NationStates

Gim wrote:

The East Marches wrote:
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.

Thank you for putting his idea forth more coherently. I see what his train of thought is.

Wisconsin9 wrote:Christ, these are the least coherent ideas I've seen from an OP in... the last week and a half, at least.

Come on, if you're going to post you can at least rip the actual argument to pieces instead of some borderline baity one-liner.

Reploid Productions wrote:

Wisconsin9 wrote:Christ, these are the least coherent ideas I've seen from an OP in... the last week and a half, at least.

Come on, if you're going to post you can at least rip the actual argument to pieces instead of some borderline baity one-liner.

At one in the morning, it's a lot easier to watch other people rip it to pieces. You're right, though, I'll knock it off.

Hah, easier said than done.

Why would anyone think this is a good idea?

The Burke Islands wrote:Why would anyone think this is a good idea?

Some people who are affected by negative phrases or slurs of online people might want justice by having them accountable for the words said. That is just my opinion, though.

The Burke Islands wrote:Why would anyone think this is a good idea?

well with a vote of 254-9 I'd say it's not a very popular one. but believe it or not, only one of those 9 votes is mine haha.

American Imperial State wrote:

The Burke Islands wrote:Why would anyone think this is a good idea?

well with a vote of 254-9 I'd say it's not a very popular one. but believe it or not, only one of those 9 votes is mine haha.

I'm actually mildly surprised there aren't more votes in favor. I know we have more than 9 authoritarian-favoring users around here. Although... authoritarian viewpoints tend to be rather unpopular, and those who like to express agreement with such ideologies probably don't want to deal with the disapproval or harassment for such opinions IRL... Oh dear.

*looks at the polls* never thought I would see a topic where nsers could be so united on a position lol

Gim wrote:

The Burke Islands wrote:Why would anyone think this is a good idea?

Some people who are affected by negative phrases or slurs of online people might want justice by having them accountable for the words said. That is just my opinion, though.

But think about what could happen when bad people get that information; criminals on the internet will no doubt find some way to hide their identity, and with everyone else's information just out in the open they can find out ways to hurt them. Stalkers, serial killers, terrorists, etc.


Having people at risk is a lot worse than just a bunch of dudes trolling around for shits and giggles.

The Burke Islands wrote:

Gim wrote:
Some people who are affected by negative phrases or slurs of online people might want justice by having them accountable for the words said. That is just my opinion, though.

But think about what could happen when bad people get that information; criminals on the internet will no doubt find some way to hide their identity, and with everyone else's information just out in the open they can find out ways to hurt them. Stalkers, serial killers, terrorists, etc.


Having people at risk is a lot worse than just a bunch of dudes trolling around for shits and giggles.

Well, yes, there are more risks than justice, and I do agree with your opinion. I was just stating my opinion of the interpretation of his opinion.

Gim wrote:

The Burke Islands wrote:
But think about what could happen when bad people get that information; criminals on the internet will no doubt find some way to hide their identity, and with everyone else's information just out in the open they can find out ways to hurt them. Stalkers, serial killers, terrorists, etc.


Having people at risk is a lot worse than just a bunch of dudes trolling around for shits and giggles.

Well, yes, there are more risks than justice, and I do agree with your opinion. I was just stating my opinion of the interpretation of his opinion.

Oh, I understand.

Seeing as the Internet is a multinational technology, I honestly don't think that it should be regulated in this manner. But to be more Frank, anyone with the knowledge can track anyone. Your devices MAC address can be used to pinpoint you down to the exact wireless node you use to access the internet.

But do I think that you should be punished for what you post online by the government? Hell no. The only one who should do anything to you would be the owner(s) of the website you are using. Unless it is a direct that against the welfare and well-being of an individual, the government has no place.

Shazbotdom wrote:Seeing as the Internet is a multinational technology, I honestly don't think that it should be regulated in this manner. But to be more Frank, anyone with the knowledge can track anyone. Your devices MAC address can be used to pinpoint you down to the exact wireless node you use to access the internet.

But do I think that you should be punished for what you post online by the government? Hell no. The only one who should do anything to you would be the owner(s) of the website you are using. Unless it is a direct that against the welfare and well-being of an individual, the government has no place.

Well, thank God, for those MAC addresses tracking only the relative location of an online individual. Exact address, name, and status are not specified from them.

American Imperial State wrote:You've all seen how some people behave -- trolling, personal insults etc.

What if we ended internet anonymity by requiring each internet customer to have a special ID number sent to everywhere you visit with your name and address?

That way, if you go to a website, you would have to prove your RL identity and have it displayed online. It might cut down on such activities.

Or perhaps a law requiring internet companies to disclose the real life identities of those who abuse their internet access.

This is one of the most horrendously terrible ideas I have ever read. In short, hell no. For one, privacy issues with this are astronomically high. People's ability to post political opinions or ideas considered dangerous, especially in oppressive countries where coordination against the government frequently relies on anonymous internet communication, would be easily grinded to a halt if the powers that be deemed such a thing necessary. Finally, sometimes people simply wish to post nuanced opinions or highly offensive jokes and shock tactics and so on. How do we determine who is punished for these things and to what extent? And the reason we would have for stopping all of this? So people would not be offended or hurt too badly by words on a computer screen.

No.

