LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksIf Patel is suggesting something, it can't be good.
If Patel is suggesting something, it can't be good.
I disagree. There's plenty of forums where I've seen content removed or locked just for sharing a counter point of view or productive criticism designed to suggest improvements. The more power you give to regulate, the more likely it is to be abused.Originally Posted by Ttaskmaster
Terrible idea. People are already abusive towards others, now you want to make these people targeted even more personally. Those that are identifiable have already lost jobs or gotten in trouble with the police over stuff that is just wasting police time when their resources already have been thinned. What about those that live in oppressive regimes? Are they not allowed anonymity because they dare speak out?
Sadly, I feel like it's only a matter of time until our freedoms are stripped. Too many people advocate for restricted speech against those that disagree with them without realising that a good deal of them behave similarly if not worse, yet feel justified because they feel their beliefs are more valid.
Lastly, we are human. We all make mistakes. We should not be accountable for everything we've ever said with no way to ever take it back. We should not be haunted because of something we said or did in the past which either was a mistake that we're no longer allowed to grow past, was acceptable at the time but now more controversial, or taken completely out of context to demonise that person to score points.
Actually, no, you don't. Or rather, you do, but the act may have consequences ranging from a slap on the wrist, to a ruinously expensive lawsuit, to a life sentence. And that's in this country. In some others, it'll get you a bullet in the brain.
Absolute freedom of speech doesn't exist ... unless it's unbreakably anonymous. They can't persecute, prosecute, imprison or execute you you if they can't find you.
A lesson learned from PeterB about dignity in adversity, so Peter, In Memorium, "Onwards and Upwards".
The new rules will only apply to companies that allow the exchange of user-generated content. Sites that do not allow repost will not be regulated. I want to believe it ..
The same is true of freedom.
There's plenty of people who have similarly abused this lack of regulation in order to share very inappropriate content and anonymously abuse others.
Which would you rather have - People silenced for "speaking out against the regime", particularly when it's that regimes house and thus up to them what rules they apply? Or would you rather have freedom for everyone, allowing this sort of abuse to continue?
As a side note concerning freedom and power and abuse - The one complaint about my industry is that there's not enough regulation and enforcement, which is why our head-sheds are able to get rich off our backs and your money. People quite freely speak up, as they are free to do even anonymously... but they are still getting richer, we're still working harder and you're still paying for it.
Why is it terrible?
You will no longer have an anonymous bully cowering behind the protection of their screen. I cannot see how that is a bad thing.
Lost their jobs because they were racist/sexist/misogynist/whatever bigots, harrassing people anonymously and making others' lives extremely unpleasant?
GOOD [CENSORED] RIDDANCE, then!!!!!!!
It is a risk, yes, but it'd be pretty obvious who the culprit was if they then vanished the next day, don't you think?
Besides, it never stopped people speaking out in the past and it hasn't stopped them in recent times either - How many people publicly stepped up against Harvey Weinstein, for example?
Yes, although it will not be by those who restrict your freedoms, but by those whose own freedom allows them to strip yours.
"OK, freedom of speech. Bring it, [CENSORED]. I will decimate you and [SERIOUSLY CENSORED] to prove why it's such a [CENSORED] bad idea, and when you find there's nothing anyone can do, because 'Freedom Of Speech', your last thoughts will be of this moment, when you gave me unlimited power to do this".
Already we have a media with that kind of power and freedom, resulting in suicides. Social media influences are already strong enough that studies are underway to measure, not if they are a risk factor, but how bad a risk they do present.... and you want more freedom like that?
Why not?
People have had to consider this for centuries. The internet has not changed that. Merely made it more accessible.
Do you not think this accountability would force more people to think before they post something that harrasses vulnerable individuals and targets victims?
It doesn't seem to have harmed the careers of many celebrities...
What? You mean those poor guys in the white sheets, burning crosses and proclaiming other races to be inferior might find themselves getting shot?
Cool - When can we enact these laws?
_______________________________________________________________________
I'm quite concerned that you consider a dictatorship as a regime where house rules should be respected... Yes, I would rather have freedom thank you very much. We already have laws against the worst offenders and I don't want the police wasting so much time because someone got offended on twitter. Especially since being offended is now a culture. Seriously, there's just way too much to police and not enough police resources.
Because now you're personally targetable. While anonymity does allow people to post whatever they wish when they shouldn't, you're expecting rationality from those that are the most irrational. The outcome will be worse and too much to handle. People already say such inane nonsense with being personally identifiable. Trump for starters, though his oppositions can be just as bad.
