this post was submitted on 15 Nov 2023

163 points (92.7% liked)

politics

24850 readers

3303 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

outrageousmatter@lemmy.world

aidan@lemmy.world

jordanlund@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

Theonetheycall1845@lemmy.world

JuBe@lemmy.world

Lasherz12@lemmy.world

163

Nikki Haley vows to abolish anonymous social media accounts: 'It's a national security threat' (fox11online.com)

submitted 2 years ago by bus_go_fast@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

50 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Small government stuff again from Republicans.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] bus_go_fast@lemmy.world 70 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Stupid time

Haley continued, saying she fears a rise in anonymous social media accounts could lead to widespread misinformation and potentially pose a national security threat.

How about abolishing fox news, then?

“Every person on social media should be verified by their name. It’s a national security threat," she said.

We have people on Fox News, NewsMax, Daily Liar, talk radio, Alex Jones etc who lie all the time and spread misinformation and their names are verified. Doesn't seem to stop them, dipshit.

[–] potterpockets@sh.itjust.works 14 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

For those keeping score:

Foreign bots on social media: bad

Foreign money being used to finance political campaigns, lobbying, etc.: totally fine

(Note: I agree bot farms are bad, but that is a very low effort and bad faith argument for what she is arguing for)

[–] Chais@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

that is a very low effort and bad faith argument for what she is arguing for

Imagine rhetorically competent fascists. That's terrifying!
The common rabble can't see through their flimsy lies as is. They'd be completely out of their depth if republicans took even just an introductory class to discussion and rhetorics.

[–] ubermeisters@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

common rabble

You sound like you think you're really above a lot of people here. Be careful with that, its how they got there.

[–] Chais@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

It was a deliberate choice of words intended to reflect and emphasise what they might think of the average voter. But good looking out.

[–] bus_go_fast@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

but that is a very low effort and bad faith argument for what she is arguing for

She's just pandering to the Elon crowd.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 3 points 2 years ago

Meanwhile Trump calls everyone left of Hitler "vermin". Yeah, anonymity definitely seems like something they wouldn't want, but we all really need.

[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I don't think she thinks it's going to stop it. The idea is to limit it. There were media personalities spewing lying shit before the internet. And I think it's hard to argue we aren't going backwards in terms of how much people buy complete nonsense, and the only thing I can reasonably attribute that to is the rise of the internet. It's that fake news is easy to make and even easier to disseminate.

I'm not sure if getting rid of anonymity on the internet is the answer, but it's a discussion that worth having, and not just dismissing with insults.

[–] bus_go_fast@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (5 children)

I’m not sure if getting rid of anonymity on the internet is the answer, but it’s a discussion that worth having, and not just dismissing with insults.

She's not a serious person. I will insult people who promote her ideology.

load more comments (5 replies)

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 years ago

Nah, dude. It's totally worth dismissing with insults. It absolutely will not prevent misinformation online, but can be used to track people, particularly useful if you think some political views make people "vermin".

[–] MargotRobbie@lemmy.world 57 points 2 years ago

Lucky for me, I, famous Hollywood actress Margot Robbie, am using my real name on this social media platform, and therefore, cannot lie to you about who I am over the Internet.

Afterall, no one would ever spread misinformation under their real name using their reach on social media, especially not a Republican politician on say, Twitter. Right?

Surely, nothing could go wrong with this plan.

[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 31 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Putting the authoritarianism aside for a moment...

"How to dox literally everyone and give a leg up to identity thieves, a one step guide."

[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

This is certainly a problem with it, but we are seeing a major problem without it too. I'm curious as to what people think a solution might be.

[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

TBH, I sometimes think banning social media might be the best solution, and also clearly defining what it is and isn't to prevent bad faith actors weaponizing the ban (e.g. any platform that functions as a general "public square").

Maybe we're just too stupid as a species to have it.

[–] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

TBH, I sometimes think banning social media might be the best solution,

Problem is that whole "free speech" thing.

[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

NAL, but my understanding is that unilaterally banning social media wouldn't be a violation of free speech, because it's targeted at a single issue for a specific purpose and applies to everyone equally, government included. Removing a public square(s) doesn't mean free speech is denied. It means people will have to find other outlets for their speech that aren't social media.

If the government banned newspaper in the 1800s, because it was poisoning everyone, it would not be a violation of free speech or freedom of the press. If they banned newspaper companies, it would. In this case, they wouldn't be banning Xitter, they'd be banning Xitter-like digital platforms.

I'm not saying I'm fully on board with my own idea. I rather enjoy social media, and places like Discord have been instrumental for people finding support groups. But if experts could prove that our lives would be measurably better without it, I would have to assess my beliefs about it.

(This will likely never come to pass, because companies like Xitter and Facebook would be materially damaged, if not bankrupted, and they'd probably successfully sue over some right to do business or something.)

[–] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

NAL, but my understanding is that unilaterally banning social media wouldn’t be a violation of free speech, because it’s targeted at a single issue for a specific purpose and applies to everyone equally, government included

Also NAL, but my understanding is that this would be struck down as government restriction on speech. And it wouldn't be the equivalent of removing a public square. It would be the equivalent of removing all the public squares. Removing a single public square doesn't stifle free speech as the person can just find another public square to speak at. Removing all of them means he has no place to speak at, which effectively violates his freedom of speech.

Look at it this way. Take a city like NYC. You can have laws that specifically don't allow protests at this location and that location for safety concerns, for example, without violating citizen's rights to speech and protest. But if NYC suddenly said that you can't protest anywhere in the city, and we've jumped head first into violation of constitutional rights.

[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I can see that argument. My idea would certainly be a nightmare of a legal headache, so I don't think it would ever come to pass on those grounds alone. My main point was that I'm not sure if humans are responsible enough to be able to safely share so many ideas without first having a skeptical grounding.

Maybe having critical thinking and skepticism classes from grade school through college should be mandatory...? I dunno.

[–] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Oh, make no mistake: We, as a society, are absolutely nowhere near responsible enough to be able to handle using social media responsibly. But the solution to that problem isn't what would amount to a blanket ban on free speech. It's actually holding the people who lie and spread misinformation accountable for spreading lies and misinformation, but unfortunately I don't see that happening any time soon.

[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 1 points 2 years ago

Probably going to require a multifaceted approach, honestly. Education, further limiting what Free Speech protects, materially punishing the transgressors, etc.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years ago (1 children)

So all those Neo-Nazis on Twitter would have to go by their real names?

At least there would be an upside.

[–] bus_go_fast@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Haley (or whatever her real name is that she hides because Republicans are racist): NOT LIKE THAT!

[–] Neato@kbin.social 9 points 2 years ago (1 children)

For those wondering:

Nimarata Nikki Haley (née Randhawa; born January 20, 1972[1][2][3]
Haley was born Nimarata Nikki Randhawa

Not that this matters at all, really.

[–] Eldritch@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It definitely does. Why do she and Piyush feel a need to hide their heritage. That said, I'm all for calling people what they prefer in general. But you know they ditched it to blend in with the bigots better. And when someone tries to do something for deceptive, manipulative reasons. With solidly horrible goals in mind. Fuck em.

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Rafael Edward Cruz for example? At least Barack Hussein Obama had the balls to run under his real name. And win. And that made some people seriously mad. 🤣

Shouldn't talk shit as I'm a coward who won't use my middle name in same cases. First name and surname? Whitebread as it gets, seriously couldn't be anymore white, think "Steve Jones". Middle name? LOL, black. "Steve Tyrone Jones"

Had my resumes trashed for almost 2-months, not a single email or phone call. WTF? Couldn't find anything wrong on my resume, and I'm a fair writer and proofreader.

Ah! There it go. Dropped the "black" name off my email and resume, 3 interviews the following week and a great job the next. When I next switched jobs, got 2 solid offers in 24-hours.

I see black guys do this all the time at work. They'll obfuscate their name to be more palatable.

"Tyrone Jones? Nah, I go by TJ."

First name: Tyrone. Middle: Steve. Last: Jones. "Hi! I'm Steve Jones!"

[–] RotaryKeyboard@lemmy.ninja 13 points 2 years ago

My (red) state is one of those that changed the law to make it illegal for pornographic websites to be seen by children. To view them, you'd have to have some kind of central ID to prove that you are over 18. This is absolutely a precursor to having to have an ID to use the internet at all. Every bad thing that has ever happened on the internet will be used to convince legislators to enact a law like this. It's only a matter of time.

[–] match@pawb.social 9 points 2 years ago

Nikki Haley taking a strong stance against QAnon?

[–] OhStopYellingAtMe@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago (4 children)

Sure. But only after we get gun ownership databases, background checks, national weapon registries…

[–] bus_go_fast@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago

"not like that!"

[–] Blackbeard@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

load more comments (2 replies)

[+] J12@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I've often toyed with the idea of getting rid of anonymity on the internet. Unfortunately it is way too one sided, as in your reach can be so far, and thus people would be anonymously able to harass you from around the globe, which would happen.

[–] TechyDad@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago

I was harassed years ago despite not (at the time) putting my real name online. I was on Twitter (back when Twitter was actually decent) and someone messaged me about my religious beliefs. Now, I never would force anyone to follow what I believe, but I'm always willing to discuss it in a purely informational sense. ("This is what I believe and why and I'll never judge anyone for believing differently.")

Quickly, however, something seemed off. Her questions started veering into "if you knew someone did something really bad wouldn't you have to report it or shouldn't they turn themselves in" territory. I stopped replying, but that didn't stop her.

What I didn't know at the time was that this lady, let's call her D, harassed many people online (including Boy George and the then-CEO of Firefox). D literally thought that God spoke with her and told her bad things that people did. Obviously, there's no arguing against "God told me you're guilty" and she would harass various people as well as anyone else people talked to. As far as what she thought we did? Let's just say she thought we were doing disgusting things with children.

Now, D targeted me because I was blogging at the time and liked photography. One of her other targets lived in New Zealand and liked photography as well. Of course, we all know that all photos on the Internet are just posted by one guy so D figured that he and I must be the same person. All those photos of my family? Faked.

D was determined to report me to the police for all my crimes as well as contact any companies I was working with to "warn" them. Thankfully, she wasn't Internet savvy or she could have tracked me down. She also wasn't the type of Internet stalker to try to travel to her victims. She did send threatening messages. A lot.

Now, I was lucky because I was "anonymous" (as far as her skills were concerned). The "other me" in New Zealand, though, had used his real name and mentioned his employer - a school. She contacted his school to report him (luckily, he warned them) and contacted everyone she could find in New Zealand with the same last name. He needed to have some very uncomfortable discussions with family members.

I finally got her off my case with some web developer trickery. I got her IP addresses from comments she left on my blog and set my htaccess file to return 404 for those IP addresses. Sure enough, she crowed on Twitter about how she brought down my blog and told everyone to see how I was taken offline. Meanwhile, everyone else was able to see my site just fine.

Last I knew, D is still online and harassing people. When she was targeting us, we'd report her and her account would be suspended, but she always had 5 or more backups ready to go. It's possible that she's still going through her normal cycle of harassment - only with Twitter/X less likely to suspend her account unless "God" tells her to target Musk.

[–] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago

Free speech includes the freedom not to speak. That includes anonymous messages. You don't have to speak your name.

[–] ashok36@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago

Or, hear me out, no real names on social media.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago

Haley's next step against social media anonymity is requiring everyone to take the Kindergarten Cop questionnaire:

[–] JustZ@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

I agree but it should be social media that requires it.

