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

[Baruch]

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

The one I sit next to at work, works for the government.  I was referring to eventualities.  So some toy Leftist underground is going to overthrow Dick Cheney?  Now BitCoin is wholly controlled by the US government ... they will not permit any money other than what they can control.  Presumably because of the use of money by criminals.  But what if the government are criminals?  Who will guard the guards?  I expect the guy they just arrested today in Australia, as the real Satoshi ... will soon be bearded and under a new name, at Guantanamo.  There are probably ISIS guys who actually don't realize they are working for the CIA.

[Hydra009]

I am utterly clueless as to what people have to lose from loss of anonymity. Care to explain?

Here's an example, it's an extreme example, admittedly.  A lesser example would be our employers looking up our online activity.  And let's just say that there's a very good reason why this forum has a rule against posting your own or someone else's personal info.

Anonymity does actually serve a number of good purposes:

"For example, medical patients and mothers discuss sensitive issues (be they clinical or related to parenting) in pseudonymous forums, allowing for candid discussions of what might otherwise be stigmatizing subjects. Anonymous activists rely on the web for whistle-blowing or to speak truth to power without fear of retribution. And, in a strange twist, victims of hate crimes use anonymity to speak out as well: anonymity can empower those who seek consolation and justice to speak out against assailants enabled by the same processes."

"Anonymous expression has been a foundation of our political culture since its inception, underwriting monumental declarations like the Federalist Papers. At its best, it puts the attention on the message, rather than the messenger.

For these reasons, we should stay away from sweeping and blunt prohibitions on anonymity. Requiring real identities online would chill a vibrant democracy." Source

[doorknob]

Very well said hydra.

[dtq123]

"At its best, it puts the attention on the message, rather than the messenger."

I think this says most of your idea with minimal words, point taken.

Still, come visit if you'd like XD

[josephpalazzo]

Here's an example, it's an extreme example, admittedly.  A lesser example would be our employers looking up our online activity.  And let's just say that there's a very good reason why this forum has a rule against posting your own or someone else's personal info.

Anonymity does actually serve a number of good purposes:

"For example, medical patients and mothers discuss sensitive issues (be they clinical or related to parenting) in pseudonymous forums, allowing for candid discussions of what might otherwise be stigmatizing subjects. Anonymous activists rely on the web for whistle-blowing or to speak truth to power without fear of retribution. And, in a strange twist, victims of hate crimes use anonymity to speak out as well: anonymity can empower those who seek consolation and justice to speak out against assailants enabled by the same processes."

"Anonymous expression has been a foundation of our political culture since its inception, underwriting monumental declarations like the Federalist Papers. At its best, it puts the attention on the message, rather than the messenger.

For these reasons, we should stay away from sweeping and blunt prohibitions on anonymity. Requiring real identities online would chill a vibrant democracy." Source

Whistleblowing was done way before the existence of the internet. So you don't need the internet to do that. And spreading lies with impunity undermines the very fabric of democracy. As to your employer checking you out, it would only mean that you as a user would be prudent in your activities. You would act more responsibly instead of making wild allegations. You have a vibrant example of a poster a few posts above attacking me recklessly.

[Baruch]

If I were to know someone personally, even on the Internet, and go tell disturbing truths or lies ... to their employer to get back at them ... that is cyberbullying.  That is slander and intimidation, which are illegal.  Fighting ex-spouses do that to each other all the time now on the Internet.  Famously posting nude selfies of ex girl friends.  Sometimes it is one teenager getting revenge on another.

So if I think someone is ... of questionable sanity ... and I am not speaking medically but politically ... will you take me to court?  Well it is possible that a trolling employer could find that material, believe it to be true ... and fire the person I am talking about .. if they know who he is.  Otherwise they cannot.  And the question of employers trolling the internet, or school officials trolling the Internet ... is coming up for court review.

[Hydra009]

Whistleblowing was done way before the existence of the internet. So you don't need the internet to do that.