Despite what you think of a person, they should not lose their job or reported to the police for being a little controversial ONLINE. If they were abusive in the workplace, then I'd 100% agree. Thinking that there aren't infinite genders is already a controversial stance. Accusations of racism, sexism and homophobia are thrown for any far reaching reason. If you're a trump supporter, you're labelled as racist, if you're over a certain age in the UK, people will wish you dead because of Brexit, have any remote opinion on LGBT that isn't 100% supportive, you're probably homophobic. So far, these issues aren't taken seriously because being a sexist/racist/homophobic is seen as worse than overreacting and slandering someone. The only ones who kick up a fuss over it will also be labelled as <slur>ist, everyone else stays silent. I had a political leaflet through the door accusing a conservative member of homophobia because they didn't vote for gay marriage support. Sorry, but I want to be able to say that air conditioning is not sexist without real personal consequences because victimising everyone is trendy or people fall for clickbait. Accusing a fake persona is far enough. Online, feelings outweigh facts.
Not every country is as privileged. Good luck getting our freedoms back if it ever gets taken away.
Yes I do. I should have the freedom to take my own life. Ideally there should be support for those struggling and those that abuse to that extent and deserve it (after all it could be down to mental issues of the individual not being rational), however I don't agree that suicide is something we should 100% eradicate when some people genuinely choose to. In some ways, I wonder if I should have a long time ago.
So something you've said should be allowed to get you blacklisted even if you were a teenager not knowing what the hell you were really doing? People should be allowed to grow, but we're defining people more on their past instead of mostly on the present.
#metoo
---
If you get abuse online you have a few things you can do.
1) Get over it. Words don't need to impact your life. Very rarely will it go further than a few mean words. Yes it's harsh, but I really don't think think the police need to be involved.
2) Block them. A lot of people already do this to only allow content from people who agree with them, but the feature is often there.
3) Limit your online presence if you can't handle the feedback. I don't visit twitter because I really don't want to be involved with the hostility there.
OK, let me just post some derogatorily doctored pictures of your kids on here, then... because Freedom Of Speech, innit.
Still think we should disregard the house rules? If so, I got some pictures of your mom, too....!!
Laws? And how's that going, hmm? Teen suicides are rising, not falling, suggesting these laws and their enforcement are not especially effective.
As for getting offended, see earlier - People are usually far more reluctant to post offensive remarks when their anonymity is stripped and everyone can see who is being a [CENSORED]. That's the point I made in the first place.
I'm already personally targetable anyway, and have been targetted on more than one occasion... but you can bet they'd not have done it if I'd known who they were.
Aside from those lucky enough to have an armed Presidential guard, or those who make a career from being a [CENSORED] like Katie Hopkins, most people would think twice if they knew their victim and their mates might come meet them in the proverbial dark alley somewhere.
What's the golden rule, again? Don't say anything online that you wouldn't say in real life? That's not exactly news, either.
Many companies already go look up potential employees' social media accounts, to try and be sure they're not hiring a closet racist or something.
But again, you know that's not what I'm talking about.
But I can do whatever I like so long as it's not at work... regardless of how it might reflect on the company?
I think not.
That sort of thing has been going on long before the internet, though.
Back in the 80s a friend of mine had a promising music career ahead of him. He was interviewed on TV and asked some political questions. He didn't really know too much about it, but offered an opinion so as not to look stupid and uninformed, which was basically that the PM seems to have a couple of good ideas... He was thus labelled a staunch right-wing Thatcherite and burned in hell. Never had a Top Ten hit again.
People are idiots, regardless. Making them all anonymous idiots isn't going to help.
Again, not solely an internet issue. I can speak such things and be met with the same response just in this office.
It's been a while since we had a good revolution... France has quite shamed us in recent years, in fact.
I never said you shouldn't.... But should *I* have the freedom to badger you and pester you and torment you and drive you to take your own life?
That's what I'm talking about - The harm and damage that such anonymous freedom lets people do to others.
Blacklisted - Yes. Back in the day something you say could get you killed.
But plenty of celebs are getting ripped into for past tweets and the like. Some will sink, others will swim, but almost all of them go cap-in-hand to their adoring public and offer apologies, pandering to the victim-culture crybullies...
No-one is ever grown up enough to simply say, "Yeah, I said that. I was young, stupid and ignorant. I've since learned, grown up, become a better person and moved on to live a better life".
