nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

How would lack of anonymity change the internet?

NIMAN

Recent sectarian Twitter abuse of Jack Grealish and death threats to Darren Kelly, the new Oldham manager, got me thinking how this nonsense has gotten out of control due to the fact that people have anonymity and can act the hard man behind the keyboard.

What if you all your internet accounts, like those for Boards, Twitter etc all had your real name, with your location attached? I am not campaigning for this, but how would it change how abuse cyberbullying and threats are dished out online?

Would they cease? Or will people always be a$$holes?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

The Diabolical Monocle

option b

Flood

cake

The Backwards Man

I'd never post on the internet again if everyone knew where I lived!

jungleman

NIMAN wrote: »

Recent sectarian Twitter abuse of Jack Grealish and death threats to Darren Kelly, the new Oldham manager, got me thinking how this nonsense has gotten out of control due to the fact that people have anonymity and can act the hard man behind the keyboard.

What if you all your internet accounts, like those for Boards, Twitter etc all had your real name, with your location attached? I am not campaigning for this, but how would it change how abuse cyberbullying and threats are dished out online?

Would they cease? Or will people always be a$$holes?

It would probably stop a lot of vitriolic trolling, to be honest. But at the same time, I like remaining anonymous on boards or other sites. Not because I troll or abuse people, but because I think that by NOT being a dick on the internet I have the right to be anonymous.

Cold War Kid

What you propose is actually going on on Facebook - lots of people's locations show up, and nearly everyone uses their real name: and Facebook can be a cesspit. Moderation is what would keep things in check - and Facebook threads aren't moderated (well not until a good while has passed).

Flood

Cold War Kid wrote: »

What you propose is actually going on on Facebook - lots of people's locations show up, and nearly everyone uses their real name: and Facebook can be a cesspit.

Everyone is friends on facebook

Cold War Kid

Flood wrote: »

Everyone is friends on facebook

Heh, I mean comments to newspaper articles and that.

NIMAN

Well at least those who thought they had anonymity got a call from the police (in the case of the Darren Kelly incident).

But we are going to need a lot more police personnel in the future to keep track of idiots on the internet.

Macmillan150

The Circle- had an interesting take on this. In the book it turned everyone into polite internet users. Don't think it would work really, just as Cold War kid says. Facebook not very polite

jonnypacket

I see the authoritarian-loving boot lickers are out in force today. Hard to believe that some people would welcome more strict rules and policing on the internet...conditioned by the nanny state to live in awe of the authorities and enjoy being ordered around. More moderation please slurp slurp.

Cold War Kid

jonnypacket wrote: »

I see the authoritarian-loving boot lickers are out in force today.

If you're just referring to this thread of 13 posts, your assertion is very much contradicted.

When people have a problem with moderation so that people can't act the dick, well... you know what angle they're coming from.

K4t

Nobody should have the right to be free from scrutiny or abuse on a privately owned social media site. If Jack Grealish doesn't like the abuse he's getting he can give some back, ignore it, or delete his twitter account any time he likes. Nobody is forced to use Twitter, which at the end of the day is a privately owned site where users choose themselves to reveal their true identity.

Nothing against Grealish by the way, he's a great footballer.

Cold War Kid

K4t wrote: »

Nobody should have the right to be free from scrutiny or abuse on a privately owned social media site. If Jack Grealish doesn't like the abuse he's getting he can give some back, ignore it, or delete his twitter account any time he likes. Nobody is forced to use Twitter, which at the end of the day is a privately owned site where users choose themselves to reveal their true identity.

Nobody should be able to get away with giving abuse (not criticism, that's a different thing) on a private website. Twitter should suspend the accounts of those who do so.
The victim-blaming in these discussions is farcical.

A private company doing its own moderation is not a breach of freedom of speech (which doesn't exist anyway) seeing as it is not a state agency. It shouldn't be a matter for law enforcement (until it crosses the line to criminal behaviour) but a private company can deal with it as it sees fit.

K4t

Cold War Kid wrote: »

Nobody should be able to get away with giving abuse (not criticism, that's a different thing) on a private website. Twitter should suspend the accounts of those who do so.
The victim-blaming in these discussions is farcical.

Everyone should be able to get away with giving abuse. And everyone should be able to ignore and avoid getting abuse. Which is the way it is! And who are you to tell Twitter what they should or should not do? These people are only victims of their own stupidity.

A private company doing its own moderation is not a breach of freedom of speech (which doesn't exist anyway) seeing as it is not a state agency. It shouldn't be a matter for law enforcement (until it crosses the line to criminal behaviour) but a private company can deal with it as it sees fit.

Yeah, but twitter should not have to do their own moderation in relation to abuse of users if they don't want to.

Cold War Kid

K4t wrote: »

Everyone should be able to get away with giving abuse.

No they shouldn't.

And everyone should be able to ignore and avoid getting abuse. Which is the way it is!

No it isn't! Bullying is frowned upon as you know.

And who are you to tell Twitter what they should or should not do?

Who are you to say people should be able to get away with verbally abusing people?

The "free speech, no matter how cruel it is, should be allowed - to hell with those on the receiving end; bullying's cool" crowd never seem to think of the two-way street angle, when trying to push their vacuous agenda.
"People should avoid getting abuse" - seriously, classic victim-blaming.

K4t

Cold War Kid wrote: »

No they shouldn't.

They should. And they should be told to stfu or ignored. Thankfully you can do both very easily on the internet and sites like Twitter.

No it isn't! Bullying is frowned upon as you know.

Hold on, is Jack Grealish being forced against his will to remain active on twitter and forced to read all the abuse he receives on his account? No, I thought not.

Who are you to say people should be able to get away with verbally abusing people?

The "free speech, no matter how cruel it is, should be allowed - to hell with those on the receiving end; bullying's cool" crowd never seem to think of the two-way street angle, when trying to push their vacuous agenda.
People should avoid getting abuse - seriously, classic victim-blaming.

Who are you to say any differently? See, two can play this game. I did not say "to hell with those on the receiving end" - I simply suggested they perhaps ignore the abuse, or you know, quit their twitter account. I know, I know, the mere suggestion of that sparks outrage in you. I also never said bullying is cool. It is most definitely uncool. But it is a part of life, and thankfully you can avoid it online and on sites such as twitter. There are no victims here, only sore losers. Grealish is a big boy, he'll get over it and move on. Hopefully you can do likewise.

Robsweezie

The testicles of the average boardsie would shrink considerably

Cold War Kid

K4t wrote: »

Who are you to say any differently? See, two can play this game.

Well that was my point when I responded in that way - you seemed to neglect the whole "two-way street" angle. I'm not telling Twitter to do anything, I am giving my opinion.

I did not say "to hell with those on the receiving end"

But you imply it by being absolutely adamant that people should be allowed to give others abuse.
There's no "outrage" or a need for me to get over it and move on - I am only disputing you. "Free speech" remember?

People being allowed to give others verbal abuse is not acceptable to most people - surely you can see why. Telling those on the receiving end to log off a site that they enjoy using, is deflecting responsibility and is affording more rights to those harassing them on that site. To be more concerned about the rights of the bullies than the bullied is pretty twisted logic (I'm not having a go at you for the craic - you really don't seem to grasp the implications of what you propose) and where does it end? Do you think kids should be able to give verbal abuse to other kids in the playground? Teachers step in in these cases - that's the equivalent of online moderation.
"They can ignore them" is utter victim-blaming and very cold and lacking any sort of empathy. People should ignore them, yes (telling them to **** off is definitely no use) but not everyone is thick-skinned enough (nor should they have to apologise for this - the problem is not this; it's bullies exploiting their lack of thick skin) and what if it gets worse then? Telling them to log off a site they enjoy and let those harassing them continue to use it, would be pretty obnoxious tbh, and a terrible message. It was the tedious line thrown out in the case of AskFM. No, if teenagers enjoy that website, let them stay using it, and kick little ***** who are harassing people off it - or actually give them a few warnings, but then take it further.

People should face consequences for their behaviour if it affects others, rather than having impunity just because of this imagined "free speech" notion that doesn't seem to acknowledge any sense of personal responsibility on the part of those it misguidedly supports - only personal responsibility on the part of those on the receiving end.

Don't get me wrong in relation to the free speech thing - I do think any considered view (not flat-out personal abuse; that is not a view, it brings nothing to the table) no matter how distasteful, should be aired rather than silenced... but in the appropriate arena and done in a respectful manner. For instance I don't agree with "No" voters being shouted down just because they say they're voting no. If they make their points respectfully, then, no matter how disagreeable it is, the retort should be just as respectful.

dxhound2005

K4t wrote: »

Who are you to say any differently? See, two can play this game. I did not say "to hell with those on the receiving end" - I simply suggested they perhaps ignore the abuse, or you know, quit their twitter account. I know, I know, the mere suggestion of that sparks outrage in you. I also never said bullying is cool. It is most definitely uncool. But it is a part of life, and thankfully you can avoid it online and on sites such as twitter. There are no victims here, only sore losers. Grealish is a big boy, he'll get over it and move on. Hopefully you can do likewise.

Grealish lives in England so English law applies. Publishing something on the internet is the same as publishing in a newspaper. Crimes can be commited by publication and even by speech. Legislation predating the internet as well as newer legislation can be used to uncover and prosecute offenders.

There have already been cases in England where prosecutions have been taken, and trolls have gone to jail. This might not fit your vision of how the internet should work. But it is just another form of publication and the law applies whether or not you or the trolls recognise it.

Cold War Kid

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Grealish lives in England so English law applies. Publishing something on the internet is the same as publishing in a newspaper. Crimes can be commited by publication and even by speech. Legislation predating the internet as well as newer legislation can be used to uncover and prosecute offenders.

There have already been cases in England where prosecutions have been taken, and trolls have gone to jail. This might not fit your vision of how the internet should work. But it is just another form of publication and the law applies whether or not you or the trolls recognise it.

It would have to be very extreme IMO for law enforcement to get involved.

There have been arrests in Britain for tweets, which although obviously horrible and they deserved to get their Twitter accounts suspended, getting the police involved just for saying horrible things seems a bridge too far IMO.