Free speech on social media

[Roses In The Vineyard]

"One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them"

 

[John K]

Well I'll just say it this way that for humans there is a need for basic freedoms and dignity of life but for lizards and insects such repressive systems is fine as that is their norm. Too many of us either through personal experience or from family etc have lived through hell like this in some form or another for which many had to flee to other countries only for the comfortable and the wealthy to impose such in the west. I guess that you are on the side of the globalists who believe in authoritarianism. Those who don't value their own rights are not going to respect the rights of others often denying others of their rights for which countless millions have died in the past century.

I'm really a bit confused. I'm on the side of individuals who are abused on the internet by bullies who spread lies and false information about them and make their lives hell, but who hide behind anonymity to escape being held to account for it. This is a gross abuse of their freedom by cowards who hide behind the wall of secrecy provided by the internet. I don't see what this has got to do with globalism and authoritarianism.

 

[aeon]

Those who don't value their own rights are not going to respect the rights of others often denying others of their rights for which countless millions have died in the past century.

Yet, with rights come responsibilities. Rights aren’t one-sided. Yes, a person has the right to fling poo. Other people have the right to out them as a poo-flinger, and perhaps from there, seek justice.

Cheers,
Ian

 

[Roses In The Vineyard]

I'm really a bit confused. I'm on the side of individuals who are abused on the internet by bullies who spread lies and false information about them and make their lives hell, but who hide behind anonymity to escape being held to account for it. This is a gross abuse of their freedom by cowards who hide behind the wall of secrecy provided by the internet. I don't see what this has got to do with globalism and authoritarianism.

So if you are for the down trodden then why take away their rights after all things like the Holocaust wouldn't have been possible had people had their rights. What you want is used for social control in China so you are an authoritarian.

 

[Roses In The Vineyard]

Yet, with rights come responsibilities. Rights aren’t one-sided. Yes, a person has the right to fling poo. Other people have the right to out them as a poo-flinger, and perhaps from there, seek justice.

Cheers,
Ian

Government isn't God not when this happens, how could anyone support authoritarianism is beyond me unless they are cold blooded and soulless.

Remember this???

 

[John K]

So if you are for the down trodden then why take away their rights after all things like the Holocaust wouldn't have been possible had people had their rights. What you want is used for social control in China so you are an authoritarian.

I really don't understand what the problem is. We all expect that a company we buy something from online is named and identified, and that we have a means of redress if anything goes wrong with the transaction. We all expect that if you are assaulted in the street the person who did it will be identified and brought to justice. If you are libelled in the news media, you have a right to redress. These are normal parts of a civilised liberal society. OK, if you support anarchy then fair enough, but that has never been a political approach employed in the Western world. You seem to polarise things to an extreme - just because we need some decent regulation and safety for people on the internet doesn't mean that such laws would push us into totalitarianism. You might just as well argue that being forced to drive on a particular side of the road and stop at red traffic lights is a totalitarian abuse.

As I said earlier, dictatorships are going to do what they want anyway, regardless of what we do - all the information is already there in the internet and they will already have access to it. I'm talking about a properly controlled process for accessing certain parts of it in order to preserve individuals' rights of freedom from online abuse.

 

[Roses In The Vineyard]

I really don't understand what the problem is. We all expect that a company we buy something from online is named and identified, and that we have a means of redress if anything goes wrong with the transaction. We all expect that if you are assaulted in the street the person who did it will be identified and brought to justice. If you are libelled in the news media, you have a right to redress. These are normal parts of a civilised liberal society. OK, if you support anarchy then fair enough, but that has never been a political approach employed in the Western world. You seem to polarise things to an extreme - just because we need some decent regulation and safety for people on the internet doesn't mean that such laws would push us into totalitarianism. You might just as well argue that being forced to drive on a particular side of the road and stop at red traffic lights is a totalitarian abuse.

As I said earlier, dictatorships are going to do what they want anyway, regardless of what we do - all the information is already there in the internet and they will already have access to it. I'm talking about a properly controlled process for accessing certain parts of it in order to preserve individuals' rights of freedom from online abuse.

I get it you are entirely incapable of understanding that what you want has already been done in some nations and in those nations people don't have free speech for which dissenters as well minorities are often persecuted sometimes even killed for speaking out.

 

[John K]

I get it you are entirely incapable of understanding that what you want has already been done in some nations and in those nations people don't have free speech for which dissenters as well minorities are often persecuted sometimes even killed for speaking out.

I can see you feel very strongly about this and maybe have some personal experience of the abuse of power problems you describe, so I'll only reply one more time.

If one of my kids was getting a lot of online abuse from anonymous bullies who were almost certainly people they know, and was suicidal because of the social disaster this would be for them, then I want the ability of the right authorities to easily find out who they are and have it dealt with and stopped. This is all too common, and is a grotesque abuse of the freedom of the people who suffer from it. Adults too suffer from such bullying and lies and it can make life hell for them. There is no justification for such behaviour and I'm only too glad that the kids who had a go at me when I was little didn't have something like the internet to make my life even worse in those days.

You seem to be saying that this sort of thing is OK and a price worth paying, but in my book it's as bad as the totalitarian abuse of information that you deplore. This isn't a black and white issue that can only be at one or other extreme. I'm wanting identification of people who commit personal abuse against specific people, not identification of people who post various controversial political views in general. I'm not asking for the collection of information that isn't already out there either - just access to it through a managed legal process.

I don't think the sort of complete freedom to abuse other individuals anonymously is worth the benefit and it's not true freedom - it's just as much a loss of freedom for the victims as any other sort. I know how bullying can reduce your personal freedom down to almost nothing because I've been there.

 

[Roses In The Vineyard]

I can see you feel very strongly about this and maybe have some personal experience of the abuse of power problems you describe, so I'll only reply one more time.

If one of my kids was getting a lot of online abuse from anonymous bullies who were almost certainly people they know, and was suicidal because of the social disaster this would be for them, then I want the ability of the right authorities to easily find out who they are and have it dealt with and stopped. This is all too common, and is a grotesque abuse of the freedom of the people who suffer from it. Adults too suffer from such bullying and lies and it can make life hell for them. There is no justification for such behaviour and I'm only too glad that the kids who had a go at me when I was little didn't have something like the internet to make my life even worse in those days.

You seem to be saying that this sort of thing is OK and a price worth paying, but in my book it's as bad as the totalitarian abuse of information that you deplore. This isn't a black and white issue that can only be at one or other extreme. I'm wanting identification of people who commit personal abuse against specific people, not identification of people who post various controversial political views in general. I'm not asking for the collection of information that isn't already out there either - just access to it through a managed legal process.

I don't think the sort of complete freedom to abuse other individuals anonymously is worth the benefit and it's not true freedom - it's just as much a loss of freedom for the victims as any other sort. I know how bullying can reduce your personal freedom down to almost nothing because I've been there.

Once again in some countries this already has been done and not to curb bullying but rather as a tool of social control and not to curb bullying. You have to be either incredibly naive or just clueless to think that what you are supporting is for the good of society. I guess you never payed much attention to history much less what goes on these days beyond whatever progressive hive mind you are attached to as I've already seen enough of that lot to know there is already blood on their hands and what they are capable of given the opportunity.

 

[Wyote]

"One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them"

Honestly I don't understand why you're not a proponent of the great reset, considering how horrible everything is according to you.
Can't be worse.

 

[aeon]

how could anyone support authoritarianism

It’s not authoritarianism...it’s accountability. Who would argue against that? It applies to nations, companies, groups, and individuals.

Cheers,
Ian

 

[aeon]

Government isn't God not when this happens, how could anyone support authoritarianism is beyond me unless they are cold blooded and soulless.

This isn’t criminal, this is civil, between private parties.

Cheers,
Ian

 

[aeon]

I get it you are entirely incapable of understanding that what you want has already been done in some nations and in those nations people don't have free speech for which dissenters as well minorities are often persecuted sometimes even killed for speaking out.

I get it you are entirely incapable of understanding that what you describe already goes on in those nations. The presence of this law would change nothing there that doesn’t go on already.

Also, if you consider this law in the context of the UK, EU, and/or US, those laws wouldn’t mean anything in, for example, China anyway. Look at what is happening in Hong Kong right now.

Cheers,
Ian

 

[Roses In The Vineyard]

I get it you are entirely incapable of understanding that what you describe already goes on in those nations. The presence of this law would change nothing there that doesn’t go on already.

Also, if you consider this law in the context of the UK, EU, and/or US, those laws wouldn’t mean anything in, for example, China anyway. Look at what is happening in Hong Kong right now.

Cheers,
Ian

I see what side you are on and it is not the good one preferring people not having a voice allowing for tyrants free reign.

 

[Roses In The Vineyard]

 

[Wyote]

I see what side you are on and it is not the good one preferring people not having a voice allowing for tyrants free reign.

lmao

 

[John K]

I get it you are entirely incapable of understanding that what you describe already goes on in those nations. The presence of this law would change nothing there that doesn’t go on already.

Also, if you consider this law in the context of the UK, EU, and/or US, those laws wouldn’t mean anything in, for example, China anyway. Look at what is happening in Hong Kong right now.

Cheers,
Ian

I agree Ian. I think that what I suggest is no different in principle to having to show your driving licence identification to the police if you are stopped for a traffic violation. Of course if you mistrust any form of state involvement in the lives of the people then it all looks like the slippery slope to an authoritarian government, but the chaos of anarchy from too lightweight a government is just as bad for the people. The right balance is somewhere in between and of course there will always be disagreement about where it should be. I certainly don't think individuals should have the freedom to harm other people without consequence - I want the vulnerable protected as far as possible, and that is enhancing not reducing freedom. This is a value I hold strongly, and it's not only focused on the internet but on all aspects of our lives. This has been one of the primary accountabilities of governments since they were first invented.

If you mistrust any form of government and think that they are all conspiring beneath the surface to implement an authoritarian dictatorship in all but name then of course you will fear all state intervention. That's not where I'm at - I trust them at least as far as the next election. They may well damage that trust, and they do, but as far as I can see that's usually a matter of competence and unexpected consequences rather than wickedness, and it gets sorted in due course as the feedback leads to evolution and revision. OK maybe our democracies are crappy systems, but they seem to be a lot better than the alternatives - and if you really don't like what's on offer you can always get involved yourself with the political process. I think the honourable thing is to put yourself where your mouth is and try and get acceptance for your ideas through the democratic process in our societies. The people who wanted out of The European Union in Britain did that and formed a new political party. You don't have to win power to succeed - they never got any seats in the UK Parliament, but my goodness did they change the future of our country, and it wouldn't have happened without them.

 

[aeon]

I see what side you are on and it is not the good one preferring people not having a voice allowing for tyrants free reign.

You can continue to misconstrue my position if you like, but understand it comes with the effect of looking like a wilful idiot. Based on your feedback, you aren’t seeing anything about me.

This isn’t about good or evil, neither of which exist as absolutes anyway.

This isn’t about the government. It’s about individual private persons as a civil redress.

A person would still be 100% free to say what they like. If what they said was libellous toward a person, the aggrieved individual could seek redress.

I don’t know why you keep trying to contextualize this to be about tyrants and authoritarianism. It’s not about that. Especially given the fact governments would gain no power under this law, nor would they be able to use it.

@Roses In The Vineyard you are smarter than this, you’ve already proven that. I’m not sure what you’re going full miggy is about.

Cheers,
Ian

 

[uuu]

I want the ability of the right authorities to easily find out who they are and have it dealt with and stopped.

I think we are in agreement that in general, having an anonymous internet is a good thing, as is having the ability for legal authorities to de-anonymize people who use the internet to commit abuse or crime.

My understanding, however, is that technologically it is very difficult to design this kind of nuance into a communications system. You can have a system that is completely secure and anonymous—using end-to-end encryption, https, and so on—or you can have a system that has a backdoor in it. We can use the legal system to issue a "promise" that the backdoor will only be opened under court order by authorities investigating crimes, but the fact remains that the backdoor exists, and someone knows how to open it. This is a security vulnerability, because criminals will pay a high price to bribe legal authorities for information about the tools they use to open the backdoor. They also have an arsenal of tools at their disposal to probe for common backdoor designs.