A (different) friend of mine is forever getting recognised from Road Wars and similar Traffic Police shows, because he was stopped for speeding many many years ago (around 1992). He's much older and has cut his hair short, but even if they blur his face, his voice and his car are readily identifiable. Turns out he was also uninsured at the time and IIRC his car had no valid MoT. He'd have been alright, except he gave an arguably false name and tried to blag his way out of it. It's actually quite amusing if you know him. But he was young and stupid, acted like a plonker on TV and has to live with the consequences for ever more.
That's just the way it goes.
Oh, yes, sorry, you're absolutely right... All those poor falsely accused actors and rich men whose careers were ruined by people who were given, and subsequently abused, the freedom to anonymously speak out. So like I said, freedom will be abused just as much as the power of regulation.
But then, you want that kind of freedom, remember. Hope you're not planning on a Hollywood career...!!
OK, so I'll just create some hateful claptrap about you and post it all around your workplace, your local pubs and shops, all over the social media of you and everyone on your Friends list... I'll make sure wherever you go, people know your name, your face and the things I'll make you out to be - What would you prefer? Racist, rapist, paedophile, or a combination? Good luck getting over that.
This^ sort of thing happens to kids in schools a lot more than you think, with the ease of content creation and the anonymity afforded their abusers being the main reason for such prevalence.
Block what you like, I'm not sending it to you in the first place. I'm sending it to the world you live in!!
You don't even have to be online. I can create a fake account with your name and face, or simply a good old-fashioned hate-website.
Like I said, if you want to publicly throw questionable content around, or slap someone's name on a crime without proof of guilt or any kind of due process, you put your own name on that accusation too... that way it's your reputation and not theirs that gets destroyed if your accusations turn out to be false.
_______________________________________________________________________
Isn't that support for anonymity? I'd rather my persona be slandered than my identity.
I know that I cut this short given all of the responses, but I feel like I can't add anything without us going round in circles so will merely respectfully disagree. I appreciate anonymity. I realise plenty abuse it, but it allows freedom where I have prevented expressing parts of my identity otherwise to avoid criticism whether it be by being hyper aware of not doing anything that can be considered dumb or something that simply doesn't conform to certain people. That anxiety may be why I don't feel like I have much of an identity.
This is just ethics as well. From the sounds of it, it doesn't sound very feasible to remove anonymity. Even if it was somehow possible, there's always identity theft and forcing someone else to look bad.
Last edited by FRISH; 20-02-2020 at 01:50 AM.
YOU won't be anonymous. Your face, your identity, everything about you and whatever slander I add to it will be plastered everywhere for all to see. I, however, will be anonymous... and that's the problem I'm addressing.
I understand and I do agree with much of what you say, especially concerning victims. I also enjoy anonymity and, if I'm honest, I probably do abuse it to some degree.
But removing that anonymity from those who rely upon it for their freedom to abuse others is still something I'd rather see, than people enjoying existing or even greater anonymity....
Is it.......?
This is a reminder of what technology and anonymity result in: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...sex-abuse.html
Read that article in full and then tell me why these people should be given even greater freedoms and anonymity...... Go ahead. I'll wait.
Is that any reason to abandon attempts to limit such things?
_______________________________________________________________________
And my problem is that to avoid that slander with the removal of anonymous, you'd better not have an online presence at all. People already slander others when they've made their own identity known, breaking that down so that it applies to everyone would be bad. I imagine those who have taken their own life are people who had their real identity targeted. Removing anonymity would make everyone's real identity targetable.
We're collecting more and more information on people ever in history, their anonymity is decreasing not increasing. The worst offenders will continue to abuse children and make sure they remain anonymous. For those less "professional", I'd be shocked if the law doesn't come down on you hard. I honestly don't think going overboard on surveillance will do much more than punish the general public. Those dedicated will always find a way. I don't really want our country to become worse than China. If this is that way we are heading, eventually we will be.
If the impact is mostly on controlling the general public and less impactful on serious lawbreakers, then yes, find better ways.
"3) Limit your online presence if you can't handle the feedback."
Your own advice...
I don't like to infer, generally, but so far it sounds like you mainly want anonymity just so you can say disruptive and controversial things without any repercussions. I might even call that trolling, in some contexts.
If you have something to say, own it. I don't say anything online that I wouldn't say to someone's face. I'm not always popular as a result, but I feel it's far more honest.
Yes... so now you know that Joe Bloggs of 41 Acacia Avenue is hurling online abuse at you, or being a racist [censored], or fiddling kids and sharing videos of it... and everyone else knows it, too. As a result, his life is about to get notably more difficult.
And yet we're seeing crimes like these increase at far greater rates than our ability to do something about them.
