5 ms·

I love the Internet as much as the next guy... but unlike most people, I understand that anyone can post anything on an Internet forum and many times they do so

by 16s 16y ago

I love the Internet as much as the next guy... but unlike most people, I understand that anyone can post anything on an Internet forum and many times they do so anonymously (except for an IP address). The more savvy may use TOR when setting up forum accounts and postings, but most people don't know or care to do that. Some day soon, I expect the falsely accused individuals will have legal recourse when their reputation, livelihood, etc. are damaged by these anonymous postings. Companies too. Court orders will be granted and presented to ISP's. "Show us what address posted this libelous content." And then the shoe will be on the other foot... provided there is enough money to litigate. The days of the Wild West on the Internet are soon to end. And that's a good thing.

drivebyacct2 16y ago
The Internet is a unique place of expression and that comes with the obvious downsides of such anonymity - child pornography, piracy, threats and trolls are just some examples. If governments continue their trend of monitoring and locking down the Internet, an alternative will crop up. I would be willing to bet large sums of money that you're wrong anyway.
- 16s 16y ago
  I think there is an important difference. When someone attempts to remain anon for their own safety and privacy, then that is perfectly fine (providing they are not committing a crime). Political dissidents, celebrities, etc. But when someone attempts to harm another via an anon posting to a forum and they think it's OK to do that, then that is wrong. Libel and slander are just that. Whether they occur in an Internet forum or in a newspaper. People doing this should know that they can (and will) be sued and that they are not anonymous.
  - jamii 16y ago
    In many countries political dissidence is a crime. If you want to allow only the 'good guys' to be anonymous you need a perfectly trustworthy party to decide who the good guys are. Various governments have demonstrated that they cannot be trusted to do this You can't prevent libel and slander without encroaching on free speech.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
steveklabnik 16y ago
> And that's a good thing. Not all of us agree with this. I'd rather that we all just chilled out about drunken Facebook photos, and that we start seeing court rulings that "it's impossible to accurately associate this posting with an individual, acquitted due to lack of evidence." Those who give up their freedom for a little bit of safety deserve neither.

by 16s 16y ago

drivebyacct2 16y ago

The Internet is a unique place of expression and that comes with the obvious downsides of such anonymity - child pornography, piracy, threats and trolls are just some examples. If governments continue their trend of monitoring and locking down the Internet, an alternative will crop up. I would be willing to bet large sums of money that you're wrong anyway.

16s 16y ago
I think there is an important difference. When someone attempts to remain anon for their own safety and privacy, then that is perfectly fine (providing they are not committing a crime). Political dissidents, celebrities, etc. But when someone attempts to harm another via an anon posting to a forum and they think it's OK to do that, then that is wrong. Libel and slander are just that. Whether they occur in an Internet forum or in a newspaper. People doing this should know that they can (and will) be sued and that they are not anonymous.
- jamii 16y ago
  In many countries political dissidence is a crime. If you want to allow only the 'good guys' to be anonymous you need a perfectly trustworthy party to decide who the good guys are. Various governments have demonstrated that they cannot be trusted to do this You can't prevent libel and slander without encroaching on free speech.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]

steveklabnik 16y ago

> And that's a good thing. Not all of us agree with this. I'd rather that we all just chilled out about drunken Facebook photos, and that we start seeing court rulings that "it's impossible to accurately associate this posting with an individual, acquitted due to lack of evidence." Those who give up their freedom for a little bit of safety deserve neither.