I think after the destruction of Parler by the giants of Silicon Valley, the notion that the open internet anyone can join should be called the “Silicon Valley” model needs rethinking.
Jonathan Ellman
2 years ago
Rather than forcing people to register for social media, make it voluntary but allow people the option of only seeing posts from registered accounts. That way, the anonymous trolls can be instantly blocked by those who wish.
Perhaps right with regards to FB and twitter…
But within weeks, months there will be another platform and another free way of doing it.
Completely agree with your sentiment, but the genie’s out of the box and halfway on its way to an all expenses holiday in the Seychelles
That’s true
As soon as regulation is forced on them however, or if their freedom is prohibited in some way, people will migrate to other platforms.
Napster wasn’t the death of free (illegal) music online for example, and just paved way for other means.
It’s a real problem as governments most certainly should be getting a grip on this, but at the same time it’s hard to see how they can do it without the authoritarianism highlighted in the article. Or just without pushing it elsewhere.
It’s a modern day prohibition-style conundrum
Last edited 2 years ago by A Spetzari
Perry de Havilland
2 years ago
“If the goal is noble, the method is not”
The goal is not noble.
Mark Goodge
2 years ago
Another aspect of all this that I’ve rarely seen commented on is the extent to which Internet users’ horizons have narrowed. To many people, “The Internet” means social media, instant messaging and online shopping). But these are not the Internet, they are just services which run on the Internet. When a cabinet minister speaks approvingly of Apple’s decision to scan for SCAM on people’s phones and iPads, and suggests that Facebook should folow suit, he’s merely betraying that he doesn’t understand the difference between software and hardware, and between a device and its content. It’s like confusing a car with the road it travels on, or a bus with its passengers.
This may not matter to most people who just want to get on with their lives and use whatever services they feel most at home with. But the extent to which our lives are now increasingly conducted online, from banking to interacting with the local council, means that whoever controls the Internet controls our lives.
Nobody cares who ICANN is, or what ICANN does? Well, maybe it’s time to start caring. Because authoritarian regimes would love to have ICANN in their pocket, or replace ICANN with organisations that are already in their pocket. Arguing about whether we should have to give Facebook our personal details in order to sign up will all be rendered moot if the people who run the wires that the Internet travels over obtain the power to block people they disapprove of from even accessing Facebook.
Galeti Tavas
2 years ago
“According to a recent YouGov survey, 78% of us want users to disclose their real identity when signing up on social media”
And I hope this is extended to voting. Every vote made a matter of permanent and public record. Want to vote Trump? Well F* c*ing Own it Then! Sounds fair.
From your posting history, which I’ve often agreed with and given several thumbs up, I genuinely wouldn’t have had you down for one of the usual ‘shoehorn anything anti-Trump in’ types.
Has your account been hacked by one of the Guardian lot?
Rare mis-step from you! The secret ballot is the heart of democracy. Can you imagine the bullying and cancel culture that would come out of a public voting record?
I think after the destruction of Parler by the giants of Silicon Valley, the notion that the open internet anyone can join should be called the “Silicon Valley” model needs rethinking.
Rather than forcing people to register for social media, make it voluntary but allow people the option of only seeing posts from registered accounts. That way, the anonymous trolls can be instantly blocked by those who wish.
I agree. I’ve suggested this many times, but it doesn’t appear to have any support.
Keep suggesting it. Maybe it will eventually snowball.
There is another way to encourage better behaviour from FB and Twitter uses and that is to make people pay for it. This is not foolproof of course.
Perhaps right with regards to FB and twitter…
But within weeks, months there will be another platform and another free way of doing it.
Completely agree with your sentiment, but the genie’s out of the box and halfway on its way to an all expenses holiday in the Seychelles
The alternative platforms are battling to attract punters though. And that is because of established networks on the original platforms.
That’s true
As soon as regulation is forced on them however, or if their freedom is prohibited in some way, people will migrate to other platforms.
Napster wasn’t the death of free (illegal) music online for example, and just paved way for other means.
It’s a real problem as governments most certainly should be getting a grip on this, but at the same time it’s hard to see how they can do it without the authoritarianism highlighted in the article. Or just without pushing it elsewhere.
It’s a modern day prohibition-style conundrum
“If the goal is noble, the method is not”
The goal is not noble.
Another aspect of all this that I’ve rarely seen commented on is the extent to which Internet users’ horizons have narrowed. To many people, “The Internet” means social media, instant messaging and online shopping). But these are not the Internet, they are just services which run on the Internet. When a cabinet minister speaks approvingly of Apple’s decision to scan for SCAM on people’s phones and iPads, and suggests that Facebook should folow suit, he’s merely betraying that he doesn’t understand the difference between software and hardware, and between a device and its content. It’s like confusing a car with the road it travels on, or a bus with its passengers.
This may not matter to most people who just want to get on with their lives and use whatever services they feel most at home with. But the extent to which our lives are now increasingly conducted online, from banking to interacting with the local council, means that whoever controls the Internet controls our lives.
Nobody cares who ICANN is, or what ICANN does? Well, maybe it’s time to start caring. Because authoritarian regimes would love to have ICANN in their pocket, or replace ICANN with organisations that are already in their pocket. Arguing about whether we should have to give Facebook our personal details in order to sign up will all be rendered moot if the people who run the wires that the Internet travels over obtain the power to block people they disapprove of from even accessing Facebook.
“According to a recent YouGov survey, 78% of us want users to disclose their real identity when signing up on social media”
And I hope this is extended to voting. Every vote made a matter of permanent and public record. Want to vote Trump? Well F* c*ing Own it Then! Sounds fair.
From your posting history, which I’ve often agreed with and given several thumbs up, I genuinely wouldn’t have had you down for one of the usual ‘shoehorn anything anti-Trump in’ types.
Has your account been hacked by one of the Guardian lot?
Rare mis-step from you! The secret ballot is the heart of democracy. Can you imagine the bullying and cancel culture that would come out of a public voting record?