Information is gathered, valued, traded and used for profit, yes... but it's not really used to educate, police, regulate or protect, to any significant degree. Even the companies collecting the data aren't doing anything especially useful with it in terms of reporting the crimes and helping secure a prosecution.
How is that any justification for giving people, including them, greater freedom and anonymity...???!!!!!
The assumption that you cannot stop them, so why bother trying? That's all you've got?
Has it not occurred to you that one reason so many people online are becoming increasingly nasty and abusive is because they themselves are the abused children? About 40% of abused children go on to become abusers themselves as adults.
What law??!!
The only law around is ridiculously understaffed, underfunded and overloaded. They can't even investigate more than 2% of reported cases.
It'd probably be easier and more affordable to prosecute all the downloaders of pirated materials! Incidentally those less 'professional', just like people who use PirateBay and such, are merely playing the odds of getting caught... and with so much available to protect their identities, hide their activity and safeguard their data, the odds are massively in their favour.
Yeah that was said about the Firearms (Amendment) Act in 1988 and even more so in 1997.... and in both cases fewer than 20 people died resulting in the massive restrictions. Same for most laws that restrict the general public, based on the actions of a few.
Here we have the actions of many and also a great many victims... yet you don't think it's a problem?
If you'd been able to say 'those dedicated few', I'd have been able to accept it.... but there are just FAR too many, and all facilitated by the anonymity of the internet.
If it results in these sorts of criminals getting locked up, you can put CCTV and Alexas and whatever you like in my flippin' toilet!!
How many kids do you have to rape and beat until you're considered 'serious' about breaking the law, then?
How many?
Serious question....
Based on just those reported cases, statistics assert that, in the UK alone, one in five children under 16 suffers abuse - 20% of the population... 52% of them experience further abuse later in adult life, compared to the 13% who were not abused children. On average only 7.5% of those cases will be prosecuted, with a 73% conviction rate.
Statistics also assert that, in the same UK, an average of 50% of motorists exceeded the speed limit... 96% of them were caught on camera. Of those prosecuted, 91% resulted in a conviction.
If we can do that with comparatively minor offenses like speeding, why not with the infinitely more hideous crimes?
_______________________________________________________________________
Except now you don't have any option. Your behaviour is completely limited. You may like to label the extreme minority offences, but that doesn't change that there are negative consequences. No more anonymous whistleblowing when the government abuses their position.
This is the problem. I have talked about "controversial" topics which sometimes shouldn't really be that controversial. People take that counter opinion as a sign of trolling. For example I've made a counter towards those that claim that you shouldn't label Rondah Rousey a transphobe because she has concerns about a biological male who has transitioned competing in womens sports. People are free to not agree with that, but accusations of transphobia are extreme and ironically promotes intolerance, something I find to be a common trend amongst a certain crowd. I've also claimed that the comedian who uploaded a video of their dog doing a nazi salute should be a moral issue and not something that police should waste time on, but should arrest real Nazis instead. He was potentially facing prison time but ended up paying a fine. I got shadow banned after making that comment. With no anonymity, I would not be able to make those claims. However if I did and someone labels me as a transphobe or Nazi sympathiser because I can separate a real threat from simple opinions or parody, then I highly doubt there would be any consequences for those people.
If Joe Bloggs does that to such extremes, they will be caught. If they know how to be more anonymous than simply using a pseudonym, then they will continue using such tactics and lack of anonymity won't affect them.
So get better. If you're not using the information you gather effectively, then more information isn't the limitation.
How are people getting greater anonymity? I don't believe in punishing the entire public for the actions of offenders. It means I'm treated like a potential criminal by default.
So the problem isn't the law, it's about funding? Yes, more funding would be good. I also don't know what we'd do with all these criminals when space has already been a problem. Sounds like funding should be our focus.
You don't need deaths to cause problems. However I do think there would be increased violence. Recent elections in the US and UK have shown obvious tension and the propagators of disingenuous slander or outright hate tend to make their identity already known. I think removing anonymity makes it impossible to talk about politics at all without consequence. We also have a knife crime problem. Do you suggest banning knives to fix that? I'm glad we don't have guns, but if for example America banned them now, I doubt their shooting issues would be solved. It's already part of their culture. Restrictions would cause a lot more tension and not do anything for illegal access.
So go after them, not everyone.
I thought that this discussion was already Orwellian enough. You want people to access feeds of everyone's naked child? Vulnerabilities will always exist, and there will always be people in power that will abuse that power.
How many freedoms do you want to remove until people are safe enough? Is it even a life at that point when you can't even take a s#!t without someone watching you? I'd rather be dead.