Ha, fat chance of social media regulating itself.

[–] tygerprints@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Well she's one nut that Planter's let get away. However I'm not sure I totally disagree with her on this. I used to be all about free speech but now I'm totally for censoring and weeding out those people who only can respond to any posting with negative hate. Even the lowest grade moron knows that free speech comes with necessary guard rails. And someone who persistently attacks others online has no right to remain anonymous and hide like a coward in their parent's basement. This is indeed a crises worthy of being abolished.

[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 15 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I see what you're saying, but I think you're thinking about it backwards. You're assuming people will face negative consequences for their actions, and maybe some would, but there's already people out in public with their real identities harassing others with impunity.

Imagine you gather a group of like-minded people on Xitter, and you and your buddies pick a trans person, who is simply sharing how they're finally feeling like themselves, to harass publicly. And then they get harassment outside of Xitter from others via mail, phone calls, or email. Maybe somebody SWATs them. Maybe somebody finds where they work and vandalizes their car. All because it was easy to find out who they are.

Or imagine this scenario. You're an adult trying to find a job, but you live with your parents, because you can't afford rent anywhere. Your parents are Christian fundies. You are no longer convinced by Christianity, so you decide it's time to secretly leave the religion and find a supportive community online. Somebody from their church sees you've joined The Atheist Community of Austin, tells your parents, and they kick you out (this has actually happened to people). All of this could have been avoided if you were able to keep your identity secret.

Free Speech as a right is too permissive in the US, imo, but privacy is a right we should continue to fight for regardless.

[–] tygerprints@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

That's true as well. Just because someone's identity is no longer anonymous is not necessarily going to deter them from harassing and persecuting others. Certainly fox news doesn't try to mask the identities of their bigoted loud mouth louts.

But I'm not saying that people should universally be banned from remaining anonymous if they are responsible and well meaning with their freedom. In the trans example you cite, I agree that you cannot expect humans not to target someone in vile ways, just because that person is somehow different (they really are not different) from themselves.

And I know people who have been kicked out of (so-called) "Christian" households just for coming out as gay (!) As if that was some kind of anethema or horror that just CAN'T be accepted, which just shows that these so called "Christians" are as evil and degenerate as anything they imagine gay people doing.

I'm not blind to any of these possibilities, I'm just expressing some ideas. Free speech certainly is too permissive in the U.S., but I don't believe we can curb the vile Idiocracy that's coming our way unless we expose the vermin who would kick people out of houses, target trans people, and otherwise hurt, harass or harm other people online or in real life.

If only because by exposing these dolts, we can perhaps get them some kind of professional mental help. They may not want it, but they certainly need it and our society can't continue without them getting the help they need.

[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I like getting ideas out there, and I agree that there's a definite problem with online harassment. If we had better laws that were specific to online harassment or percentage-based fines/jail time associated with doxxing, we might see some curbing of that kind of behavior. After all, even anonymous people can often be found by people willing to look hard enough.

But I'm not qualified to determine if that's even a good idea. I just know that privacy shouldn't be a bargaining chip, especially with so many people who would use its loss in bad faith to cause untold amounts of harm (bad politicians, trolls, domestic terrorists, abusers looking for their victims, etc.).

[–] tygerprints@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago

Me too and I often express ideas just to put them out there. Like anyone, I don't necessarily want more laws to regulate our lives, but when people abuse their freedom and use it to hurt others, I just don't see another way. I really believe in counseling as a help for anger issues that people otherwise take out on others online.

I suppose the whole privacy issue is a sticky wicket as they'd say in Britain. There's two sides to every coin. I don't want overregulation nor do I want any more people exposed to bad actors, trolls, all those you cited. But I think if you have an opinion and it's valid, that's enough to qualify you for putting your two cent's worth, and speaking up is so critical in times like these.