End internet anonymity

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

How about this - everyone just behave their damn selves, learn some self control, and remember The One Rule:

Don't Be a Dick.

Problem solved.

[The Corparation]

Depends, some people engage in horrible sexual practices as well. What about those people?

What about those who are trolls? harassers? Some people are just assholes, too. i'd like to know who they are. They should be willing to put their name on their words if they're going to be dicks. imo.

When you RL identity is attached to it, you seem less likely to engage in those behaviours imo.

Internet providers can already be forced by court order to divulge the names of people behind an IP address. So, for criminal purposes, there is no need for a new ID number. Also define "horrible sexual practices."

I believe he's referring to The Gays. And their oh so evil makes baby jesus cry gay sex lives. Because as a posted previously in this thread he wants these restrictions so people will stop being gay on the internet.

[Ebliania]

So we should doxx everyone just on account of what they say that we do not like or disagree with?

Depends, some people engage in horrible sexual practices as well. What about those people?

What about those who are trolls? harassers? Some people are just assholes, too. i'd like to know who they are. They should be willing to put their name on their words if they're going to be dicks. imo.

When you RL identity is attached to it, you seem less likely to engage in those behaviours imo.

OK, let's imagine a hypothetical scenario.
You have just lobbied for the passing of a bill which reveals everyone's RL identity. This bill is very unpopular, but for some reason it passes. Now, people have a convenient place to go find and murder you. Would you support it now? Of course, because you would keep yourself a secret. Very well done.

No one will use the Internet anymore, unless you want to abolish everything except for it. Then, we will have reached utopia. A perfect society where everyone's being watched and no one complains. Where everyone hails the leader and publicly target those who criticizes their glorious country.

I cannot think of any other way this will go. The government now knows everyone's address, so would it just do nothing with it?

Internet providers can already be forced by court order to divulge the names of people behind an IP address. So, for criminal purposes, there is no need for a new ID number. Also define "horrible sexual practices."

I believe he's referring to The Gays. And their oh so evil makes baby jesus cry gay sex lives. Because as a posted previously in this thread he wants these restrictions so people will stop being gay on the internet.

Totalitarian society confirmed.

[Avrellon]

Internet providers can already be forced by court order to divulge the names of people behind an IP address. So, for criminal purposes, there is no need for a new ID number. Also define "horrible sexual practices."

I believe he's referring to The Gays. And their oh so evil makes baby jesus cry gay sex lives. Because as a posted previously in this thread he wants these restrictions so people will stop being gay on the internet.

How dare the gays, um...exist...on the internet, of all places!

[Wisconsin9]

So we should doxx everyone just on account of what they say that we do not like or disagree with?

Depends, some people engage in horrible sexual practices as well. What about those people?

What about those who are trolls? harassers? Some people are just assholes, too. i'd like to know who they are. They should be willing to put their name on their words if they're going to be dicks. imo.

When you RL identity is attached to it, you seem less likely to engage in those behaviours imo.

And everybody who isn't a dick, that is to say, the vast, vast majority of everybody on the Internet, gets shafted, and all so that we could satisfy our desire to go Batman on a couple of assholes.

[Genivaria]

that's a good way to have some bad people who up at your house.

They might do that anyway. Maybe not an address but a name.

You'd be less likely to be racist online that's for sure

Instead we'd be having this every fucking day.
http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-34338691

[The East Marches]

They might do that anyway. Maybe not an address but a name.

You'd be less likely to be racist online that's for sure

Instead we'd be having this every fucking day.
http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-34338691

Or this more often

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/12 ... 71428.html

[Liriena]

How about this - everyone just behave their damn selves, learn some self control, and remember The One Rule:

Don't Be a Dick.

Problem solved.

It's still weird seeing your user name in green.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

How about this - everyone just behave their damn selves, learn some self control, and remember The One Rule:

Don't Be a Dick.

Problem solved.

It's still weird seeing your user name in green.

Eh, go fig - it's been green for more years than it's been red anyways. Besides - more freedom now, and zero responsibility, with all the knowledge.
It's almost as if they'd created a monster.


Seriously though, I can see arguments for anonymity, and against it. Not being a dick just seems the easiest, and healthiest option. It's a pity more folks can't manage it. Case in point? *peers at the site overall* Yeah, would appear we're still full-up with an overabundance of wang - of the not-sexist-to-the-men variety, because hey, I love you guys. No, really. Guys are at least an equal percent of my favorite people.

[The Forsworn Knights]

Here is an interesting thought.
Lets start with identifying the nine players/puppets that voted 'yes' in the poll.

[Gim]

Privacy of everyone is essential. I say, "No", to this issue.

[Ebliania]

Here is an interesting thought.
Lets start with identifying the nine players/puppets that voted 'yes' in the poll.

Great idea! I expect huge hypocrisy.

[Reploid Productions]

Lessee....

1) ISPs already have a Terms of Service which you agree to abide by when you sign up for their service. If you're caught violating said ToS, generally this results in either a warning or the outright termination of service.

2) Most websites also have a Terms of Service which you agree to abide by when signing up for or visiting that site. ALL website hosting providers also have Terms of Service which anyone setting up a site on their service contractually agrees to follow when signing up. Some may be more lax than others, but they are there. Websites can be terminated for violating their host's service's rules, and user accounts can and often are suspended or terminated for violating that site's rules. Really, they're the first line of defense- kinda like private security firms for gated communities. They're tasked with handling the minor and localized stuff, rather than calling in state police for every little thing.

3) Law enforcement can already subpoena access and user account information. They just need a proper warrant and all that jazz to do so. Of course, due to the sheer volume of misbehavior online, they tend to reserve jumping through said hoops for particularly serious matters and leave the minor and localized stuff to the local enforcement authorities on those sites. Anecdotal examples: the charmer who tried to spam Nationstates with child porn awhile back, the genius who tried to use NSG as his personal terror plot blog over a decade ago, or the kid who was talking about blowing up his school. Local law enforcement, the RCMP, and the FBI respectively were quite responsive when these were reported.

4) There is no particularly viable way to enforce this without extremely excessive restrictions and privacy violations. And those who are tech savvy would still be able to get around it, just like the savvy can already evade blocks and such by using proxy services such as Tor. There is no way you could get every internet-connected nation in the world on board with this, and the savvy would be perfectly capable of taking advantage of this fact just like they already do.

5) As others have already pointed out, this will not stop trolling or harassment. Just look at what happens IRL at your average Donald Trump rally for proof. Assholes will still be assholes, regardless of whether they can be identified directly. Force-doxxing merely increases the dangers to members of marginalized or otherwise at-risk groups and increases the ease of identity theft, and all for little/no tangible benefit.

[Grinstead]

How about no.

[Gim]

5) As others have already pointed out, this will not stop trolling or harassment. Just look at what happens IRL at your average Donald Trump rally for proof. Assholes will still be assholes, regardless of whether they can be identified directly. Force-doxxing merely increases the dangers to members of marginalized or otherwise at-risk groups and increases the ease of identity theft, and all for little/no tangible benefit.

The inconvenient truth of life on the Internet. We all yearn for a harmonious, online life; however, that is not always the case, especially as time elapses.

[American Imperial State]

Lessee....

1) ISPs already have a Terms of Service which you agree to abide by when you sign up for their service. If you're caught violating said ToS, generally this results in either a warning or the outright termination of service.

2) Most websites also have a Terms of Service which you agree to abide by when signing up for or visiting that site. ALL website hosting providers also have Terms of Service which anyone setting up a site on their service contractually agrees to follow when signing up. Some may be more lax than others, but they are there. Websites can be terminated for violating their host's service's rules, and user accounts can and often are suspended or terminated for violating that site's rules. Really, they're the first line of defense- kinda like private security firms for gated communities. They're tasked with handling the minor and localized stuff, rather than calling in state police for every little thing.

3) Law enforcement can already subpoena access and user account information. They just need a proper warrant and all that jazz to do so. Of course, due to the sheer volume of misbehavior online, they tend to reserve jumping through said hoops for particularly serious matters and leave the minor and localized stuff to the local enforcement authorities on those sites. Anecdotal examples: the charmer who tried to spam Nationstates with child porn awhile back, the genius who tried to use NSG as his personal terror plot blog over a decade ago, or the kid who was talking about blowing up his school. Local law enforcement, the RCMP, and the FBI respectively were quite responsive when these were reported.

4) There is no particularly viable way to enforce this without extremely excessive restrictions and privacy violations. And those who are tech savvy would still be able to get around it, just like the savvy can already evade blocks and such by using proxy services such as Tor. There is no way you could get every internet-connected nation in the world on board with this, and the savvy would be perfectly capable of taking advantage of this fact just like they already do.

5) As others have already pointed out, this will not stop trolling or harassment. Just look at what happens IRL at your average Donald Trump rally for proof. Assholes will still be assholes, regardless of whether they can be identified directly. Force-doxxing merely increases the dangers to members of marginalized or otherwise at-risk groups and increases the ease of identity theft, and all for little/no tangible benefit.

What sort of terror blog? haha

Anyway, i don't trust terms of service or site administrators. They have a tendency to stifle free speech. Obviously restrictions on site administrators would be necessary to prevent abuse of this ID system.

What about people who engage in sexual deviances or online wannabe terrorists? Don't be a douchebag if you don't want douchebaggery to be attached to your name.

[The East Marches]

Lessee....

1) ISPs already have a Terms of Service which you agree to abide by when you sign up for their service. If you're caught violating said ToS, generally this results in either a warning or the outright termination of service.

2) Most websites also have a Terms of Service which you agree to abide by when signing up for or visiting that site. ALL website hosting providers also have Terms of Service which anyone setting up a site on their service contractually agrees to follow when signing up. Some may be more lax than others, but they are there. Websites can be terminated for violating their host's service's rules, and user accounts can and often are suspended or terminated for violating that site's rules. Really, they're the first line of defense- kinda like private security firms for gated communities. They're tasked with handling the minor and localized stuff, rather than calling in state police for every little thing.

3) Law enforcement can already subpoena access and user account information. They just need a proper warrant and all that jazz to do so. Of course, due to the sheer volume of misbehavior online, they tend to reserve jumping through said hoops for particularly serious matters and leave the minor and localized stuff to the local enforcement authorities on those sites. Anecdotal examples: the charmer who tried to spam Nationstates with child porn awhile back, the genius who tried to use NSG as his personal terror plot blog over a decade ago, or the kid who was talking about blowing up his school. Local law enforcement, the RCMP, and the FBI respectively were quite responsive when these were reported.

4) There is no particularly viable way to enforce this without extremely excessive restrictions and privacy violations. And those who are tech savvy would still be able to get around it, just like the savvy can already evade blocks and such by using proxy services such as Tor. There is no way you could get every internet-connected nation in the world on board with this, and the savvy would be perfectly capable of taking advantage of this fact just like they already do.

5) As others have already pointed out, this will not stop trolling or harassment. Just look at what happens IRL at your average Donald Trump rally for proof. Assholes will still be assholes, regardless of whether they can be identified directly. Force-doxxing merely increases the dangers to members of marginalized or otherwise at-risk groups and increases the ease of identity theft, and all for little/no tangible benefit.

What sort of terror blog? haha

Anyway, i don't trust terms of service or site administrators. They have a tendency to stifle free speech. Obviously restrictions on site administrators would be necessary to prevent abuse of this ID system.

What about people who engage in sexual deviances or online wannabe terrorists? Don't be a douchebag if you don't want douchebaggery to be attached to your name.

So, let me get this straight. You don't trust terms of service or site administrators for restricting free speech, while at the same time wanting no anonymity so people can't say stuff you don't approve of without repercussions? Is that right or am I understanding you wrong?

[American Imperial State]

What sort of terror blog? haha

Anyway, i don't trust terms of service or site administrators. They have a tendency to stifle free speech. Obviously restrictions on site administrators would be necessary to prevent abuse of this ID system.

What about people who engage in sexual deviances or online wannabe terrorists? Don't be a douchebag if you don't want douchebaggery to be attached to your name.

So, let me get this straight. You don't trust terms of service or site administrators for restricting free speech, while at the same time wanting no anonymity so people can't say stuff you don't approve of without repercussions? Is that right or am I understanding you wrong?

No , i think people should suffer reprecussions for the shit they say online. not just what i approve of but generally.

I don't trust terms of service or site administrators because often they end up putting their own standards of what constitutes 'free speech' or just outright banning it. They can't be trusted to enforce reasonable ToS so there should be legal consequences for such things(lawsuits etc).

[The East Marches]

So, let me get this straight. You don't trust terms of service or site administrators for restricting free speech, while at the same time wanting no anonymity so people can't say stuff you don't approve of without repercussions? Is that right or am I understanding you wrong?

No , i think people should suffer reprecussions for the shit they say online. not just what i approve of but generally.

I don't trust terms of service or site administrators because often they end up putting their own standards of what constitutes 'free speech' or just outright banning it. They can't be trusted to enforce reasonable ToS so there should be legal consequences for such things(lawsuits etc).

So if people are to face consequences for the things they say, how is that free speech? How are you being any better than the ToS or the site administrators?

[American Imperial State]

No , i think people should suffer reprecussions for the shit they say online. not just what i approve of but generally.

I don't trust terms of service or site administrators because often they end up putting their own standards of what constitutes 'free speech' or just outright banning it. They can't be trusted to enforce reasonable ToS so there should be legal consequences for such things(lawsuits etc).

So if people are to face consequences for the things they say, how is that free speech? How are you being any better than the ToS or the site administrators?

Well, if i go online and say "Fuck xyz white power" or something stupid like that, there are consequences for that. If your RL reputation is based on it, then i think people will be less likely to be douchebags. Also, site admins i think have a particular interest in protecting free speech online.

[Gim]

No , i think people should suffer reprecussions for the shit they say online. not just what i approve of but generally.

I don't trust terms of service or site administrators because often they end up putting their own standards of what constitutes 'free speech' or just outright banning it. They can't be trusted to enforce reasonable ToS so there should be legal consequences for such things(lawsuits etc).

So if people are to face consequences for the things they say, how is that free speech? How are you being any better than the ToS or the site administrators?

I cannot really judge what he is saying, nor am I taking one side, but I think he means people should be accountable for every offensive phrases they make online, which consequently affect others psychologically.

[Reploid Productions]

What sort of terror blog? haha

Anyway, i don't trust terms of service or site administrators. They have a tendency to stifle free speech. Obviously restrictions on site administrators would be necessary to prevent abuse of this ID system.

What about people who engage in sexual deviances or online wannabe terrorists? Don't be a douchebag if you don't want douchebaggery to be attached to your name.

Genius was trying to use an NSG thread to document his plans to murder various Canadian government officials. Like I said, the RCMP was aaaaaaall over that when it was reported.

I find it hilarious you claim to have an issue with site operators "stifling free speech" and then proposing something that would in turn lead to a far greater suppression of free speech. Others have already pointed out myriad examples of how a lack of anonymity would lead to far greater danger for some people, and how it could then be used to suppress freedom of speech to a far greater degree. Imagine what radicals of any flavor could do with a list of names and opinions. Radical Muslims could go targeting people who criticize their faith (and already do when they can ID them!) Anti-choice radicals could target pro-choice supporters instead of just firebombing or shooting up clinics and harassing doctors. Westboro could track down and harass their detractors more so than they already do. Scientology could more easily engage in their "fair game" policy against their detractors (and already have a history of doing so when they can ID targets!) Governments could easily use that information to pressure unpopular groups and opinions into submission (North Korea or China come readily to mind.)