What are we classing as abuse? Mean comments? Teens aren't known to be sympathetic with or without online. I'd sceptical that 1 in 5 children suffer from what I consider abuse.
Because it's a lot easier to hide your identity than taking a pic of a car that is completely registered to you. People get around the restrictions in China already. So it sounds like you want to restrict the ones that aren't smart enough to get away (until they slip up) whether they are criminals or just regular civilians. I'm actually kind of surprised that it's even considered feasible on this site. I also think laws have had a negative impact on mainstream content. Youtube creators for example seem to have restrictions on what they can post and make money from, unless they rely of 3rd party funding which again can be restricted eg paypal and patreon have stopped funding for some which imo is scary. Though I do kind of prefer the times where money wasn't the incentive on Youtube, it seems more bloated now.
As long as the whistle gets blown, what is the problem?
People managed it for centuries without anonymity. In fact, it seems only in recent times, with the plethora of anonymous vocal opposition on Social Media (ie meaningless rants), that the governments have stopped caring enough to actually hide their dealings. No need for whistleblowers, as everyone knows. The problem is that no-one cares enough to stand up and actually do something about it.
Then that is a people issue, not an anonymity issue. Hiding your identity won't stop them from being deliberately ignorant.
If you countered as you just did above, and their idenity is also out there, they just look ignorant and people stop listening to them...
I find it touching that you have such a bright view of the world... But the resources required, even for a private investigation, are well beyond reasonable expectations for most people. That's why the advice is to stay off the internet.
But if you make it all public then you have the combined awareness of society as a whole... and you stop dead a lot of the more minor issues, stupid incendiary remarks and inflammatory trolling, etc. Public shame is still a very powerful tool, which is why so many people still try to keep their dodgy dealings hidden.
It gives them far fewer places to hide, far fewer places to police and requires far fewer resources to track down.
"If your enemy goes to ground, leave him no ground to go to..."
Get better?
OK, sure - I will devote all manner of resources to tracking these criminals down. It will cost an absolute fortune, in terms of time, people, equipment, legwork and the purchasing of all that data off the private companies collecting it.... and you, the taxpayer, will foot the bill.
Or I can just enact a law that gives me all the data anyway. I mean, you signed up to the services that are collecting it for their own profit at your expense, so presumably you're happy with me also using it to protect you...?
That's what you were arguing for...
Why are handguns banned, then? Why is there a speed limit? Why are certain substances banned for recreational use? Why are there security measures around infrastructure assets?
People cannot be trusted and they prove this time and time again. If we just let them have free rein and only step in after they have committed a crime, there will be a lot more deaths, a lot more people locked up and a lot more damage to society.... assuming we somehow pull together enough enforcers to police this mess in the first place.
Or you can all avoid punishment by ousting the offenders from society and making sure no-one else dares offend.... Go ahead. We'll wait.
Funding would help in the short term, yes.
But the better long-term solution is to make such things socially unacceptable... utterly unacceptable, as in kiddie-fiddler unacceptable. Then you limit their ability to hide such things. An entire society watching over your shoulder will be far more effective than any small Police force.
It's an extreme example, but even the most heavily policed Police States, real and fictional, generally have citizens doing most of their surveilling and informing for them. Keep it balanced with stringent Due Process and it becomes quite a fair system.
Well, based on firearms offences, there will be a brief spike and then a massive drop off in terms of numbers... and in this case 'offences' mostly comprises minor things like licencing transgressions anyway. Nobody usually got shot, or anything.
Those who make a living or stand to enjoy a substantial gain from it, yes. But much of the real hatred is perpetuated by anonymous little internetters slinging around terms like Brexiteer, Remoaner and so on.
Politics is consequence, though... and why the hell would anyone ever heed the words of some anonymous malcontent ranting blindly on the internet? Credible sources are identifiable and verifiable.
Not at all since, as with many such issues, the problem is cultural. It's currently acceptable, and even fashionable, in some cultures/sub-cultures to carry a blade.
So again, make it culturally/socially unacceptable to commit these other crimes and misbehaviours... but that requires a high chance of society being able to see you commit such acts and a fear of what will happen when they see you doing them.
And once again, that problem is cultural/social. What works in one probably won't in another. This is why basing fines on ones' documented income, in the Norwegian style where people are far more honest on their tax returns and mindful of their societal 'togetherness', isn't especially practical in the UK where we are more individual-centric and frequently have self-employed people with undeclared incomes.
Here, if enough people do something bad, we prohibit everyone from doing it... because the people clearly cannot be trusted to behave.
