, it should strive for the best in enlightenment, and those who abuse them should be taken to court. My two cents.
You just got to go there, didn't you ;-( We must have the Pope be the only poster, and only when he is ex cathedra ... otherwise any other post must be put on the List of Forbidden Posts. Please go confess to your local priest, today! Of course I would have a lot of Catholic ancestors who would agree with you.
I think what she's proposing is proposterous. Any one buying this doesn't know how technology works. There are infinite ways to get around anything they throw at the terrorists AKA hackers. So yes this is a huge deal and free speech is threatened for all the users who don't know how technology works or care to learn. But what you all don't realize is that it's already too late for that.
There is literally a digital trail leading straight back to you if you aren't covering your butt and most aren't. I could tell you stories upon stories of scary security breaches and leaks found by white hat hackers. And those hackers have been afraid to report these breaches in security to cover their own butts since any hacking at all is now illegal. I'm little closer to the white hat's than most since I have a few friends in IT. I'm sure every one's heard stories though.
the point of what I was saying though is that there are already white hat and black hat hackers spying on us all as we speak. And some of them I'm sure work for the government. Not to mention spy wear that companies now track us all with. Nothing is anonymous trust me on that one.
Understandable frustration ... wanting to do piss ant measures of censorship, when we really want to go up to a foreigner, kill him, and use the top of his skull to drink his blood ... so we can show him that we ... we are the civilized ones ;-( If you are that, look in the mirror, take your meds, get sober. Rambos ... all Stallone and no stallion.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on December 09, 2015, 04:09:02 PM
Personally, I'm against anonymity on the net. You should use your real name and you should be responsible for every word you put on the net. What the internet has encouraged is bullying, spreading false rumors, lies, falsehoods and all that is the lowest in human nature. Any media, be it books, TV or the net, it should strive for the best in enlightenment, and those who abuse them should be taken to court. My two cents.
My position is the exact opposite. I strongly support internet anonymity. It allows for freer and more candid speech, since it carries less risk of government or personal reprisal. There are drawbacks of course, but the same anonymity that allows for bullying and gossip also allows for political activism that would otherwise be repressed and criticism of religion that would otherwise bring violence down on the critic.
I mean, imagine if your proposal took effect on AF. Some of us post from places that aren't exactly atheist-friendly. And a lot of us have friends and family that would probably hit the roof if they knew we were atheists, let alone our other stances. Would that proposal have more desirable consequences than undesirable ones?
Totalitarianism is always grasping for more power. Often under the flag of law and order, and to save us from our fears. Worked in Germany just fine.
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 09, 2015, 08:52:25 PM
My position is the exact opposite. I strongly support internet anonymity. It allows for freer and more candid speech, since it carries less risk of government or personal reprisal. There are drawbacks of course, but the same anonymity that allows for bullying and gossip also allows for political activism that would otherwise be repressed and criticism of religion that would otherwise bring violence down on the critic.
I mean, imagine if your proposal took effect on AF. Some of us post from places that aren't exactly atheist-friendly. And a lot of us have friends and family that would probably hit the roof if they knew we were atheists, let alone our other stances. Would that proposal have more desirable consequences than undesirable ones?
I think like all things... it cannot be viewed in "black and white" terms of "this is what works and everything else is wrong". Yes the anon system causes some really vicious harassment... and I think that needs to be stamped out by the moderators of what ever forum it is taking place on. But when viewed on a net gain/net lose scale... you simply would lose far to many positives to justify an outright removal of anonymity.
I also find it funny coming from someone who doesn't post his age... location... or any personal information to post this...
QuoteYou should use your real name and you should be responsible for every word you put on the net.
Even assuming Joseph Palazzo is his name... that doesn't tell me anything about him without knowing his location or even age. He is still 100 percent anonymous even with his name in plain sight. So to me it is a very dishonest and snake skin comment to say people should take responsibility and not be anonymous like I assume he thinks he is doing... while at the same time benefiting from the very thing he is condemning.
It isn't a level playing field; If I was to post my name... I would have zero anonymity. There are less than 700 people in the United States with my first name.... and less than 200 with my last name. I also display my location and age... so I don't benefit from the fact that there are other Xxxxxx YYYYY's in the United States who could be me. While I love having a unique name... not just American-ly but globally... it means that if my name slips I am shit out of luck. "Joseph" could still benefit from ambiguity of which one is him while "Shiranu" (not my name) cannot.
All in all... a completely unthoughtful position to hold in my opinion.
Taylor Don Quach, Age 15 (December 22nd, 1999), Skyway Washington, 98178.