Moreover, the existence of an official backdoor creates opportunities for new kinds of abuse. For example, hypothetically, if your abusive ex works in at a high level of law enforcement, he could use his security credentials to access your iCloud and blackmail you. In this case, a backdoor that was initially designed to deter abuse instead becomes a vector for it.

It is often unwise to take an extreme position on any issue. But cybersecurity is one context in which the "all or nothing" framing is basically correct. Your system either enables anonymity, or it doesn't.

In Korea, there have been many efforts to instate a so-called real-name policy on internet forums and comment sections. The idea is that doing so promotes civility, because you cannot hide behing a pseudonym to say hateful things. But this comes at the cost of greatly reducing the scope of the discussion. On articles about gay rights, for example, you don't see many comments beginning with "As a lesbian …" because many gay people in Korea haven't come out to their families.

Thus, a communications network that compromises anonymity is not only vulnerable to abuse, but it is also less "free" in the speech sense than one in which anonymity is technologically guaranteed. According to this analysis, the "anonymous until you break the law" system you propose is a contradiction in terms.

 

[John K]

I think we are in agreement that in general, having an anonymous internet is a good thing, as is having the ability for legal authorities to de-anonymize people who use the internet to commit abuse or crime.

My understanding, however, is that technologically it is very difficult to design this kind of nuance into a communications system. You can have a system that is completely secure and anonymous—using end-to-end encryption, https, and so on—or you can have a system that has a backdoor in it. We can use the legal system to issue a "promise" that the backdoor will only be opened under court order by authorities investigating crimes, but the fact remains that the backdoor exists, and someone knows how to open it. This alone should be a concerning security vulnerability, because criminals will pay a high price to bribe legal authorities for information about the tools they use to open the backdoor.

Moreover, the existence of an official backdoor creates opportunities for new kinds of abuse. For example, hypothetically, if your abusive ex works in at a high level of law enforcement, he could use his security credentials to access your iCloud and blackmail you. In this case, a backdoor that was initially designed to deter abuse instead becomes a vector for it.

It is often unwise to take an extreme position on any issue. But cybersecurity is one context in which the "all or nothing" framing is basically correct. Your system either enables anonymity, or it doesn't.

In Korea, there have been many efforts to instate a so-called real-name policy on internet forums and comment sections. The idea is that doing so promotes civility, because you cannot hide being a pseudonym to say hateful things. But this comes at the cost of greatly reducing the scope of the discussion. On articles about gay rights, for example, you don't see many comments beginning with "As a lesbian …" because many gay people in Korea haven't come out to their families.

Thus, a communications network that compromises anonymity is not only vulnerable to abuse, but it is also less "free" in the sense of the speech than one in which anonymity is technologically guaranteed. According to this analysis, the "anonymous until you break the law" system you propose is a contradiction in terms.

Of course I’m aware of the ethical and technical angles and their implications. I think the idea that the network is actually anonymous at the moment is very unlikely to be true. You only have to experience the ease with which your service providers target you with directed adverts to see that you aren’t anonymous. And while all the attention is directed towards the free speech aspect of this our mobile phones are tracking our every move and again making it available to our service providers. So no, we aren’t anonymous anyway. What I’m asking for is legal access to that information for individuals who have been damaged by someone else. It’s the equivalent to charging the repairs to your car against the insurance of the guy who tailgated you.

Of course there will be ways of obtaining full anonymity on the internet but these will need a technical knowledge that’s well beyond all but a few. I don’t think for a minute that’s possible for most of us. You only have to look at the way Russia directed guided missiles at foreign military in Ukraine recently to see this - they identified them and their location using their mobile phone details and signals. Similarly I suspect that China’s government has access to the personal details of half the world from the use of social media we are happy to use hosted by Chinese companies. It would be very naive to think otherwise.

So, no, I’m not asking for the destruction of anonymity on the Internet. I’m saying it’s fool’s gold to think it exists in the first place.