That's the problem, though - That many people getting away with it, because they are too many to be dealt with at any meaningful rate, are only further facilitiating other people joining their ranks and other criminals in their own separate enterprises. Instead of leaving them no ground to go to, we're giving them more ground and allowing more people into it...
Ah, but as you pointed out, "professionals" will get all that anyway... At least this way those who are supposed to protect you have the same tools and capabilities as the criminals, hopefully with the same lack of restrictions, allowing them a fighting chance to actually do their jobs. Right now they are so restricted by so many different elements, that the criminals are basically enjoying open season on you.
I mean, feel free to anonymously complain about these criminals, but without any evidence you are at their mercy. At least the mercy of the state will have rules, oversight, procedures and maybe even some good people helping to keep it in check.
Enough to get the job done. Enough to shut up the whining little anonymous complaints that we're not doing our job, despite granting their every demand for privacy, anonymity and all that.
Enough to convince people to take responsibility for their own society, police it themselves and stop their fellow citizens from doing this ugly stuff in the first place.
You say we shouldn't punish the many for the crimes of a few? Teach those few better, then. Stop them from growing up thinking this foul behaviour is in any way acceptable. Eliminate the need for anonymity and the fears that make people crave it in the first place.
Oh, that will all happen, I'm sure.... But someone will profit by it first, and they will have the anonymity to do so.
Most of these reports/stats tend to focus on adults abusing children, psychologically, violently, sexually or neglectfully. While it's usually a combination of these, I believe sexual abuse overwhelmingly the most common element.
It's a lot harder to confront an anonymous online webpage than it is a real person face-to-face, though... and a lot easier to bully someone into suicide anonymously on the internet, than it is to do so in person.
There are virtually no mass shootings in America. Virtually no mass killings, either.... according to the definitions of 'what certain people consider' mass shooting/killings, anyway.
Ah, so an easy way to identify criminals is to track and surveil them.....? Got it.
Well, that is generally how all criminals are caught... The smarter you play it, the more you'll catch.
It's very feasible. However, HEXUS actually stands as a good example of how only a light touch is needed, because the community is quite self-policing... as described above.
Other places have to take a far heavier hand in matters.
Places like YouTube have investors, who get to decide what content they do and do not want their names/brands/products associated with. They hold the purse strings. They call the shots.
Same for other funding sources - The last thing Patreon wants is a scandal where their systems were used to facilitate terrorist funding, for example.
You're still free to post all kinds of stuff..... for free.
If you want to make money off your content, though, that comes with rules.
_______________________________________________________________________
There's also less chance of escaping consequences of whistleblowing because we can track everyone to such a high degree.
Can't do much against ignorance, but we can make sure it doesn't affect my personal life.
Doesn't work like that. People form their own little groups where the other side is at fault simply for having different beliefs. I've seen someone be incredibly verbally abusive on a similar website, but people ignore it because of similar politics. I've countered that abuse and have been accused of being the harasser. People really don't like being told that their behaviour is wrong.
Public shame works on those with a conscience. It also can be highly destructive, eg the suicide point you brought up before.
I wasn't particularly arguing for more anonymity, just that we should enjoy the same degree of it.
Gun's are purely to kill, and for drugs, I think they should be legal to consume as long as it only affects your own life. You seem to have the opinion that restricting freedom will punish the worst, but I think that it will punish those trying to better their lives because of stuff in the past that may not be that serious. Politics is manipulative so if you hold any opinion that someone doesn't believe, there will be someone to dig up stuff that you don't want even if it's just a passing comment.
Society often already agrees on what is considered unacceptable in stuff that matters. There are controversial topics that can't be decided so easily without oppression, eg is it wrong for me to take a woman's right to abortion when some risk death from more dodgy methods vs defending the life of a bein
And if there isn't a drop?
Anonymity doesn't change that it's human behaviour that is at fault.
Credibility is all but dead. We're bombarded with too much information and it's just easier to jump on a bandwagon that is made to make you feel a certain reaction.
Never have I heard that it's culturally acceptable to carry a blade in the UK... To some degree, the inappropriateness of it can also be what makes it attractive eg smoking, drinking.
Not always. There's also no promise that those rules will always be just.
What is enough? No matter how far you go, there will always be victims. People in prison can still commit crimes. Why is the counter to complaints about privacy to strip it away? As for responsibility, people, at least today do not take personal responsibility and they won't. It is always someone else to blame. This is not changing anytime soon.
I have nothing against tracking criminals.