Gim wrote:

Shazbotdom wrote:Seeing as the Internet is a multinational technology, I honestly don't think that it should be regulated in this manner. But to be more Frank, anyone with the knowledge can track anyone. Your devices MAC address can be used to pinpoint you down to the exact wireless node you use to access the internet.

But do I think that you should be punished for what you post online by the government? Hell no. The only one who should do anything to you would be the owner(s) of the website you are using. Unless it is a direct that against the welfare and well-being of an individual, the government has no place.

Well, thank God, for those MAC addresses tracking only the relative location of an online individual. Exact address, name, and status are not specified from them.

Except that you leave breadcrumbs all over the internet,being registered in tens of thousands of databases.
Quite a few might know an e-mailadress that contains your real name. Or your address if you ordered something. The types of restaurants you like to visit, the routes you like to travel. Linking a few dozen is really not that hard if someone really wants to.

The Alma Mater wrote:

Gim wrote:
Well, thank God, for those MAC addresses tracking only the relative location of an online individual. Exact address, name, and status are not specified from them.

Except that you leave breadcrumbs all over the internet,being registered in tens of thousands of databases.
Quite a few might know an e-mailadress that contains your real name. Or your address if you ordered something. The types of restaurants you like to visit, the routes you like to travel. Linking a few dozen is really not that hard if someone really wants to.

That's not good.

This is one of the worst ideas ive heard in my life and would open up all sorts of problems for people.

American Imperial State wrote:

Renewed Imperial Germany wrote:
And gays in Saudi Arabia would be more likely to be stoned. Innocents not getting murdered > "Wahhh he said trolly things"

Well, don't be gay on the internet then. Not any different then real life.

But thats the point. They want somewhere where they can be themselves.

Flardania wrote:*looks at the polls* never thought I would see a topic where nsers could be so united on a position lol

Highest percentage I have ever seen in any forum.

American Imperial State wrote:You've all seen how some people behave -- trolling, personal insults etc.

What if we ended internet anonymity by requiring each internet customer to have a special ID number sent to everywhere you visit with your name and address?

That way, if you go to a website, you would have to prove your RL identity and have it displayed online. It might cut down on such activities.

Or perhaps a law requiring internet companies to disclose the real life identities of those who abuse their internet access.

Fuck.

Fucking.

No.

I saw this thread when it was only two pages long. I thought "nah, why encourage that? It will die by itself" but here it is 14 pages long.

"Internet anonymity" isn't absolute. If someone tries to organize a terrorist attack, posts child pornography, grooms a child for sex, or even commits particularly egregious trolling, police can get a warrant and obtain the name attached to the IP address from the retail-level service provider.

That provides the protection the OP wants against actually illegal internet activity. If it's that bad, police should be able to go to a judge, get a warrant, and discover the link between IP address and a real person.

Of course it's not perfect: anyone knowing they're committing a serious crime will use services and sometimes break other laws, to conceal their real identity from such a back-trace. But nothing in the OP's proposal would prevent that either.

In fact, it would do very little to reduce internet trolling, while creating a new class of victims: ordinary users of the internet without much technical knowledge (but whose current understanding is not to give away identity unnecessarily) would be required to identify themselves, and if they were hacked or their identity stolen to make new accounts in their name, the onus would be on them to prove they were innocent of the trolling, the child porn posting, or the terrorist plotting which had their name on it.

As many others have said, it's a stupid idea. Did it really deserve 14 pages of debate?

Ailiailia wrote:I saw this thread when it was only two pages long. I thought "nah, why encourage that? It will die by itself" but here it is 14 pages long.

"Internet anonymity" isn't absolute. If someone tries to organize a terrorist attack, posts child pornography, grooms a child for sex, or even commits particularly egregious trolling, police can get a warrant and obtain the name attached to the IP address from the retail-level service provider.

That provides the protection the OP wants against actually illegal internet activity. If it's that bad, police should be able to go to a judge, get a warrant, and discover the link between IP address and a real person.

Of course it's not perfect: anyone knowing they're committing a serious crime will use services and sometimes break other laws, to conceal their real identity from such a back-trace. But nothing in the OP's proposal would prevent that either.

In fact, it would do very little to reduce internet trolling, while creating a new class of victims: ordinary users of the internet without much technical knowledge (but whose current understanding is not to give away identity unnecessarily) would be required to identify themselves, and if they were hacked or their identity stolen to make new accounts in their name, the onus would be on them to prove they were innocent of the trolling, the child porn posting, or the terrorist plotting which had their name on it.

As many others have said, it's a stupid idea. Did it really deserve 14 pages of debate?

I'm kind of surprised it has more posts than poll votes tbh.

Having witnessed people trolling just as hard on facebook, where their real name is right there, I don't think that anonymity is the cause of trolling.

I am surprised to see so many people saying stuff like, "Though it would be good to shut up all the damn shitheads and trolls who are out there, we shouldn't make the internet anonymous because we would end up silencing activists and minorities as well." I feel like you guys are missing the point. The great beauty of the internet is that everyone with access to it has this unbridled source for freedom of speech. We shouldn't be trying to shut down the trolls! At the end of the day the anonymity that the internet presents is only proved to be a good thing by the behavior of anyone and everyone who present views or says things that they would not say if they were not anonymous (be those views socialist, anarchist, SJW, racist, atheist, theist, brilliant, retarded, or anything else), because this shows just how much we can radically expand our ability to exercise our natural rights to freedom of expression. Every bit of this proposal is stupid!