Clinton And Trump want to police the internet and dismiss free speech

[Shiranu]

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...

You 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.

[dtq123]

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

[josephpalazzo]

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.

[Hydra009]

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.

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.

What 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"

[Shiranu]

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.

[josephpalazzo]

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.

I 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.

[mauricio]

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.

[mauricio]

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.

[josephpalazzo]

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.

[dtq123]

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?

[Baruch]

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.

[Baruch]

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.

[doorknob]

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.

[Baruch]

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.

[doorknob]

not true at all. I know some white hat hackers and they are not employed by the government.