Yes, it is the way. You are not either “present online” or “offline”. You are a person in the material world communicating with other people in the material world through your material devices and material connections between them through air and cable. We are a digitally communicating society.
Guess this is one way to prove you don't give a toss about minorities who need to be anonymous online so they don't get harassed in real life. Well done for displaying your privilege.
I do care. I am in a minority myself. I am gay, migrant, and a single father in Germany. I also worked at Google and I know that the illusion of non-identifiability (that which you believe you have) has lead many ppl to commit crimes, be identified, and put to jail.
So others should suffer because of criminals? Well done on continuing to prove you don't give a toss about minorities
Please notice what I said: I DO CARE [about minorities]. […] I [also] know that the illusion of non-identifiability (that which you believe you have) has lead many ppl to commit crimes, be identified, and put to jail.
This doesn’t mean that others should suffer as victims of crime, but that we should not believe we are unidentifiable because some of us commit crimes only when they think no one can tell who committed the crime. So they should be told they are identifiable so that no one suffers from their crimes.
You will have the right to pseudonyms and posting online under another name. This is not what the bill is about.
Being a Russian bot is not being am minority
Absurd! You present a pseudonym, your picture is a cut of a manga character, you tell neither your location nor anything about yourself. Then you call others with picture, name and description, including profession, nationality and location, and you call this person a Russian bot. Unbelievable!
Why yes, I am labeling you on your behavior. Why yes, bot accounts do present themselves as real people in addition to anima avatars. For the record, I don't think you're a bot, I just think you're a useful idiot pseudoleftist propagating bad information barely distinguishable from bot accounts.
You are very aggressive with others online. Now you are calling me “idiot”. 1) Can you please point out what I said that is “useful” for whom? 2) Can you please tell what I said that is “pseudoleft”?
We already compartmentalize our lives IRL - you don't share everything with your coworkers that you would your close friends. You might be connected to them but you are choosing a persona to display. This has always been the case and it is no different than the Internet. Privacy is important.
Forcing people like me to use my real name breaks the boundaries I have set by choosing my online identity. I am a real person talking to you now, yes, and the fact I use a screen name doesn't change that. But it protects me from probes into my personal life from IRL acquaintances.
Some of the people who contribute the highest quality things to the Internet are anonymous. That is their choice and it is the freedom of that choice which makes the Internet a good thing. It would also make stalkers' jobs so much easier, not to mention impacts on the queer community.
I also use here a pseudonym and this won’t be prohibited. You can even publish physical books with pseudonyms nowadays. This won’t be prohibited. You will have to identify yourself to the owners of the means of communication, not to the people you are communicating with.
How do you trust the owners with that information? How do you trust your information won't be leaked in a security breach or sold? I know it's a moot point given that's already 100% happening from multiple platforms, but giving your data to "the good guys" willingly is quite frankly stupid
I do not trust Musk and Zuckerberg with my personal data. I just want our judiciary system (not these fucks) to be able to punish them if they are employing defamatory agents or hiding the identities of workers of defamatory agencies. They already sell our data to Cambridge Analytica for God’s sake!
Like I said- this is an issue but mandatory identity confirmation, even if and *especially* if it is to a governmental agency, is the wrong way to solve this issue. At least private companies do not have my SSN and the ability to jail me for actions I take online.
Not to mention the jurisdiction loophole- these campaigns already employ foreign workers to get around laws in certain countries, why would requiring ID verification change that? Unless your solution is to ban all traffic from countries which do not adopt it? That's headed for a closed internet
No, the solution is to oblige all means of communication that operate in your country and in mine (Germany) to allow only messages and contributions to publications being printed on screens in your and my country if the owner of the means of communication keeps track who the authors are.
That way, the owners of the means of communication will be able to enforce the removal of someone’s right to contribute to publications if that person is misusing that right in a socially relevant way. This is less drastic than keeping that person in jail, which is our current strategy.
Pre internet anybody you met could give you any name they wanted IRL and you had no way of knowing if they lied or tracking them down…not to mention how common nicknames were. So why does everybody suddenly feel entitled to everybody else’s legal ID now?
No one you communicate to will have your ID. You can use nicknames. The owner of the means of communication will have to ask for your ID like the owners of printed press did and do for authors. Pseudonyms are allowed when publishing.. What you are claiming has no grounds on the law.
Right up until that database is inevitably breached - because there’s no incentive for those ID companies to spend money on security - and everybody’s info is out there on the open net.
This person seems dead set on 1) his personal gripe of disinformation campaigns (which I agree are an issue) and 2) that the ONLY solution for them is to force everyone to upload their ID to a third party so a judge can ban the accounts if needed. incredibly short-sighted
I really do not care about that. What I am interested in is to force people working for think tanks or as paid pundits to disclose that they are posting shit for someone else.
And I think you guys should join a communist party, make each other safer by having a whole party on your backs, and work to socialise means of communication, make tech capitalists an obsolete problem.
Not the way is to let people working for think tanks like MBL and Brasil Paralelo and the like, together with their fans, defame others and spread disinformation through digital communication platforms anonymously, without telling who’s paying for this, having ids hidden by Musk & Zuckerberg.
Yet the consequences of taking away the freedom of identity would be so much further reaching than who you'd be targeting here.
I agree with you that mass disinformation campaigns are an issue and need a solution. However I completely disagree the solution is identity verification.
A judge needs a way to ban people who are misusing means of communication, something that would work to all adequate platforms. Taking this single right from the person is less drastic than keeping them in jail for defamation, coup attempts, threats, etc..