By doing so lead to a cleaner and more pleasant internet and the breaking down of echo chambers? Thus leading to a much more smarter and happier populis able to reject convenient half truths in the name of ideology?
No, that's fucking stupid. Online anonymity is a very important thing, regardless of if it happens to allow people to be dicks or believe things which are objectively wrong.
Posted: Sun Apr 21, 2019 7:23 pm
by The Confederate Soldier
The Galactic Liberal Democracy wrote:Damn AustrALIENS and Chinese banning the internet again.
Lol!
Posted: Sun Apr 21, 2019 7:47 pm
by Neu Leonstein
Proctopeo wrote:No, that's fucking stupid. Online anonymity is a very important thing, regardless of if it happens to allow people to be dicks or believe things which are objectively wrong.
That is such a weird thing to me. Why would online space be any different to physical space? We generally don't consider IRL anonymity that important, because we have all sorts of requirements to identify ourselves in our real world interactions with others, and many consider the lack of anonymity very important, if various Burqa threads are any indication.
Proctopeo wrote:No, that's fucking stupid. Online anonymity is a very important thing, regardless of if it happens to allow people to be dicks or believe things which are objectively wrong.
That is such a weird thing to me. Why would online space be any different to physical space? We generally don't consider IRL anonymity that important, because we have all sorts of requirements to identify ourselves in our real world interactions with others, and many consider the lack of anonymity very important, if various Burqa threads are any indication.
Well, why wouldn't they be any different? The chief similarity between online and physical communication is language, and that's not even strictly necessary for either. They're as different as night and day, if not even more so.
By doing so lead to a cleaner and more pleasant internet and the breaking down of echo chambers? Thus leading to a much more smarter and happier populis able to reject convenient half truths in the name of ideology?
No, that's fucking stupid. Online anonymity is a very important thing, regardless of if it happens to allow people to be dicks or believe things which are objectively wrong.
I admit that I was wrong here, but the concept of this law is atleast sound in its atempt to end misinformation.
Proctopeo wrote:No, that's fucking stupid. Online anonymity is a very important thing, regardless of if it happens to allow people to be dicks or believe things which are objectively wrong.
I admit that I was wrong here, but the concept of this law is atleast sound in its atempt to end misinformation.
Eh, I admit the very basic intentions weren't completely misguided, but there's way better ways to approach the same goal without resorting immediately to authoritarian nonsense.
LiberNovusAmericae wrote:Government overstepping at its finest. Hate speech is grotesque, but it is not an impressing enough concern to sacrifice civil liberties, and it shouldn't be illegal in the first place.
Yeah, this whole situation is so sad, Liberno. Can we just privatize the shiz outta Austria and repeal all this censoring nonsense?
1. Stop corrupting my nation name in a condescending way. I don't appreciate it. 2. Privatization has nothing to do with this, so I see no reason to even bring it up.
Posted: Sun Apr 21, 2019 10:16 pm
by Socialist Workers Combine
LiberNovusAmericae wrote:1. Stop corrupting my nation name in a condescending way. I don't appreciate it.
I think it’s cute, you should reconsider.
Posted: Mon Apr 22, 2019 3:10 am
by Estanglia
This law is terrible.
Firstly, this law will only apply to larger web pages. Hate groups and groups that spread misinformation don't tend to have a massive following, so most of them will escape the law. It also means groups planned to be targeted by this law could just move off bigger platforms and onto a smaller one, which could unintentionally create an echo chamber for the users and make this law counterproductive if one of its aims is to get rid of echo chambers.
Secondly, this law will be pretty much unenforceable. How would they know that the name I put in is actually mine until I commit a crime? How would they know my details are correct? If they could verify the details via some other means that existed before (like IP address), then why institute this law? Seems like a waste if you can already find out who I am/where I am.
Thirdly, it creates an easy opportunity for hackers to get ahold of your information, which gives you an incentive to put in a fake name and address to avoid that (and effectively become anonymous again, thus rendering this law pointless).
Lastly, it can be used to ruin you, like NCR said. Set up the account with your name and address, post a bunch of illegal shit and there goes your life. It doesn't even have to go to court to ruin you: if the news published an article on what 'you' did it could still ruin you. It could also be used to blackmail you. The only escape from this would be to either a) not take any action until it can be confirmed the user is actually me (and all the unfortunate stuff that comes along with that, like police visits etc.), or b) not use any data gathered by this law as proof of 'my' illegal activities, which kinda makes it pointless.
Proctopeo wrote:No, that's fucking stupid. Online anonymity is a very important thing, regardless of if it happens to allow people to be dicks or believe things which are objectively wrong.
I admit that I was wrong here, but the concept of this law is atleast sound in its atempt to end misinformation.
Look at Estanglia’s post
Posted: Mon Apr 22, 2019 3:39 am
by An Alan Smithee Nation
I think the idea that there is anonymity online is a myth. Same way people used to think emails were private.
Ostroeuropa wrote: The authorities can already track an IP address. This is basically a power grab on behalf of media types.
... to think today's Austrian government is appreciative of "media types".
Their government is full of open Putinboos so...
Posted: Mon Apr 22, 2019 4:08 am
by Novus America
I will try to find the articles, but basically the internet as we know it will soon be at an end, fragmented along country lines. Different countries will have different nets with varying (but limited) degrees of connectivity.
Posted: Mon Apr 22, 2019 4:13 am
by Pilipinas and Malaya
Honestly, this is way too much for a government to require real names on online sites. Who knows what Österreich will do next, or worse the EU?
Posted: Mon Apr 22, 2019 6:51 am
by Cyberpunk America
Novus America wrote:I will try to find the articles, but basically the internet as we know it will soon be at an end, fragmented along country lines. Different countries will have different nets with varying (but limited) degrees of connectivity.
Novus America wrote:I will try to find the articles, but basically the internet as we know it will soon be at an end, fragmented along country lines. Different countries will have different nets with varying (but limited) degrees of connectivity.
Here are some articles. It is simple really. If some content is illegal in some countries but not in others, providers are going to offer different content in different countries.
A common, single internet requires common regulations or no regulations at all.
When every country has different internet laws, one internet cannot exist.
And in more extreme cases like Russia and China who are deliberately trying to separate the internet (“sovereign internet) and create a separate internet they can use as in instrument of government control an block content they do not like.
The fracturing of the internet from EU rules is not intentional, but Chinese and Russia are deliberately attempting to fracture it so they can solely control their pieces.
Basically the internet is doomed.
Posted: Mon Apr 22, 2019 8:56 am
by Liriena
At first I was like "yay", but then I remembered mass surveillance and closeted LGBT+ people (specially in extremely bigoted societies) and I was like "ummmm".
The upside of this policy is that it would make trolls' work a lot harder, and undermine extremists ability to organize online and spread hate speech with impunity by depriving them of anonymity. But the huge downside is that everyone else would also be left more vulnerable to governmental overreach in online surveillance (and China is a fairly good example of why that should scare us) as well as targeted harassment by private individuals.
Here are some articles. It is simple really. If some content is illegal in some countries but not in others, providers are going to offer different content in different countries.
A common, single internet requires common regulations or no regulations at all.
When every country has different internet laws, one internet cannot exist.
And in more extreme cases like Russia and China who are deliberately trying to separate the internet (“sovereign internet) and create a separate internet they can use as in instrument of government control an block content they do not like.
The fracturing of the internet from EU rules is not intentional, but Chinese and Russia are deliberately attempting to fracture it so they can solely control their pieces.
Basically the internet is doomed.
Welp, it was good while it lasted. Looking forward to the next few decades of extremely dystopian cyberpunk LARPing.
Facebook is the best argument ever made for legally establishing a "maximum age" for internet use.
Posted: Mon Apr 22, 2019 9:10 am
by Proctopeo
Liriena wrote:At first I was like "yay", but then I remembered mass surveillance and closeted LGBT+ people (specially in extremely bigoted societies) and I was like "ummmm".
The upside of this policy is that it would make trolls' work a lot harder, and undermine extremists ability to organize online and spread hate speech with impunity by depriving them of anonymity. But the huge downside is that everyone else would also be left more vulnerable to governmental overreach in online surveillance (and China is a fairly good example of why that should scare us) as well as targeted harassment by private individuals.
It's good you have reservations, though I'm worried that your first response was "yay".
Liriena wrote:At first I was like "yay", but then I remembered mass surveillance and closeted LGBT+ people (specially in extremely bigoted societies) and I was like "ummmm".
The upside of this policy is that it would make trolls' work a lot harder, and undermine extremists ability to organize online and spread hate speech with impunity by depriving them of anonymity. But the huge downside is that everyone else would also be left more vulnerable to governmental overreach in online surveillance (and China is a fairly good example of why that should scare us) as well as targeted harassment by private individuals.
It's good you have reservations, though I'm worried that your first response was "yay".
It's not just China that wants to reduce anonymity online. Austria's government has introduced a draft law that would require you to provide your real name and address to larger sites before commenting. You could still use a nickname in public, but authorities would have an easy way to find you if they believe you're harassing users or otherwise violating the law. Companies that didn't honor the law could face fines up to €500,000 (about $562,000) if they didn't comply, and twice that with a repeat offense.
It would only affect sites with more than 100,000 registered users, bring in revenues above €500,000 per year or receive press subsidies larger than €50,000. There would also be exemptions for e-commerce sites as well as those that don't earn money from either ads or the content itself.
If passed and cleared by the EU, the law would take effect in 2020.
There are a number of concerns about the draft, though, and many revolve around those exceptions. They're meant to give young sites a chance to grow before they police their users, but they might actually protect the communities most likely to engage in abusive comments, such as hate groups that may have small bases and no advertising. There's even a potential conflict of interest -- the law might protect the ruling party's junior partner in government, the populist Freedom Party, from having to curb hate speech on its sites.
The EU might balk at the law, too, as it could punish European companies more harshly than in their countries of origin.
As always, there's also the simple question of privacy. While requiring names and addresses could discourage harassment and hate speech, it might also discourage people from coming forward with insightful stories and opinions. Moreover, this would turn sites into veritable gold mines for hackers -- if they could breach a database, they might swipe personal information for thousands or millions of users. Simply put, there could be a chilling effect on freedom of expression even as Austria attempts to preserve it.
In short, Austria's government is now putting up a bill in Parliament that's going to require people to put their real names and addresses down for web sites before they could use message boards in many cases should it pass. They'd still publish with their nicknames, but the authorities can more easily find people who are writing hate speech or potentially violent speech. There are so many loopholes and exceptions that some larger sites such as the Freedom Party's own website would be exempt. What's your view on this, NSG?
For me, this is obviously a terrible idea. Not only will people be more justly afraid of surveillance than usual, but putting all that information on the net is, as the Engadget article points out, just asking for hackers to come in and start feasting. Plus, there's no real way to explain how this would curb hate speech anyway since most sites that have it would be too small to be monitored under the exemptions.
Posted: Sun Apr 21, 2019 6:34 pm