No kidding.  And before the internet, they heavily relied on anonymity.

And spreading lies with impunity undermines the very fabric of democracy.

That happens regardless of anonymity, as I point out earlier.  And yes, unfortunately, the internet is a breeding grounds for quackery.  Yet, it's also a breeding grounds for people slamming quackery.  But this isn't a new phenomenon.  The invention of the printing press allowed for easy production of pamphlets disseminating falsehoods.  TV as well.  We've been through this before.  It wasn't the end of the world then, and it's not the end of the world now.

As to your employer checking you out, it would only mean that you as a user would be prudent in your activities.

Or, and bear with me on this, it's none of their goddamn business.

You would act more responsibly instead of making wild allegations. You have a vibrant example of a poster a few posts above attacking me recklessly.

I don't speak crazy, so I don't know what the hell he was trying to say to you, but let's assume you were just flagrantly and viciously attacked over the internet.  So what?  Do you need a safe space?  Do you need anonymity to be rescinded to protect your feelings?  Please, let me know just how much the free exchange of ideas over the internet should be altered to make you feel more comfortable.

[josephpalazzo]

No kidding.  And before the internet, they heavily relied on anonymity.
That happens regardless of anonymity, as I point out earlier.  And yes, unfortunately, the internet is a breeding grounds for quackery.  Yet, it's also a breeding grounds for people slamming quackery.  But this isn't a new phenomenon.  The invention of the printing press allowed for easy production of pamphlets disseminating falsehoods.  TV as well.  We've been through this before.  It wasn't the end of the world then, and it's not the end of the world now.

Yes but it doesn't compare with the internet. Setting up a printing shop or building a TV network requires lots of resources, lots of know-how and lots of time. Those who wanted to use those media anonymously faced great obstacles, not that it was impossible, but still it limited the accessibility. OTOH, getting an account with an IPS is quite easy and accessible to anyone. Why there is so much bullying, quackery and disinformation. Yes, those existed before, but never to the extent with the internet. We are talking orders of magnitude that didn't exist before the internet.

I don't speak crazy, so I don't know what the hell he was trying to say to you, but let's assume you were just flagrantly and viciously attacked over the internet.  So what?  Do you need a safe space?  Do you need anonymity to be rescinded to protect your feelings?  Please, let me just know how much the free exchange of ideas over the internet should be altered to make you feel more comfortable.

I don't care what that person thinks of me. I didn't point it out to complain to you but to give you an example of the stupidities that goes on even on a forum such as this one which is supposed to be monitored. Tell me this if you don't mind, would your posts be any different had you registered to this forum under your real name? If you are really concern about truth, facts, understanding, then I don't see what difference that would make. OTOH, if you are carrying a hidden agenda or have other ulterior motives, I can see why you would want to keep your anonymity. But in what way would that make this website better?

[Baruch]

I will apologize to anyone who deserves an apology.  Mistakes are made, and can be amended.  Also I am not myself, opposed to any individual person.  But for certain agendas ... what smell of Hell ... I will fight forever against those agendas.  Insanity is not a protected speech.  But then we don't agree on what insanity is.

The question of censor or not ... has been more eloquently addressed by others than I can.  That is part of the reason why I read posts.  There will be no conclusion as to what is right ... because ethics is not objective.  But in politics, I will not apologize for agitating against positions I oppose, or voting against candidates running under those positions.

And yes, the government trolling the Internet, employers trolling the Internet, or school officials trolling students ... they can all be put against a wall and shot (the trolls) ;-))  Then anonymity will be unnecessary.

[Hakurei Reimu]

Yes but it doesn't compare with the internet. Setting up a printing shop or building a TV network requires lots of resources, lots of know-how and lots of time. Those who wanted to use those media anonymously faced great obstacles, not that it was impossible, but still it limited the accessibility. OTOH, getting an account with an IPS is quite easy and accessible to anyone. Why there is so much bullying, quackery and disinformation. Yes, those existed before, but never to the extent with the internet. We are talking orders of magnitude that didn't exist before the internet.

