Online Anonymity

[Moses]

Seems to be a movement amongst Australian politicians to 'make people use their real names' on twitter, fora and other online sites to stop that pesky 'cyber bullying' stuff.

Not sure how they think it'll work, but when legislators start making these noises I get concerned.

The idea of people being accountable for what they say is nice, but I can't see how the fuck it'd work for both technical and legal reasons.

Technically, how would we and other websites confirm the identity of visitors? Would potential users show up at my place with their drivers license for me to authorise their account?

Legally it's a quagmire with far too many jurisdictions in play. When they still can't shut down the pirate bay, you've gotta wonder how they'll block sites that don't enforce real names. Sites like twitter have millions of users and no registered Australian business, why would they care what Australian lawmakers decree any more than the Chinese lawmakers?

 

[Moses]

Few examples showing up this week

Tigers player Robbie Farrah abused and Barry O'Farrell wants to get the Federal Police to track down the now closed twitter account: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...r-farah-incident/story-e6frg6nf-1226470826868

On drive this afternoon Joe Hockey was saying the Libs are looking into what can be done about it too.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

When they still can't shut down the pirate bay

that bloody site cost me all my bandwidth for a month in about an hour!

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

If the government actually believe that the problem with social media is that people don't use their real names, they can either;

- invent their own social media website to cater for those who don't feel safe on websites with anonymous users.
- ask that major social media websites give australian users an option such as "only receive tweets from verified accounts with real names".
- (or alternatively, attempt to shut down any website that doesn't force every member to attach their ISP and address to each and every online message they send...)

The problem is that people want to have it both ways. They get a kick out of the fact thousands of individuals are reading and responding to each one of their messages, but at the same time they complain about the fact they can't see who is responding to them. However, if you just limited social media to those who reveal their real name and location, it takes away from the mass numbers, and what many people like about these websites.

I have a final question for those anti-facist/crusaders for individual rights......... (who at the same time want everyone's name tied to everything they post)

Where is my right to post anonymously on the internet? What if I don't want people knowing who I am? What is the problem with me setting up a blog, youtube channel or social media account to respectfully post my opinion/s or critiques?

Making everyone tie their name to twitter posts or messages wont be effective at all, and actually takes freedom away from the majority of well meaning people using these websites. Which is just about on par when it comes to federal communications policy...

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

I wouldn't want to see any legislation forcing people to use their real names.

As is often the case for these sorts of things, I look at the moral and practical case for taking action or not.

The Moral Case...
One of the great features of the Internet is the ability for all of us to be effectively "Name and Address Witheld" just like the letters to the editor in the paper. It promotes freer discourse in my opinion. It also invites trolls, yes, but nobody ever said freedom of speech was without issues. Freedom is often messy, but it beats not having it. And that's what it gets down to for me: freedom of expression. Why should I have to sign my name to something I write? If I defame somebody, then there is still recourse, as I can be pursued through my ISP. That is, unless I go to all the trouble of using TOR or some other anonymising technology. But people say all sorts of outlandish things on the Internet and most of it gets brushed off as the ravings of some nutter.

The Practical Case...
This is plainly unenforceable. The Internet and its users have all sorts of wonderful ways of routing around these kinds of issues. The minute an Australian based service forces someone to use their real name, an international site will pop up where that isn't the case. There are also the aforementioned anonimiser services. Make no mistake, I think that the kind of stuff written about Robbie Farah's mum (to use the latest example) is pretty vile, but I don't think you can effectively legislate and police it.

Finally, Bru is right: you can't be a social media tart and complain about trolls at the same time. Sometimes you just have to shut the technology off and walk away.

Everything I've seen around communications and media policy in the last 12 months has been about reducing freedom, not protecting or enhancing it. That bothers me and it appears to be something that all the major political parties agree on. That worries me even more.

 

[Gagger]

Last 5 paragraphs nails it.

This is all PR puff

But before the backlash really fires up, before O’Farrell and Gillard get caught in a sound bite spiral, lets pause.​

Queensland authorities have already prosecuted and jailed one internet troll, Bradley Paul Hampson of Tarragindi in Brisbane's south, for “using a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence”. Another, Jessica Cook, pleaded guilty to the same offense in August after posting comments and pornographic images on a Facebook tribute page for murdered Sunshine Coast woman Justine Jones.​

​

​

Hampson went down for three years. Cook received a suspended sentence and was banned from using social networking sites, exactly the legal response the Robbie Farah was looking for in his case.​

​

​

Neither the Prime Minister nor the NSW Premier actually need to do anything about internet trolls. Section 474.17 of the Commonwealth criminal code creates an offense, punishable by imprisonment for three years, of using a carriage service, and yes the internet counts, in such a way that a reasonable person would consider it “menacing, harassing or offensive”.​

​

​

Of course, to actually catch a few trolls and imprison them, resources would need to be applied, money spent, and staff hours committed. The question of what is actually menacing, harassing or offensive, and what is merely the sort of rougher than usual rhetoric one finds online is a flame war for another day, or a question for the jury.​

​

​

Read more:​

​

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/opi...g-on-trolls-20120910-25o81.html#ixzz266tyPpMP​

 

[Braveheart81]

The Daily Telegraph is running a campaign against Twitter Trolls.

Here is there poll for today regarding the issue.

http://a7.sphotos.AK (Andrew Kellaway).fbcdn.net/hphotos-AK (Andrew Kellaway)-ash3/548228_597410000594_1444900033_n.jpg

 

[matty_k]

This popped up in the twitter stream
"Dear @robbiefarah, this is a bit hypocritical, no? Telling the PM to get a noose for her birthday! Oh dear http://t.co/iCKOVYwv"

 

[en_force_er]

Good post Bruwheresmycar. I think I'll give my two cents.

I'll concede the point that it's pretty awful that people abuse free speech to be twats and it's terrible that the internet (probably the biggest game changer to world culture ever) is their haven.

However, it's completely ridiculous to take away my right of anonymity because a few people abuse it, we live in an innocent until proven guilty society and the internet in Australia needs to follow suit.

Most credible sites have their own internal systems to deal with people dicking around. Now, these systems sadly can only punish them after the fact, which far from perfect, but there's literally nothing that can be done without inconveniencing the masses to restrain a few people who would just find different outlets.

Taking Charlotte Dawson as an example, the poor lady is obviously a fragile individual who perhaps shouldn't subject herself to the public eye, or at least shouldn't be surfing the negitive side of social media in the wee hours of the night. Is it right people treated her badly? NO. Did I do it? NO. Did many people do it? NO. Does this kind of thing happen often? More than it should, but in the scheme of things, NO.

Is it fair that because a small number of people misbehave on the web that I, for example, can't express my rugby opinions freely? Of course not.

 

[Braveheart81]

Celebrities just need to block and ignore trolls.

You are never going to win a war of words with them because you are playing by different rules.

They will say things that the celebrity will never say because it will hurt their reputation.

 

[en_force_er]

Celebrities just need to block and ignore trolls.

You are never going to win a war of words with them because you are playing by different rules.

They will say things that the celebrity will never say because it will hurt their reputation.

Succinctness was never my strong point. Well said.

 

[matty_k]

If you want to hear more about what happened to Charlotte Dawson and why it went nuts have a listen to this episode of Download This Show
www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/downloadthisshow/ep34/4247094

More was going on than what was actually reported in the major news outlets.

 

[en_force_er]

If you want to hear more about what happened to Charlotte Dawson and why it went nuts have a listen to this episode of Download This Show
www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/downloadthisshow/ep34/4247094

More was going on than what was actually reported in the major news outlets.

An interesting listen.

I wasn't going to saying anything too polarising (and before I listened to the show program I was hoping they would) but something was so very unholesome about her current affair appearance.

Something is so forced about appearing on a television show in slouchy clothes with no makeup, there are teams of people set out to make people look good for interviews (hair, make-up, lighting, etc). The fact they made the delibret decisions not to use these is just... seedy.

The fact she even said (and I paraphrase here but I believe I capture the gist of the point) "this was a massive battle and it's hard for me to appear on tv, to prove how hard it is for me I couldn't even muster up the strength to put on make-up".

DISCLAIMER: I don't usually watch a Current Affair unless I feel the story will be a noteworthy discussion piece, even if it's usually for it's lack of quality.

 

[Moses]

Good article by Gagger on the front page
http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/trolls-malcolm-turnbull-and-me/

 

[en_force_er]

Good article by Gagger on the front page
http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/trolls-malcolm-turnbull-and-me/

Good read.

Not taking anything away from the medium of Gagger but is such an article really Gagger material?

If you blokes started Gagger Cycling maybe you could start another Gagger side for current affair opinion pieces/news?

The media empire begins!

 

[BPC]

I am in favour of legislation allowing people to use an anonymous tag only if they are willing to display the said tag in public:
http://www.stevenhumour.com/2010/05/18/i-wonder-if-thats-his-real-name/

 

[cyclopath]

Good read.

Not taking anything away from the medium of Gagger but is such an article really Gagger material?

If you blokes started Gagger Cycling maybe you could start another Gagger side for current affair opinion pieces/news?

The media empire begins!

Begins?
Gagger is the William Randolph Hearst of social media. Or at least plans to be!

 

[MrTimms]

I'm a bit disappointed by this whole debate.

There was once a time being an online troll was more of an art. Posting something subtle, being subtle enough to get reactions without standing out.

Now the term has been hijacked by the media to be anyone who says something to a celebrity.

I lament the lost art of the Troll.

 

[en_force_er]

I'm a bit disappointed by this whole debate.

There was once a time being an online troll was more of an art. Posting something subtle, being subtle enough to get reactions without standing out.

Now the term has been hijacked by the media to be anyone who says something to a celebrity.

I lament the lost art of the Troll.

In your world maybe mate. I doubt you were young enough to come across the darker sections of Reddit or 4Chan.

 

[Gagger]

Good read.

Not taking anything away from the medium of Gagger but is such an article really Gagger material?

If you blokes started Gagger Cycling maybe you could start another Gagger side for current affair opinion pieces/news?

The media empire begins!

Nice idea but that's quite a bit of effort for the sake of one article!

However I thought it was bang on relevant considering the rugby player tweeting content, our Social Pages column, and the fact that we are writing these words in social media, most often anonymously!