People should face appropriate consequences for being an asshole online. Consequences that are in line with what they do. Somebody being a dick on one website deserves and will often find their ability to use that site restricted or removed outright. That's a reasonable consequence. Somebody who chases somebody else from website to website harassing them can be reported to law enforcement, and the appropriate subpoenas and restraining orders can be filed against them. In especially serious situations, law enforcement can go in with the appropriate subpoenas and make arrests.

There is still room to improve law enforcement's engagement with the internet, especially at the local PD level, but stripping away everyone's privacy and anonymity is not that solution. Just like you don't call the National Guard in when somebody's dog poops on your lawn. There are levels of severity and consequence, and what you're advocating is an ineffective nuclear option.

[American Imperial State]

What sort of terror blog? haha

Anyway, i don't trust terms of service or site administrators. They have a tendency to stifle free speech. Obviously restrictions on site administrators would be necessary to prevent abuse of this ID system.

What about people who engage in sexual deviances or online wannabe terrorists? Don't be a douchebag if you don't want douchebaggery to be attached to your name.

Genius was trying to use an NSG thread to document his plans to murder various Canadian government officials. Like I said, the RCMP was aaaaaaall over that when it was reported.

I find it hilarious you claim to have an issue with site operators "stifling free speech" and then proposing something that would in turn lead to a far greater suppression of free speech. Others have already pointed out myriad examples of how a lack of anonymity would lead to far greater danger for some people, and how it could then be used to suppress freedom of speech to a far greater degree. Imagine what radicals of any flavor could do with a list of names and opinions. Radical Muslims could go targeting people who criticize their faith (and already do when they can ID them!) Anti-choice radicals could target pro-choice supporters instead of just firebombing or shooting up clinics and harassing doctors. Westboro could track down and harass their detractors more so than they already do. Scientology could more easily engage in their "fair game" policy against their detractors (and already have a history of doing so when they can ID targets!) Governments could easily use that information to pressure unpopular groups and opinions into submission (North Korea or China come readily to mind.)

People should face appropriate consequences for being an asshole online. Consequences that are in line with what they do. Somebody being a dick on one website deserves and will often find their ability to use that site restricted or removed outright. That's a reasonable consequence. Somebody who chases somebody else from website to website harassing them can be reported to law enforcement, and the appropriate subpoenas and restraining orders can be filed against them. In especially serious situations, law enforcement can go in with the appropriate subpoenas and make arrests.

There is still room to improve law enforcement's engagement with the internet, especially at the local PD level, but stripping away everyone's privacy and anonymity is not that solution. Just like you don't call the National Guard in when somebody's dog poops on your lawn. There are levels of severity and consequence, and what you're advocating is an ineffective nuclear option.

Perhaps there should be a program whereby an federal internet police could be formed specifically to combat online crimes. and make it much easier to report and track down offenders. that would solve 2/3rds the problems. probably. but it's the jailbait people, too. I think in some ways there should be consequences for flaming and harassment that doesn't really exist. I mean, look what happened to that Gamergate situation with all the harassment.

[Wisconsin9]

Christ, these are the least coherent ideas I've seen from an OP in... the last week and a half, at least.

[The East Marches]

So if people are to face consequences for the things they say, how is that free speech? How are you being any better than the ToS or the site administrators?

Well, if i go online and say "Fuck xyz white power" or something stupid like that, there are consequences for that. If your RL reputation is based on it, then i think people will be less likely to be douchebags. Also, site admins i think have a particular interest in protecting free speech online.

How do you balance that against the good anonymity does? While I may agree that some comments may be unkind, surely the good of anonymity outweighs the negative. My worry is when unpopular opinions get crucified and people are unable to tell the truth if it goes against the norm of public opinion. Societal pressure is a form of coercion as well.