See? Nothing wrong with that! I don't care if my parents will kick me out!
If you're at danger of losing your home or job due to sexuality or "spirituality," Go to some support groups, or a shelter. And that job? Find another one or sue them.
And screw the rules, I'm keeping this here. It's not like you have my exact address, but you'll find me if you look hard enough.
Edit: I'd rather die in the Middle East than have anyone be anonymous.
Edit (Again): No database gives info of kids T_T
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 09, 2015, 08:52:25 PM
My position is the exact opposite. I strongly support internet anonymity. It allows for freer and more candid speech, since it carries less risk of government or personal reprisal. There are drawbacks of course, but the same anonymity that allows for bullying and gossip also allows for political activism that would otherwise be repressed and criticism of religion that would otherwise bring violence down on the critic.
I mean, imagine if your proposal took effect on AF. Some of us post from places that aren't exactly atheist-friendly. And a lot of us have friends and family that would probably hit the roof if they knew we were atheists, let alone our other stances. Would that proposal have more desirable consequences than undesirable ones?
As I remembered sending letters to newspapers and magazines - I did a lot of that in the old days- I had to submit my full name and address before any of those letters would get published. The reason being is that you should be accountable for what you say. On the internet, you can say whatever, without fear of reprisal, and that's the glitch: freedom comes with responsibility. Remove responsibility, and anything goes, which means catering to the lowest denominator, and this is exactly what we are witnessing. It's not enlightenment but gross lies, stupidities and human exhibitions of the worst kind. We are not getting better but worse. What will be the worth of your freedom once civilization is destroyed? Nada, zilch, zero.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on December 10, 2015, 09:03:21 AM
As I remembered sending letters to newspapers and magazines - I did a lot of that in the old days- I had to submit my full name and address before any of those letters would get published. The reason being is that you should be accountable for what you say.
(http://www.diablowiki.net/images/7/7f/Realid-penny-arcade1.jpg)
QuoteOn the internet, you can say whatever, without fear of reprisal, and that's the glitch: freedom comes with responsibility. Remove responsibility, and anything goes, which means catering to the lowest denominator, and this is exactly what we are witnessing. It's not enlightenment but gross lies, stupidities and human exhibitions of the worst kind.
These things seem to happen quite frequently with real names attached as well. Perhaps anonymity is not the culprit here, the internet is simply reflecting what already exists in society.
QuoteWhat will be the worth of your freedom once civilization is destroyed? Nada, zilch, zero.
I can see the headlines now: "civilization destroyed, online anonymity to blame"
Quote from: dtq123 on December 10, 2015, 07:13:24 AM
Taylor Don Quach, Age 15 (December 22nd, 1999), Skyway Washington, 98178.
See? Nothing wrong with that! I don't care if my parents will kick me out!
If you're at danger of losing your home or job due to sexuality or "spirituality," Go to some support groups, or a shelter. And that job? Find another one or sue them.
And screw the rules, I'm keeping this here. It's not like you have my exact address, but you'll find me if you look hard enough.
Edit: I'd rather die in the Middle East than have anyone be anonymous.
Edit (Again): No database gives info of kids T_T
That's nice; but your indifference, especially as a young teenager, is not an acceptable reason to put other people at risk.
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 10, 2015, 12:40:15 PM
(http://www.diablowiki.net/images/7/7f/Realid-penny-arcade1.jpg)
These things seem to happen quite frequently with real names attached as well. Perhaps anonymity is not the culprit here, the internet is simply reflecting what already exists in society.
Sure, before the internet, the tabloids existed, spreading rumors and lies. But they did not dominate the news. Most people did not mistake them as fact news but rather looked upon them as entertainment. OTOH, in today's internet world, it's difficult for the uninitiated to distinguish a website that is a "tabloid" from one that gives the real facts - the line are so blurred that even credible news sources are dissed by the common folks.
QuoteI can see the headlines now: "civilization destroyed, online anonymity to blame"
LOL.
But on a serious note, our western values are based on democracy, rule of law, secularism and constitutional rights. It presupposes a citizenry that is well informed. Well, if people can no longer distinguish between truths and lies - to wit, the dummy down of the culture that is ongoing on and hasn't lost any steam in the last 20 years - and that's the beginning of the end.
Quote from: dtq123 on December 10, 2015, 07:13:24 AM
Taylor Don Quach, Age 15 (December 22nd, 1999), Skyway Washington, 98178.
See? Nothing wrong with that! I don't care if my parents will kick me out!
If you're at danger of losing your home or job due to sexuality or "spirituality," Go to some support groups, or a shelter. And that job? Find another one or sue them.
And screw the rules, I'm keeping this here. It's not like you have my exact address, but you'll find me if you look hard enough.
Edit: I'd rather die in the Middle East than have anyone be anonymous.
Edit (Again): No database gives info of kids T_T
underage b&, also make sure you hide your dog before the swat team comes knocking.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on December 10, 2015, 01:18:08 PM
Sure, before the internet, the tabloids existed, spreading rumors and lies. But they did not dominate the news. Most people did not mistake them as fact news but rather looked upon them as entertainment. OTOH, in today's internet world, it's difficult for the uninitiated to distinguish a website that is a "tabloid" from one that gives the real facts - the line are so blurred that even credible news sources are dissed by the common folks.
This is because real journalism is a failing business model, I would blame the people who compose the market and love their infotainment and clickbait bullshit. And all the journalists/bloggers that do not even care about the basics of journalism ethics to separate news from opinions and put disclaimers of financial and other types of relations.
Quote from: mauricio on December 10, 2015, 01:23:26 PM
This is because real journalism is a failing business model, I would blame the people who compose the market and love their infotainment and clickbait bullshit. And all the journalists/bloggers that do not even care about the basics of journalism ethics to separate news from opinions and put disclaimers of financial and other types of relations.
Yes, you bring an interesting point. I'm a staunch defender of capitalism. But there are two areas in which capitalism utterly fails: (1) health care - no one who is seriously ill will take the time to shop around for the best doctor at the best lowest price - you're sick and you're going to go the nearest hospital or clinic to get your fix; (2) education as it is a long term investment and most parents are not qualified to determine what their own children need, educational-wise in terms of job market skills and an overall character development. But your point is about journalism as a failing business model, and that is so true in so many levels. The best TV series was, IMO, The NEWSROOM, which explored that very issue. How do you balance a news show between reporting the news, while keeping an eye on ratings, which determines if a show, or any media for that matter, will survive or not? You've got a Murdock buying the Geographic National, and now its latest publication is on the Virgin Mary, and you have a Roger Ailes who built Fox News with the prescription of placing a segment of the population in a right-wing bubble. Once the concept of dummy down takes over (falsehoods over facts), anything goes. And it's the very fabric of our society that is at stakes.
Quote from: Shiranu on December 10, 2015, 12:44:19 PM
That's nice; but your indifference, especially as a young teenager, is not an acceptable reason to put other people at risk.
I am utterly clueless as to what people have to lose from loss of anonymity. Care to explain?
Quote from: dtq123 on December 10, 2015, 07:13:24 AM
Taylor Don Quach, Age 15 (December 22nd, 1999), Skyway Washington, 98178.
See? Nothing wrong with that! I don't care if my parents will kick me out!
If you're at danger of losing your home or job due to sexuality or "spirituality," Go to some support groups, or a shelter. And that job? Find another one or sue them.
And screw the rules, I'm keeping this here. It's not like you have my exact address, but you'll find me if you look hard enough.
Edit: I'd rather die in the Middle East than have anyone be anonymous.
Edit (Again): No database gives info of kids T_T
It isn't your parents you need to fear ... it is the Gestapo/Commissariat. You are very naive if you think you are living in a "free" society. Everything is so much easier when you give your detailed metadata to the NSA every time you use your electronic slave devices.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on December 10, 2015, 09:03:21 AM
As I remembered sending letters to newspapers and magazines - I did a lot of that in the old days- I had to submit my full name and address before any of those letters would get published. The reason being is that you should be accountable for what you say. On the internet, you can say whatever, without fear of reprisal, and that's the glitch: freedom comes with responsibility. Remove responsibility, and anything goes, which means catering to the lowest denominator, and this is exactly what we are witnessing. It's not enlightenment but gross lies, stupidities and human exhibitions of the worst kind. We are not getting better but worse. What will be the worth of your freedom once civilization is destroyed? Nada, zilch, zero.
I am sure you have kept up your subscription to Pravda ... comrade. Don't forget to go to the Party rally on Friday night. Oh, and the US was such a free country for the Deep State when there were only three television stations.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zfqw8nhUwA
But the greatest totalitarianism is bureaucracy ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGJ0mp4kRVo
Of course, that is what is happening for the last 14 years ... but Apple works with China to help the Maoists conquer the world. But then, once upon a time, Walmart was big on "US Made".
The democracy of idiots and the republics of morons ... can kiss my ass. Including the capitalism of so called free entrepreneurs. Got a Volt? You bought into a fraud supported by secret tax money.
I don't think it makes two licks of a difference whether they take anonymity away or not. People will still peddle their bullshit and label it as fact or how ever they deem necessary. Trust me when I say this you can not stop the stupid. People believe what ever they believed before they read bullshit and will continue believing said bullshit until it blows up in their face. Nothing will change other than taking away the freedoms of the common man
the hackers will still remain anonymous and the rest of us will bend over and take it up the ass. Just like it's always been. Nothing's changed either way.
Quote from: doorknob on December 10, 2015, 07:10:50 PM
I don't think it makes two licks of a difference whether they take anonymity away or not. People will still peddle their bullshit and label it as fact or how ever they deem necessary. Trust me when I say this you can not stop the stupid. People believe what ever they believed before they read bullshit and will continue believing said bullshit until it blows up in their face. Nothing will change other than taking away the freedoms of the common man
the hackers will still remain anonymous and the rest of us will bend over and take it up the ass. Just like it's always been. Nothing's changed either way.
The whole point is to create a workable dictatorship (elites always do this ... John Locke etc were idealistic morons). The attempts by Hitler and Stalin were failures. A more Fabian approach seems to work better. People seem to think that people were free in 1965 and that things now are less free (for some people). But that is one dimensional thinking. The authorities want every comm device (including computer) to work like the ones I use at work ... in the military. You will all be drafted, maybe without any draft board, maybe without getting a uniform ... because you won't be able to buy or sell without the Mark ... German Mark that is ;-) Sheeple ... bleeting.
The hackers are false opposition ... white hat hackers already work for the government ... but there is more than one government ... until the NWO gets its way. You won't hack a thing, when your only access is thru a government owned, government administered device ... like MiniTel in France, before the US steamrollered them with innovation. The French weren't wrong, they were premature.
not true at all. I know some white hat hackers and they are not employed by the government.
Quote from: doorknob on December 10, 2015, 07:41:42 PM
not true at all. I know some white hat hackers and they are not employed by the government.
The one I sit next to at work, works for the government. I was referring to eventualities. So some toy Leftist underground is going to overthrow Dick Cheney? Now BitCoin is wholly controlled by the US government ... they will not permit any money other than what they can control. Presumably because of the use of money by criminals. But what if the government are criminals? Who will guard the guards? I expect the guy they just arrested today in Australia, as the real Satoshi ... will soon be bearded and under a new name, at Guantanamo. There are probably ISIS guys who actually don't realize they are working for the CIA.
Quote from: dtq123 on December 10, 2015, 05:46:32 PM
I am utterly clueless as to what people have to lose from loss of anonymity. Care to explain?
Here's an example (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-33819032), it's an extreme example, admittedly. A lesser example would be our employers looking up our online activity. And let's just say that there's a very good reason why this forum has a rule against posting your own or someone else's personal info.
Anonymity does actually serve a number of good purposes:
"For example, medical patients and mothers discuss sensitive issues (be they clinical or related to parenting) in pseudonymous forums, allowing for candid discussions of what might otherwise be stigmatizing subjects. Anonymous activists rely on the web for whistle-blowing or to speak truth to power without fear of retribution. And, in a strange twist, victims of hate crimes use anonymity to speak out as well: anonymity can empower those who seek consolation and justice to speak out against assailants enabled by the same processes."
"Anonymous expression has been a foundation of our political culture since its inception, underwriting monumental declarations like the Federalist Papers. At its best, it puts the attention on the message, rather than the messenger.
For these reasons, we should stay away from sweeping and blunt prohibitions on anonymity. Requiring real identities online would chill a vibrant democracy." Source (http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/08/19/the-war-against-online-trolls/anonymity-online-serves-us-all)
Very well said hydra.
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 11, 2015, 01:15:40 AM
"At its best, it puts the attention on the message, rather than the messenger."
I think this says most of your idea with minimal words, point taken.
Still, come visit if you'd like XD
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 11, 2015, 01:15:40 AM
Here's an example (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-33819032), it's an extreme example, admittedly. A lesser example would be our employers looking up our online activity. And let's just say that there's a very good reason why this forum has a rule against posting your own or someone else's personal info.
Anonymity does actually serve a number of good purposes:
"For example, medical patients and mothers discuss sensitive issues (be they clinical or related to parenting) in pseudonymous forums, allowing for candid discussions of what might otherwise be stigmatizing subjects. Anonymous activists rely on the web for whistle-blowing or to speak truth to power without fear of retribution. And, in a strange twist, victims of hate crimes use anonymity to speak out as well: anonymity can empower those who seek consolation and justice to speak out against assailants enabled by the same processes."
"Anonymous expression has been a foundation of our political culture since its inception, underwriting monumental declarations like the Federalist Papers. At its best, it puts the attention on the message, rather than the messenger.
For these reasons, we should stay away from sweeping and blunt prohibitions on anonymity. Requiring real identities online would chill a vibrant democracy." Source (http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/08/19/the-war-against-online-trolls/anonymity-online-serves-us-all)
Whistleblowing was done way before the existence of the internet. So you don't need the internet to do that. And spreading lies with impunity undermines the very fabric of democracy. As to your employer checking you out, it would only mean that you as a user would be prudent in your activities. You would act more responsibly instead of making wild allegations. You have a vibrant example of a poster a few posts above attacking me recklessly.
If I were to know someone personally, even on the Internet, and go tell disturbing truths or lies ... to their employer to get back at them ... that is cyberbullying. That is slander and intimidation, which are illegal. Fighting ex-spouses do that to each other all the time now on the Internet. Famously posting nude selfies of ex girl friends. Sometimes it is one teenager getting revenge on another.
So if I think someone is ... of questionable sanity ... and I am not speaking medically but politically ... will you take me to court? Well it is possible that a trolling employer could find that material, believe it to be true ... and fire the person I am talking about .. if they know who he is. Otherwise they cannot. And the question of employers trolling the internet, or school officials trolling the Internet ... is coming up for court review.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on December 11, 2015, 08:38:16 AM
Whistleblowing was done way before the existence of the internet. So you don't need the internet to do that.
No kidding. And before the internet, they heavily relied on anonymity.
QuoteAnd spreading lies with impunity undermines the very fabric of democracy.
That happens regardless of anonymity, as I point out earlier. And yes, unfortunately, the internet is a breeding grounds for quackery. Yet, it's also a breeding grounds for people slamming quackery. But this isn't a new phenomenon. The invention of the printing press allowed for easy production of pamphlets disseminating falsehoods. TV as well. We've been through this before. It wasn't the end of the world then, and it's not the end of the world now.
QuoteAs to your employer checking you out, it would only mean that you as a user would be prudent in your activities.
Or, and bear with me on this, it's none of their goddamn business.
QuoteYou would act more responsibly instead of making wild allegations. You have a vibrant example of a poster a few posts above attacking me recklessly.
I don't speak crazy, so I don't know what the hell he was trying to say to you, but let's assume you were just flagrantly and viciously attacked over the internet. So what? Do you need a safe space? Do you need anonymity to be rescinded to protect your feelings? Please, let me know just how much the free exchange of ideas over the internet should be altered to make you feel more comfortable.
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 12, 2015, 03:54:49 AM
No kidding. And before the internet, they heavily relied on anonymity.
That happens regardless of anonymity, as I point out earlier. And yes, unfortunately, the internet is a breeding grounds for quackery. Yet, it's also a breeding grounds for people slamming quackery. But this isn't a new phenomenon. The invention of the printing press allowed for easy production of pamphlets disseminating falsehoods. TV as well. We've been through this before. It wasn't the end of the world then, and it's not the end of the world now.
Yes but it doesn't compare with the internet. Setting up a printing shop or building a TV network requires lots of resources, lots of know-how and lots of time. Those who wanted to use those media anonymously faced great obstacles, not that it was impossible, but still it limited the accessibility. OTOH, getting an account with an IPS is quite easy and accessible to anyone. Why there is so much bullying, quackery and disinformation. Yes, those existed before, but never to the extent with the internet. We are talking orders of magnitude that didn't exist before the internet.
Quote
I don't speak crazy, so I don't know what the hell he was trying to say to you, but let's assume you were just flagrantly and viciously attacked over the internet. So what? Do you need a safe space? Do you need anonymity to be rescinded to protect your feelings? Please, let me just know how much the free exchange of ideas over the internet should be altered to make you feel more comfortable.
I don't care what that person thinks of me. I didn't point it out to complain to you but to give you an example of the stupidities that goes on even on a forum such as this one which is supposed to be monitored. Tell me this if you don't mind, would your posts be any different had you registered to this forum under your real name? If you are really concern about truth, facts, understanding, then I don't see what difference that would make. OTOH, if you are carrying a hidden agenda or have other ulterior motives, I can see why you would want to keep your anonymity. But in what way would that make this website better?
I will apologize to anyone who deserves an apology. Mistakes are made, and can be amended. Also I am not myself, opposed to any individual person. But for certain agendas ... what smell of Hell ... I will fight forever against those agendas. Insanity is not a protected speech. But then we don't agree on what insanity is.
The question of censor or not ... has been more eloquently addressed by others than I can. That is part of the reason why I read posts. There will be no conclusion as to what is right ... because ethics is not objective. But in politics, I will not apologize for agitating against positions I oppose, or voting against candidates running under those positions.
And yes, the government trolling the Internet, employers trolling the Internet, or school officials trolling students ... they can all be put against a wall and shot (the trolls) ;-)) Then anonymity will be unnecessary.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on December 12, 2015, 09:07:34 AM
Yes but it doesn't compare with the internet. Setting up a printing shop or building a TV network requires lots of resources, lots of know-how and lots of time. Those who wanted to use those media anonymously faced great obstacles, not that it was impossible, but still it limited the accessibility. OTOH, getting an account with an IPS is quite easy and accessible to anyone. Why there is so much bullying, quackery and disinformation. Yes, those existed before, but never to the extent with the internet. We are talking orders of magnitude that didn't exist before the internet.
Nope, the comparison still stands. See, there's something very significant you are ignoring in your analysis. It isn't just access, it's also
presence. The guy who just got an account with an ISP has as much presence as any other guy who just got an account with an ISP â€" that is to say, almost none at all. In order to go further, he would have to build that presence â€" into a major website that gets traffic from millions of people each day. Which requires hosting capacity, tollerable webpage design, and semi-frequent updates. Which costs time and money.
In order to be the true bullshit-spreader as you imagine, it takes more than just having an ISP account. It takes some presence. Because the people with presence will be the go-to places for their fix, 'cuz ain't nobody got time to read every fuckin' loser on the net, man! HuffPo will have far more influence on your average person's bullshit content than Joe IjustDISCOVEREDinternet!!!one!!
Your example actually destroyes itself.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on December 12, 2015, 09:07:34 AM
I don't care what that person thinks of me. I didn't point it out to complain to you but to give you an example of the stupidities that goes on even on a forum such as this one which is supposed to be monitored. Tell me this if you don't mind, would your posts be any different had you registered to this forum under your real name? If you are really concern about truth, facts, understanding, then I don't see what difference that would make. OTOH, if you are carrying a hidden agenda or have other ulterior motives, I can see why you would want to keep your anonymity. But in what way would that make this website better?
HEHEHEHEHEHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!
You know, you seem to think that we don't have reputations here that we want to protect. This isn't some tripfag site like 4-chan where it's possible for a person to have an argument with himself with convincing veracity. I for one don't want to post stupid stuff because, even if you don't know my real name, I'd still like you to think that the username 'Hakurei Reimu' inspires the feeling of 'This poster posts good stuff! I'd like to read what she/he has to say.'
My posts here speak for themselves, and quite frankly you don't
need my real name to know whether or not I'm talking shit.
Being reluctant to post your real name
should not be taken as evidence that you have something to hide or have an alterior motive, any more than the accused in a trial refusing to testify should be taken as evidence of their guilt. I quite frankly don't care for some of your politics, but in the end, I ultimately don't give a shit about you outside this forum and your occasional blog posts about QM and GR.
When people start giving a shit about you on the large scale, really
nothing will protect your anonymity, as demonstrated time and time again. There's really no need or call for anonymity to be disabled by default. We should let people who thoroughly embarrass themselves slink away into the shadows where they belong.
This is how I try to post ...
I put my real self out there ... my name isn't my real self. And I try to put my best self out there ... but not because I want people to like or admire me. What you see is what you get. This forum is a useful tool for many of us, myself included. I have no authority beyond my own integrity. And I am capable of being wrong in substance, or in method. I might forget to mark something as sarcasm for example. But I do accept intelligent correction and offer apologies. On the other hand, if you are on the Internet, you better have a pretty think skin. I troll other sites, where out and out fascism, racism, socialism, homo-phobia, or anti-semitism are spoken out loud (but not Stormfront ... I have my limits). But I don't post there ... I just like to take the temperature of the bad-folk community. This is a bohemian community ... which is a little leven in a whole lot of plain old flour.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on December 12, 2015, 08:34:36 PM
Nope, the comparison still stands. See, there's something very significant you are ignoring in your analysis. It isn't just access, it's also presence. The guy who just got an account with an ISP has as much presence as any other guy who just got an account with an ISP â€" that is to say, almost none at all. In order to go further, he would have to build that presence â€" into a major website that gets traffic from millions of people each day. Which requires hosting capacity, tolerable webpage design, and semi-frequent updates. Which costs time and money.In order to be the true bullshit-spreader as you imagine, it takes more than just having an ISP account. It takes some presence. Because the people with presence will be the go-to places for their fix, 'cuz ain't nobody got time to read every fuckin' loser on the net, man! HuffPo will have far more influence on your average person's bullshit content than Joe IjustDISCOVEREDinternet!!!one!!
Yes, there are people who have established presence. For instance, the guys who started The Daily Beast, but often, these are people who were already established in journalism or some other form of media. Thanks for bringing that out, but it's not what I had in mind. For instance there is this poster who I see on many christian websites. He postures himself as a local politician in California but I haven't seen enough evidence for that. I think he is just an impostor. His main target is the the theory of evolution. His devotion to putdown TOE is quite remarkable, and the amount of adulation from the people frequenting those sites is just disgusting. Another guy was pretending to be a physicist. Sea of Red, who is also a member of this forum, alerted me. So I went there on that christian website and debunked him. Then the guy phoned his friends, mods on that website, threatened to commit suicide if I wasn't banned. Sea even pmed me to let it go. It turned out the guy was a lab technician at some technical firm, or something like that. And so on, I go with so many examples of fraudulent claim. Yes, you want anonymity, but I don't think you realize the cost for that. And so far, no one has convinced me that the benefits of anonymity warrant that cost.
QuoteYour example actually destroyes itself.
HEHEHEHEHEHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!
You know, you seem to think that we don't have reputations here that we want to protect. This isn't some tripfag site like 4-chan where it's possible for a person to have an argument with himself with convincing veracity. I for one don't want to post stupid stuff because, even if you don't know my real name, I'd still like you to think that the username 'Hakurei Reimu' inspires the feeling of 'This poster posts good stuff! I'd like to read what she/he has to say.' My posts here speak for themselves, and quite frankly you don't need my real name to know whether or not I'm talking shit.
This is an argument for the "no need of anonymity". I, myself have registered in other websites with a false name, especially those on christian websites. I find no difference in my posts there than those I post here under my real name. So, if you are true to yourself, there is no need for anonymity.
QuoteBeing reluctant to post your real name should not be taken as evidence that you have something to hide or have an alterior motive, any more than the accused in a trial refusing to testify should be taken as evidence of their guilt. I quite frankly don't care for some of your politics, but in the end, I ultimately don't give a shit about you outside this forum and your occasional blog posts about QM and GR.
When people start giving a shit about you on the large scale, really nothing will protect your anonymity, as demonstrated time and time again. There's really no need or call for anonymity to be disabled by default. We should let people who thoroughly embarrass themselves slink away into the shadows where they belong.
I quite disagree. My experience on the web tells me there are a lot of impostors, and the damage these folks bring about is quite substantial. And anonymity is their great shield.
Thank G-d and MI6 ... and CIA ... we will soon have GPS anklets and shock collars on all the people! You will obey! You will think what we want you to think and feel what we want you to feel (mostly pain) ... because we are the Supermen.
I fear authoritarians more than frauds.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on December 13, 2015, 09:19:13 AM
Yes, there are people who have established presence. For instance, the guys who started The Daily Beast, but often, these are people who were already established in journalism or some other form of media. Thanks for bringing that out, but it's not what I had in mind. For instance there is this poster who I see on many christian websites. He postures himself as a local politician in California but I haven't seen enough evidence for that. I think he is just an impostor. His main target is the the theory of evolution. His devotion to putdown TOE is quite remarkable, and the amount of adulation from the people frequenting those sites is just disgusting.
So what if he was a politician or not? As long as he doesn't go under his real name, he's just some guy on the internet posting about evolution.
The reason why poeple on the internet get away with pretending to be politicians who reject TOE is because there are plenty of real politicians who do the same.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on December 13, 2015, 09:19:13 AM
Another guy was pretending to be a physicist. Sea of Red, who is also a member of this forum, alerted me. So I went there on that christian website and debunked him. Then the guy phoned his friends, mods on that website, threatened to commit suicide if I wasn't banned. Sea even pmed me to let it go. It turned out the guy was a lab technician at some technical firm, or something like that. And so on, I go with so many examples of fraudulent claim. Yes, you want anonymity, but I don't think you realize the cost for that. And so far, no one has convinced me that the benefits of anonymity warrant that cost.
Yeah, and Dwane Gish used his false Ph.D. in biochemistry to bolster his case for creationism. Oh wait. His Ph.D. was GENUINE.
The reason why people on the internet get away with pretending to be physicists and posting fraudulant claims is that there are plenty of REAL physicists who do the same. The people on the forum Sea of Red was posting on wouldn't probably know the difference between some lab technician and a real physicist. They don't CARE about the truth. They're there to pat each other on the backs and pretend that they actually have a case for their woo-woo ideas.
And suppose either of those posters you mentioned above posted their real names. Barring fraud, lets suppose that the posters really genuinely posted under their real, honest-to-goodness names. Suppose then that you posted proof that your politician wasn't a politician. Would they care? No. They wouldn't care because they don't care about the truth. Suppose that you posted proof that your lab technician was just a labbie and not a real physicist. Would they care? Again, no. They don't care about the truth.
We, who hold to intellectual honesty, who don't say anything unless we're willing to bear the embarrassment of being shown wrong, are a rare beast. Most people aren't like us. They talk a good spiel, but they don't care about truth, or verification of the identity on the other end to make sure that what they say is on level.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on December 13, 2015, 09:19:13 AM
This is an argument for the "no need of anonymity". I, myself have registered in other websites with a false name, especially those on christian websites. I find no difference in my posts there than those I post here under my real name. So, if you are true to yourself, there is no need for anonymity.
Well, thank you for admitting that you only give a false name in the interest of posting under false pretenses, but not everyone is like you. I, for instance, chose this username because it lets everyone who's in the know of the Touhou Project know what kind of person I am... it's actually
more informative than a real name would be.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on December 13, 2015, 09:19:13 AM
I quite disagree. My experience on the web tells me there are a lot of impostors, and the damage these folks bring about is quite substantial. And anonymity is their great shield.
Bullshit. The most prolific perveyors of crap on the internet are people who do indeed post under their own names to sites like HuffPo, the Oprah network, etc. People like Robert Cloutier, Jenny McCarthy, Deepak Chopra, Dr. Oz, and the like. They're where the crap originates â€"everyone else is just parroting them because they don't care about the truth. At best, the guys who post anonymously are just regurgitating stuff they hear from sites like this, in which case it doesn't matter if they post under their real names or not.
See, the people who most wish to sling the most bullshit want names attached, because they want to
benefit from that bullshit. Anyone else is just an empty-headed buffoon, which tells you
everything you need to know about them.
Everything.Seriously, what would a real name give you? It wouldn't tell you their qualifications. All you would have is their name. Their probably
not-unique name. There are no less than eight Mike Adams's on Wikipedia's disambiguation page...
who play pro-football. Only one of the eleven Mike Adams's listed owns Natural News; only one of them is the real shyster Mike Adams. If you saw "Mike Adams" a forum, there is only a 9% chance (probably less) that it's
that shyster. You would have to look at his posts to make sure, in which case, you would have easily sniffed out that he's talking crap. To everyone on the forum who reads "Mike Adam"'s posts, they either think he's talking crap too, or they're completely taken in and won't check up on him unless they are given sufficient cause to believe he's a shyster.
If it's a name you don't recognize, then you would have to track down his name and see what's what... or you could just read his post history and just figure out if he's a twat. You don't need a name for that.
As to a need for anonymity when possible? Yes, there's an actual
need for it. It places a barrier between you and undesireables who might want to dox you and make your life miserable. Or dox someone else accidentally and make
their life miserable. It won't stop a concerted and deep investigation, but it'll keep casual molesters guessing.
And let's not forget the people on AF for whom anonymity is a matter of
life and death, to say nothing of the people whose livelihood might be put in jeopardy by an outing, or kids who are still dependent on religious parents and run the danger of getting thrown out of their homes if they are outed. To me, these are overriding concerns.
People who would get taken in by some guy posting anonymously would be taken in by anyone â€" you can't help these people by naming people, you need to educate them out of their gullibility. Meanwhile, there are people whose very lives are depending on being anonymous.
@Hakurei Reimu
You made a better case for your position than I did.
Long Live ANONYMITY :08:
On the Internet, Truthiness wins over Truth. Get over it.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on December 14, 2015, 09:06:14 AM
@Hakurei Reimu
You made a better case for your position than I did.
Long Live ANONYMITY :08:
It's what I do, bro!
(http://i.imgur.com/9juDJpg.png)
Germany has been granted control over hate speech on the Internet ... by Google, Twitter and Facebook. It is not clear that this only applies to people in Germany. The theory is, they are afraid of a vast R-wing online campaign against the refugees ... and they are predictably siding with the refugees. Certain speech is forbidden in Germany.
Similarly France, will have to jump in too ... because of their laicity. They will want to censor all religious expression, presumably because of their fear of Muslims who already live there, as well as the new refugees.
Achtung! Alle Kritik an Chancellor Merkel wird sofort verboten werden!