Nope, the comparison still stands. See, there's something very significant you are ignoring in your analysis. It isn't just access, it's also presence. The guy who just got an account with an ISP has as much presence as any other guy who just got an account with an ISP â€" that is to say, almost none at all. In order to go further, he would have to build that presence â€" into a major website that gets traffic from millions of people each day. Which requires hosting capacity, tollerable webpage design, and semi-frequent updates. Which costs time and money.

In order to be the true bullshit-spreader as you imagine, it takes more than just having an ISP account. It takes some presence. Because the people with presence will be the go-to places for their fix, 'cuz ain't nobody got time to read every fuckin' loser on the net, man! HuffPo will have far more influence on your average person's bullshit content than Joe IjustDISCOVEREDinternet!!!one!!

Your example actually destroyes itself.

I don't care what that person thinks of me. I didn't point it out to complain to you but to give you an example of the stupidities that goes on even on a forum such as this one which is supposed to be monitored. Tell me this if you don't mind, would your posts be any different had you registered to this forum under your real name? If you are really concern about truth, facts, understanding, then I don't see what difference that would make. OTOH, if you are carrying a hidden agenda or have other ulterior motives, I can see why you would want to keep your anonymity. But in what way would that make this website better?

HEHEHEHEHEHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!

You know, you seem to think that we don't have reputations here that we want to protect. This isn't some tripfag site like 4-chan where it's possible for a person to have an argument with himself with convincing veracity. I for one don't want to post stupid stuff because, even if you don't know my real name, I'd still like you to think that the username 'Hakurei Reimu' inspires the feeling of 'This poster posts good stuff! I'd like to read what she/he has to say.' My posts here speak for themselves, and quite frankly you don't need my real name to know whether or not I'm talking shit.

Being reluctant to post your real name should not be taken as evidence that you have something to hide or have an alterior motive, any more than the accused in a trial refusing to testify should be taken as evidence of their guilt. I quite frankly don't care for some of your politics, but in the end, I ultimately don't give a shit about you outside this forum and your occasional blog posts about QM and GR.

When people start giving a shit about you on the large scale, really nothing will protect your anonymity, as demonstrated time and time again. There's really no need or call for anonymity to be disabled by default. We should let people who thoroughly embarrass themselves slink away into the shadows where they belong.

[Baruch]

This is how I try to post ...

I put my real self out there ... my name isn't my real self.  And I try to put my best self out there ... but not because I want people to like or admire me.  What you see is what you get.  This forum is a useful tool for many of us, myself included.  I have no authority beyond my own integrity.  And I am capable of being wrong in substance, or in method.  I might forget to mark something as sarcasm for example.  But I do accept intelligent correction and offer apologies.  On the other hand, if you are on the Internet, you better have a pretty think skin.  I troll other sites, where out and out fascism, racism, socialism, homo-phobia, or anti-semitism are spoken out loud (but not Stormfront ... I have my limits).  But I don't post there ... I just like to take the temperature of the bad-folk community.  This is a bohemian community ... which is a little leven in a whole lot of plain old flour.

[josephpalazzo]

Nope, the comparison still stands. See, there's something very significant you are ignoring in your analysis. It isn't just access, it's also presence. The guy who just got an account with an ISP has as much presence as any other guy who just got an account with an ISP â€" that is to say, almost none at all. In order to go further, he would have to build that presence â€" into a major website that gets traffic from millions of people each day. Which requires hosting capacity, tolerable webpage design, and semi-frequent updates. Which costs time and money.In order to be the true bullshit-spreader as you imagine, it takes more than just having an ISP account. It takes some presence. Because the people with presence will be the go-to places for their fix, 'cuz ain't nobody got time to read every fuckin' loser on the net, man! HuffPo will have far more influence on your average person's bullshit content than Joe IjustDISCOVEREDinternet!!!one!!