I imagine the intelligence of Hexus readers tends to be higher and frequent commenters are smaller/more manageable and so people don't really feel the need for ego stroking as much. As for feasibility, if people get round blocks in China which is regarded as one of the most restrictive countries, then why would it be considered feasible here? Are we going to just block other countries that don't align to this lack of privacy? We'd pretty much just be alone at that point.It's very feasible. However, HEXUS actually stands as a good example of how only a light touch is needed, because the community is quite self-policing... as described above.
Other places have to take a far heavier hand in matters.
Yeah but the irony is that greed has encouraged low quality stretched content of 10min minimum of topics that they try to cover in more videos because it makes more financial sense. I'm not saying that people aren't free to do what they want, but that doesn't mean that things aren't crap. Animators particularly seem to have the most consequences because it takes a lot of effort to create. It feels like a platform of amateurs trying to be professional but often fail at both. It also seems to be a platform for people trying to be controversial.
OK, when was the last time someone was rounded up and shot by a corporation for exposing their underhanded dealings?
It's a given that you will no longer be employed, and there's no escaping that because even without the internet your co-workers will know it was you. People aren't that stupid, yet... at least when it comes to figuring things like this out.
But even if you manage to pull it all off, you forget that all those 'professionals' hiding their identities will also be able to strip away your anonymity, so again anonymity of no real help when it comes down to it.
You want a voice, you get one. You want to use yours to silence the ignorance, go ahead. Anonymity for you just gives them the same anonymity with which to beat you down with their ignorance. It solves nothing.
Then no amount of your campaigning, struggling, anonymous speaking out against the corruption in the system and so on will change that. You have already lost. Anonymity will not help you. You're just perpetuating a squabble.
Indeed... and when they do it publicly, the whole world quite readily tells them they're wrong.
Public shame is more than just individual conscionable matters, though. If everyone knows you're a kiddie-fiddler, you won't get served in a single shop, won't be welcomed on public transport or in public spaces, won't have any friends, won't be able to go outside your door for all the hatred (and other, more physical objects) that will be thrown at you. Yes, suicide is a possibility, but that will be of your own doing and could be considered the price of your crime... but then, you're free to take your own life at that point, just like you wanted...
I'd also argue the nature of the psychology behind such criminals, rather than just the crime itself, is something that needs attention and intervention long before it gets to the stage of an actual criminal act, but that's another topic and similarly controversial. But I'm not afraid of putting my name to it in order to effect change and improve the situation for everyone. Anonymity won't lend credibility to my argument, but actually remove any it might have.
You wanted more freedom of speech and the anonymity that affords it, which is TOO OFTEN only facilitated by the same anonymity that people abuse to the detriment of others. That's the point the article was making - That serious criminal activity has increased massively because of the security implemented to protect people too stupid to keep their mouths in check.
OK, so a few oppressed people would get rounded up and shot for blowing a few whistles... The whistle is still blown, the word is out and the point is made. Those people chose to sacrifice themselves for their cause, just like many others throughout history did, be it a gunpowder plot or containing a nuclear meltdown.... It's the price they had to pay.
But on the flip side, a great many children would be spared the sexual abuse and torture that affects them their whole lives and possibly even perpetuates the abuse. A good deal of trafficked humans, substances and products, as well as their traffickers, will be intercepted and prevented from doing damage.
Fact is, your freedom to say you don't like gays or whatever, without anyone knowing enough to brad you a homophobe for it, comes at the expense of other peoples' freedoms and other peoples' lives.
I obviously disagree on both counts... but who cares about mere opinion?
It's still a fact that people have proven they will abuse the freedoms given them regarding these, and they have affected enough lives of others that the people have been deemed untrustworthy.
Here we have another freedom, being heavily abused to great detriment over an even wider spread of the population, but you seem unwilling to accept that because it restricts a comparatively minor benefit that you enjoy... Presumably you're in favour of a free and open market, where sweatshop clothing can be sold, because it benefits your wallet by several pence?
By establishing those restrictions, you make it easier to spot and catch someone stepping outside of them. Then you can talk about punishment, but right now we don't have the resources to even catch them because we are too restricted by these freedoms you enjoy.
So?
That is politics anyway, even before the anonymous internet.
Now you just get to dig more stuff up and post it anonymously. How does that help in any way?
Yes, and they 'condemn it in the strongest possible terms'.... but what do they actually do about it?
Words are meaningless in the face of the actions against them. Actions which people feel empowered to undertake because no-one knows who they are. Change that and give them a reason not to do it.
Then you re-examine your implementation. People always have a brief period of resistance to change before accepting it, particularly when that change yields decent and beneficial results. I don't hear many calls for the UK to reinstate handguns. I'd love to own them. There are quite a few iconic pieces I'd collect.... But I also recognise that my enjoyment of waging war against paper silhouettes and tin plates is trumped by the need for children to go to school without fear of being gunned down by some maniac.
People behave themselves far better when they know they'll be judged by, and treated according to, the manner in which they deliver their opinion, though. That's also human behaviour.
So change it.
Force people to think critically, show them how, lead by example. Make it socially unacceptable to just hop on that wagon.
Do/did you have a grandfather?
Time was, in our grandfathers' time, every man carried a pocket knife. It was the gentlemanly thing to do and knives of a certain style are still known as grandfather knives or gentlemans' knives.
Along similar lines to the above - Ever been a Boy Scout?
Right this very minute I have a Swiss Army knife in my pocket. The largest blade is under 3" (7.62cm) and folds without locking, which meets the very specific UK legal requirements. No-one bats an eyelid when I take it out and use it... partly because it's one of the iconic red ones that everyone knows and loves... but partly because it's perfectly legal and very culturally acceptable. Has been for many decades.
Other cultures around the world have similar acceptances. Ours is just very stringent on what is and is not.
Sub-cultures are another matter, but still cultural, with their own ideas of what is and isn't acceptbale. Rap artists often sing (fictionally and otherwise) about carrying a piece, running drugs, pimping hoes and doing jail time... I don't recall any boasts about fiddling kids, though. To them it is culturally unacceptable.
Certain motorcycle clubs are well known for carrying weapons, fighting, drinking heavily, DUI and generally acting like utter thugs... but taking drugs is a big no-no and they will turn on you the moment they find out. In their culture it is unacceptable.
No promise, no, but that's the government you, The People, voted for... and there's still far better chance than putting that same power in the hands of the anonymous criminals who most definitely will abuse it to [censored] you over!!
I'm sure you'll let me know before I go too far....!!
Right now we're barely going anywhere and certainly getting nowhere, though, so how about we take action and start getting some proper results?
Because of what people do with it when they have it.
MPs, CEOs and the like have been getting slammed for the things they do in private so often that it's not even news any more. They just publicly apologise and then retire on a final salary pension, with offshore acocunts and investments somewhere. No biggie.
The only difference between them and 'normal' people is that the latter don't even make the news unless someone dies from it.
Even small things like stealing a co-worker's lunch from the fridge, though - That's all part of the problem and the mentality that needs changing.
Oh, that is so very easily changed.
It won't be popular, but it is easily shot down... and, to be honest, I think most people would welcome some power to take responsibility for their own lives!
Of course, it will be limited, because we can't just have things swinging in the opposite direction... but a return to earlier days, when you were allowed to step in and help someone without fear of being sued six ways to Sunday.
Is being a right-wing and a liberal even possible, I wonder?
And you're happy with me doing that, yes?
You're happy with me tracking down the guy that rapes and murders you and your children, and posts the video on the internet?
You're happy to let him do that, knowing that I will (probably... possibly... maybe...) be able to track him down and bring him to justice.... after your children have died screaming?
You wouldn't rather I just instigated a culture that prevented him from even thinking such a crime would be a good idea in the first place?
I think you'll find the lower demoninators like myself actually drag the averages down somewhat....
But regardless, it's usually the ones who like to think they're smart (especially London graduates) that actually challenge such things, often not even realising that things are a certain way as a result of much means testing, evidence-based policing, continual evaluation and very carefully considered standards... among other things.
Recently, for example, it was requested that Hexites continue to watch their language and do their best to maintain the high standards for which this forum is known... particularly in the absence of a dearly departed Admin, who took personal responsibility for helping keep people on the straight and narrow in that regard. Community governance is simple enough even for people like me, when you actually allow it and foster it.
Those same people can strip away all your layers of anonymity too, if they so choose. What's your point?
We already do block countries that don't align to our way of doing things. Anyone who lived through Apartheid and the trade sanctions will know this.
But then, we also force our way of doing things on some countries, while others see how well our way works out and adopt it for themselves. The same is true of other countries and ways of doing things. If I had a dime for every time someone has mentioned "Australian style points system" lately, I'd be buying myself a second motor yacht.... Maybe even get me a Gulf Craft this time!
OK, so remove the freedom of people to earn money from their work. Stifle their freedom. Restrict them to only free, high quality content.... high quality being highly subjective, but never mind the petty details...
Trying? Not succeeding?
Presumably most of them are anonymous, too?
_______________________________________________________________________
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote