Attempts to prohibit online anonymity are malicious in intent and should be opposed

[EnterName]

Traditionally, the media have been happy to protect their sources when reporting on stories, in fact the media has legal protection in some instances from being forced to reveal their sources. When given the protection of anonymity, people can speak the truth freely, without fear of consequences of speaking the truth.

 

In court, a jury is not allowed to hear that a person being tried before them has a long criminal record of similar crimes, before making their decision.

When sentenced for a crime, a sentence is administered, and then once served, the punishment is over, and the person returns to normal life.

A free individual who may not be discriminated against for past crimes.

It is now standard practice for most convicted criminals to serve around half of their sentence before being granted early release.

 

Yet for some reason, saying the wrong thing online can result in a lifetime ban.

Beyond that, there are now calls for people banned on one social media platform, to be banned on all social media platforms.

 

Traditionally calls for censorship came from the religious right, who claimed to be trying to protect people. They were opposed by the left.

Now the calls for censorship come from the politically activist left, who also claim to be protecting people, and the right generally seems to be going along with it, with a few exceptions.

 

I strongly suspect that this move to ensure nobody can speak freely without consequence is to ensure political dissidents can be identified and dealt with. (Hence the title)

 

Can someone explain to me why someone convicted of a crime is given a punishment for a limited period of time before being allowed to return to a normal life in society, but someone who causes offence online should never be forgiven?

Are we really going to have a legal system that allows the killers of Jamie Bulger (Jon Venables and Robert Thompson) to not only be freed for Jamie's murder, but have been also been guaranteed anonymity (and indeed publicly identifying them as the killers of Jamie is an offence), while insisting that anyone who says the "wrong" thing online, must suffer a lifetime punishment?

 

Incidentally, specifically to Briskoda, could a moderator on here clarify what the "path to redemption" is for anyone who has been banned from Briskoda?

Is there one, or is it when you're out, you're out for ever, with no chance of "time served, welcome back but behave yourself"?

(I'm not criticising here, I just don't know.)

[@Lee]

1 hour ago, EnterName said:

Yet for some reason, saying the wrong thing online can result in a lifetime ban.

What, like inciting an insurrection or sending black football players messages containing nothing but monkey and banana emojis? 

There's only one type of person who'd want that sort of thing allowed to continue without punishment. 

Edited 23 July, 2021 by @Lee

[KenONeill]

1 hour ago, EnterName said:

what the "path to redemption" is for anyone who has been banned from Briskoda?

You have to actively work at it to get a life ban from Briskoda. PM a moderator, and ask about them.

[EnterName]

38 minutes ago, KenONeill said:

You have to actively work at it to get a life ban from Briskoda. PM a moderator, and ask about them.

So life bans are a thing on here?

[john999boy]

Due to the nature of this potentially divisive topic I am moving it to the Roadside Hotel.

Maybe @EnterName needs to read the Site Guidelines too.

[Ttaskmaster]

Committing a crime in person usually affects those few people around you.

Committing a crime online can reach millions.

 

Also, this anonimity that allows people to speak the truth... also allows paedo rings to function in far greater secrecy and recruit resources from around the world instead of just whoever is brave enough to meet at a shady spot in the local park.

[KenONeill]

23 minutes ago, EnterName said:

So life bans are a thing on here?

Yes, but AFAIK they've been used maybe twice in the last 20 years.

[EnterName]

1 hour ago, @Lee said:

What, like inciting an insurrection or sending black football players messages containing nothing but monkey and banana emojis? 

There's only one type of person who'd want that sort of thing allowed to continue without punishment. 

So you're siding with child-killers over people saying mean things online, Lee?

Good to know where your priorities lie.

1 minute ago, KenONeill said:

Yes, but AFAIK they've been used maybe twice in the last 20 years.

Okay, thanks for clarifying that.

[EnterName]

17 minutes ago, Ttaskmaster said:

Committing a crime in person usually affects those few people around you.

Committing a crime online can reach millions.

What is an "online crime"?

19 minutes ago, Ttaskmaster said:

Also, this anonimity that allows people to speak the truth... also allows paedo rings to function in far greater secrecy and recruit resources from around the world instead of just whoever is brave enough to meet at a shady spot in the local park.

I'm astounded you find equivalence between people saying things you don't like and paedophile rings, particularly when you are on the side of the argument that would let child-abusers serve their time and then return to society and be granted anonymity.

[@Lee]

12 minutes ago, EnterName said:

So you're siding with child-killers over people saying mean things online, Lee?

Good to know where your priorities lie.

 

WTF? Where did I say that? I'm done. Mac11irl had your measure down to a tee in your 'entryism' topic. (Freedom Talk dated 31 July 2020 if anyone would like a recap) 
I meant to block you yesterday. I'll do it  now

Edited 23 July, 2021 by @Lee

[EnterName]

28 minutes ago, john999boy said:

Due to the nature of this potentially divisive topic I am moving it to the Roadside Hotel.

Maybe @EnterName needs to read the Site Guidelines too.

Just read them. My original post (and intent of the thread) isn't about Briskoda, that was just an incidental question that I added because I didn't know. Apparently permanent exclusions are very seldom used.

For the record, I have no issue with the site guidelines, and indeed I'd like something similar to be applied to the criminal justice system, so repeat offenders get permanent exclusion from society, and cannot simply return later to carry out criminal activity.

[EnterName]

1 hour ago, @Lee said:

What, like inciting an insurrection or sending black football players messages containing nothing but monkey and banana emojis? 

There's only one type of person who'd want that sort of thing allowed to continue without punishment. 

 

17 minutes ago, EnterName said:

So you're siding with child-killers over people saying mean things online, Lee?

Good to know where your priorities lie.

 

10 minutes ago, @Lee said:

WTF? Where did I say that? I'm done. Mac11irl had your measure down to a tee in your entryism topic. 
I meant to block you yesterday. I'll do it  now

Happy to clarify.

For clarity, I've included three posts.

 

My original post compares how child-killers Venables and Johnson have not only been released from jail, but have been granted public anonymity and publicly naming them is an offence, to lifetime punishment for people writing things you don't like to read online. I found a lifetime punishment for saying mean things at odds with a time-limited punishment for killing a child.

Your response focused on people writing things you don't like online not getting anonymity, and totally disregarded the child-killers being granted anonymity.

 

Therefore I concluded you prioritise granting anonymity to child-killers over granting anonymity to people saying mean things online.

It helps if you read what I actually write, not what you think "someone like me" would write.

[john999boy]

At the moment this thread is only continuing due to my lack of time to fully monitor it.

If, after revisiting it I've a feeling that action may need to be taken then be in no doubt it wil be.

[EnterName]

One of the problems with forcing people to reveal their identities online (so they can be "held accountable" for things they say), is that what may or may not be acceptably said can change with time.

This means that someone saying something which is a socially acceptable thing to say at a given time, may subsequently be punished when what they said becomes socially unacceptable.

I'm not just talking about edgy offensive stuff, like old comedy material, but things that everyone knows and agrees upon now, may become unacceptable shortly afterwards, and online archaeology will allow people to be punished for saying something perfectly acceptable that unexpectedly later became prohibited.

 

There is no reason for social media platforms not to prohibit posting things they don't like. I'm happy with that, and online users will vote with their feet. Tools already exist that will automatically block the posting of offensive words and phrases, as well as bots that automatically trawl through websites, removing unwanted or inappropriate posts as well as inappropriate images.

 

Where my suspicion of malice comes in, is the insistence that people be punished for saying legal things other people don't like.

We already have laws that prohibit incitement to violence and online threats, and anyone who thinks they can hide their illegal activity from the authorities is deluded.

 

If I'm wrong, I invite people to correct me.  It may surprise you to learn that I have not always been right about everything. Imagine that! 

But instead of discussing the issue sensibly, and putting forward a counter-argument, people get triggered and fly off the handle.

 

I'm also somewhat bemused as to why people calling for online identities to be revealed don't set an example, if they sincerely believe that online anonymity is a bad thing and only bad people want online anonymity.

[KenONeill]

8 minutes ago, EnterName said:

I'm also somewhat bemused as to why people calling for online identities to be revealed don't set an example, if they sincerely believe that online anonymity is a bad thing and only bad people want online anonymity.

There's "anonymity" and there's anonymity. The 2 things are not the same. "Anonymity" means that an ordinary member of $forum only knows $user's screen name, eg "EnterName", and not $user's real name or their e-mail address, but a site administrator can contact $user via e-mail if required, or supply that e-mail to law enforcement. Anonymity (no quote marks) means that not even a site administrator can obtain $user's e-mail. See the difference?

[cheezemonkhai]

Get rid of your IP address and you too can remain Anonymous

 

If you want to receive post people need an address, the same is true for data.

 

There is rarely if ever true anonymity if you have enough resources to find someone.

 

 

[EnterName]

1 minute ago, KenONeill said:

There's "anonymity" and there's anonymity. The 2 things are not the same. "Anonymity" means that an ordinary member of $forum only knows $user's screen name, eg "EnterName", and not $user's real name or their e-mail address, but a site administrator can contact $user via e-mail if required, or supply that e-mail to law enforcement. Anonymity (no quote marks) means that not even a site administrator can obtain $user's e-mail. See the difference?

I see what you're saying, yes.

Can I take it you see no reason anyone should reveal their identity to the general public, but they should be reachable by the authorities if they post something "unacceptable" online?

I've italicised "unacceptable", as what is or isn't unacceptable can change.

 

The problem with that is that when an authoritarian regime gains power, perhaps via a coup, it will; then have access to the identities of all political enemies.

Beyond that, it is perfectly possible, someone politically adjacent to extremists could gain employment in a social media organisation, and gain access to personal details of people who could then be targetted for violence.

 

Sometimes police used to use their computer database on the public for nefarious means, but AFAIK, this has been greatly reduced by logging all access to such data and punishing those who use the data inappropriately.

I very much doubt social media platforms have any punishments in place that are proportional to the effect that having a mob of people attack someone's house at 3am, because an insider leaked their name and address to them.

This is a particular risk for people from some religious groups, who face violence after renouncing their religion online. Online anonymity is vital for them to be able to have a voice online.

[EnterName]

11 minutes ago, cheezemonkhai said:

Get rid of your IP address and you too can remain Anonymous

 

If you want to receive post people need an address, the same is true for data.

 

There is rarely if ever true anonymity if you have enough resources to find someone.

 

 

Valid and debatable points, but I'm really just trying to discuss the issue of people being forced to reveal their identity online in this thread.

Kudos to Ken for putting his name where is mouth is. I might not think it's a good idea, but I respect him actually holding himself to his own principles.

(Assuming Ken is actually who he says he is. I cast no doubt on that, and if he isn't, I'm perfectly content for him to be anonymous to me. Someone's identity on here is of infinitely less interest to me than what they have to say.)

 

Edit: That is an important point, I wish more social media tools were available to block offensive content, not people. Some of us don't want to hear about certain subjects, and I see no problem in empowering users to be able to do that. But instead, the focus is on blocking/ignoring people, rather than content. Tell people clearly what they have done is bad, and why it's bad. Don't just dismiss them as bad people you're not going to listen to any more.

Edited 23 July, 2021 by EnterName

[mac11irl]

i have a fewling this is another thread started by the OP with the sole purpose of causing disagreement... still in my ignore list, but ive a fairly good idea from the replies whats happening. 

 

like that old "entryism" thread in the freedom section... this has the feel of another attempt to prove that thread's thesis correct...

[Breezy_Pete]

Remember kids, "Don't feed the troll". 

[EnterName]

18 minutes ago, Wino said:

Remember kids, "Don't feed the troll". 

I'll refer you to the site guidelines, Wino.

https://www.briskoda.net/forums/guidelines/

Specifically:- "Respect is the name of the game. Do not flame, hound, badger, disrespect, or taunt ANYONE on the forums. If we feel a thread is getting out of hand we will close it or delete it. You can and very possibly will be banned if you continue this type of behaviour. This is on a case by case basis with experience where possible. "

 

Your sole contribution to this discussion thread has been to abuse me.

[EnterName]

32 minutes ago, mac11irl said:

i have a fewling this is another thread started by the OP with the sole purpose of causing disagreement... still in my ignore list, but ive a fairly good idea from the replies whats happening. 

 

like that old "entryism" thread in the freedom section... this has the feel of another attempt to prove that thread's thesis correct...

I'm more interested in what you think about the subject being discussed, if you have an opinion.

Edited 23 July, 2021 by EnterName
Replaced "one" with "an opinion"

[@Lee]

9 minutes ago, EnterName said:

I'll refer you to the site guidelines, Wino.

https://www.briskoda.net/forums/guidelines/

Specifically:- "Respect is the name of the game. Do not flame, hound, badger, disrespect, or taunt ANYONE on the forums. If we feel a thread is getting out of hand we will close it or delete it. You can and very possibly will be banned if you continue this type of behaviour. This is on a case by case basis with experience where possible. "

 

Your sole contribution to this discussion thread has been to abuse me.

But it's OK to 'Like' abuse directed towards other members - is that how it works?
 

[@Lee]

Interesting this popped up today in regards to requiring ID for social media. It seems people have ID to be able to vote but not for a SM account. Seems a tad hypocritical to me.
 

Edited 23 July, 2021 by @Lee

[EnterName]

12 minutes ago, @Lee said:

But it's OK to 'Like' abuse directed towards other members - is that how it works?
 

Firstly, I wasn't talking to you, Lee. You're happy to have a discussion, and while I don't always agree with you, I'm happy to hear what you have to say. Doesn't mean I have to agree with it, or like it. But I'll listen.

If you have a problem with @Sad555's post, feel free to complain to him. At the time, I agreed with the basic gist of what we was saying, hence my like.

 

I have no beef with you (or indeed anyone on here). Let me try and pour oil on troubled waters.

Do you believe Venables and Thompson should not be granted public anonymity?