Yes, there are people who have established presence. For instance, the guys who started The Daily Beast, but often, these are people who were already established in journalism or some other form of media. Thanks for bringing that out, but it's not what I had in mind. For instance there is this poster who I see on many christian websites. He postures himself as a local politician in California but I haven't seen enough evidence for that. I think he is just an impostor. His main target is the the theory of evolution. His devotion to putdown TOE is quite remarkable, and the amount of adulation from the people frequenting those sites is just disgusting. Another guy was pretending to be a physicist. Sea of Red, who is also a member of this forum, alerted me. So I went there on that christian website and debunked him. Then the guy phoned his friends, mods on that website, threatened to commit suicide if I wasn't banned. Sea even pmed me to let it go. It turned out the guy was a lab technician at some technical firm, or something like that. And so on, I go with so many examples of fraudulent claim. Yes, you want anonymity, but I don't think you realize the cost for that. And so far, no one has convinced me that the benefits of anonymity warrant that cost.

Your example actually destroyes itself.
HEHEHEHEHEHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!

You know, you seem to think that we don't have reputations here that we want to protect. This isn't some tripfag site like 4-chan where it's possible for a person to have an argument with himself with convincing veracity. I for one don't want to post stupid stuff because, even if you don't know my real name, I'd still like you to think that the username 'Hakurei Reimu' inspires the feeling of 'This poster posts good stuff! I'd like to read what she/he has to say.' My posts here speak for themselves, and quite frankly you don't need my real name to know whether or not I'm talking shit.

This is an argument for the "no need of anonymity". I, myself have registered in other websites with a false name, especially those on christian websites. I find no difference in my posts there than those I post here under my real name. So, if you are true to yourself, there is no need for anonymity.

Being reluctant to post your real name should not be taken as evidence that you have something to hide or have an alterior motive, any more than the accused in a trial refusing to testify should be taken as evidence of their guilt. I quite frankly don't care for some of your politics, but in the end, I ultimately don't give a shit about you outside this forum and your occasional blog posts about QM and GR.

When people start giving a shit about you on the large scale, really nothing will protect your anonymity, as demonstrated time and time again. There's really no need or call for anonymity to be disabled by default. We should let people who thoroughly embarrass themselves slink away into the shadows where they belong.

I quite disagree. My experience on the web tells me there are a lot of impostors, and the damage these folks bring about is quite substantial. And anonymity is their great shield.

[Baruch]

Thank G-d and MI6 ... and CIA ... we will soon have GPS anklets and shock collars on all the people!  You will obey!  You will think what we want you to think and feel what we want you to feel (mostly pain) ... because we are the Supermen.

I fear authoritarians more than frauds.

[Hakurei Reimu]

Yes, there are people who have established presence. For instance, the guys who started The Daily Beast, but often, these are people who were already established in journalism or some other form of media. Thanks for bringing that out, but it's not what I had in mind. For instance there is this poster who I see on many christian websites. He postures himself as a local politician in California but I haven't seen enough evidence for that. I think he is just an impostor. His main target is the the theory of evolution. His devotion to putdown TOE is quite remarkable, and the amount of adulation from the people frequenting those sites is just disgusting.

So what if he was a politician or not? As long as he doesn't go under his real name, he's just some guy on the internet posting about evolution.

The reason why poeple on the internet get away with pretending to be politicians who reject TOE is because there are plenty of real politicians who do the same.

Another guy was pretending to be a physicist. Sea of Red, who is also a member of this forum, alerted me. So I went there on that christian website and debunked him. Then the guy phoned his friends, mods on that website, threatened to commit suicide if I wasn't banned. Sea even pmed me to let it go. It turned out the guy was a lab technician at some technical firm, or something like that. And so on, I go with so many examples of fraudulent claim. Yes, you want anonymity, but I don't think you realize the cost for that. And so far, no one has convinced me that the benefits of anonymity warrant that cost.

Yeah, and Dwane Gish used his false Ph.D. in biochemistry to bolster his case for creationism. Oh wait. His Ph.D. was GENUINE.

The reason why people on the internet get away with pretending to be physicists and posting fraudulant claims is that there are plenty of REAL physicists who do the same. The people on the forum Sea of Red was posting on wouldn't probably know the difference between some lab technician and a real physicist. They don't CARE about the truth. They're there to pat each other on the backs and pretend that they actually have a case for their woo-woo ideas.

And suppose either of those posters you mentioned above posted their real names. Barring fraud, lets suppose that the posters really genuinely posted under their real, honest-to-goodness names. Suppose then that you posted proof that your politician wasn't a politician. Would they care? No. They wouldn't care because they don't care about the truth. Suppose that you posted proof that your lab technician was just a labbie and not a real physicist. Would they care? Again, no. They don't care about the truth.

We, who hold to intellectual honesty, who don't say anything unless we're willing to bear the embarrassment of being shown wrong, are a rare beast. Most people aren't like us. They talk a good spiel, but they don't care about truth, or verification of the identity on the other end to make sure that what they say is on level.

This is an argument for the "no need of anonymity". I, myself have registered in other websites with a false name, especially those on christian websites. I find no difference in my posts there than those I post here under my real name. So, if you are true to yourself, there is no need for anonymity.

Well, thank you for admitting that you only give a false name in the interest of posting under false pretenses, but not everyone is like you. I, for instance, chose this username because it lets everyone who's in the know of the Touhou Project know what kind of person I am... it's actually more informative than a real name would be.

I quite disagree. My experience on the web tells me there are a lot of impostors, and the damage these folks bring about is quite substantial. And anonymity is their great shield.

Bullshit. The most prolific perveyors of crap on the internet are people who do indeed post under their own names to sites like HuffPo, the Oprah network, etc. People like Robert Cloutier, Jenny McCarthy, Deepak Chopra, Dr. Oz, and the like. They're where the crap originates â€"everyone else is just parroting them because they don't care about the truth. At best, the guys who post anonymously are just regurgitating stuff they hear from sites like this, in which case it doesn't matter if they post under their real names or not.

See, the people who most wish to sling the most bullshit want names attached, because they want to benefit from that bullshit. Anyone else is just an empty-headed buffoon, which tells you everything you need to know about them. Everything.

Seriously, what would a real name give you? It wouldn't tell you their qualifications. All you would have is their name. Their probably not-unique name. There are no less than eight Mike Adams's on Wikipedia's disambiguation page... who play pro-football. Only one of the eleven Mike Adams's listed owns Natural News; only one of them is the real shyster Mike Adams. If you saw "Mike Adams" a forum, there is only a 9% chance (probably less) that it's that shyster. You would have to look at his posts to make sure, in which case, you would have easily sniffed out that he's talking crap. To everyone on the forum who reads "Mike Adam"'s posts, they either think he's talking crap too, or they're completely taken in and won't check up on him unless they are given sufficient cause to believe he's a shyster.

If it's a name you don't recognize, then you would have to track down his name and see what's what... or you could just read his post history and just figure out if he's a twat. You don't need a name for that.

As to a need for anonymity when possible? Yes, there's an actual need for it. It places a barrier between you and undesireables who might want to dox you and make your life miserable. Or dox someone else accidentally and make their life miserable. It won't stop a concerted and deep investigation, but it'll keep casual molesters guessing.

And let's not forget the people on AF for whom anonymity is a matter of life and death, to say nothing of the people whose livelihood might be put in jeopardy by an outing, or kids who are still dependent on religious parents and run the danger of getting thrown out of their homes if they are outed. To me, these are overriding concerns.

People who would get taken in by some guy posting anonymously would be taken in by anyone â€" you can't help these people by naming people, you need to educate them out of their gullibility. Meanwhile, there are people whose very lives are depending on being anonymous.

[josephpalazzo]

@Hakurei Reimu

You made a better case for your position than I did.

Long Live ANONYMITY   :08: