4 ms·

My point is that proof of ID or ownership should be implemented, as that would get rid of the problem. Edit: I need to point out that this should be optional.

by dreen 6y ago

My point is that proof of ID or ownership should be implemented, as that would get rid of the problem. Edit: I need to point out that this should be optional. Anonymity should still be the default.

mschuster91 6y ago
It would open yet another can of worms. The GDPR explicitly calls for the possibility of anonymous usage of services, for one. The other thing is - imagine I were a gay man living in Poland (a country that recently made europe-wide outrage headlines with "LGBT-free zones"), or in Russia where "advocating" for LGBT is a crime, or in Saudi-Arabia where you might end up literally decapitated. I could go and discuss topics regarding my sexuality on Twitter anonymously - but with a forced tie to a government ID?! I would have to fear authorities using my free speech to get me imprisoned or worse all the time!
- dreen 6y ago
  I agree totally it is a privacy minefield but proofs of ID are already required by many institutions that have far less resources than tech giants. In Poland for example (where I'm from), the National ID is required in all sorts of situations, both online and otherwise. Also, I never meant to suggest proof of ID would be mandatory to use the service! It would be an additional status you can get optionally, if you want to get extra credibility. If you desire anonymity instead, that should absolutely be your right. At the moment, you can get a checkmark on your twitter but how you do it is a bit unclear. Technically you have to be somewhat noteworthy, but the bar seems to be really low. If this was an entirely user-initiated process, over time people would associate that status with higher credibility.
  - klyrs 6y ago
    Not really sure what any of this would accomplish -- conspiracy-minded folk would actively distrust check-marked accounts and "I'm not operating under my real name because The Man" is a signal of trustworthiness.
- mamon 6y ago
  >> Poland (a country that recently made europe-wide outrage headlines with "LGBT-free zones") Please don't spread the fake news. There is no such thing in Poland as "LGBT-free zones", just some asshole gay activist putting fake signs and posting photos of them on social media. I'm not aware of any significant persecution or hate towards gay people in Poland, although some LGBT activists try very hard to provoke it and paint themselves as victims (because in today's crazy world being a victim is desired, it opens many doors (and wallets) for you).
  - pjc50 6y ago
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-54191344 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-54191344 "Around 100 towns and regions across Poland, nearly a third of the country, have passed resolutions declaring themselves free of "LGBT ideology". These resolutions are essentially symbolic and unenforceable but they have provided fresh ammunition in Poland's increasingly bitter culture war." True or false?
    - mamon 6y ago
      False, obviously. The resolutions were about promoting family values, things like making towns family friendly environment by building kindergartens, etc. There's not a single word on LGBT, homosexuality, etc in any of those resolutions. You can read the whole thing here: https://v.fastcdn.co/u/ff8eca37/50262470-0-SKPR-commune-ENG.pdf https://v.fastcdn.co/u/ff8eca37/50262470-0-SKPR-commune-ENG....
      - mcphage 6y ago
        > There's not a single word on LGBT, homosexuality, etc in any of those resolutions. You can read the whole thing here. If you download that link, and read it, this is the very first section: > [...] including the protection of marriage, being a union of a man and a woman, as well as the family, motherhood and parenthood, the right to protect family life [...]
      - pjc50 6y ago
        Yeah, the other commenter has it right - you don't have to mention queerness to build a system of prejudice, and the "marriage is between a man and a woman" is just the top headline aspect of this. Further down in the document: "Programmes of partnerships with communi-ty organisations should respect the principle of strengthening the family and marriage and rule out the funding of any projects harmful to these values. It is especially crucial to exclude any chance of allocating public funds and public property for projects that undermine the con-stitutional identity of marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman" == explicit prohibition on use of public funds for any pro-non-straight marriage activism "Parents should be allowed to verify any external organisations operating on the premises of the school and any materials they use during non--compulsory classes dually: both individually and collectively – through the parents’ board. It is a good practice to present information inc-luding not only the name but also the program-me and profile of the organisation to each parent separately, in a way allowing them to become familiar with the content thereof before enrolment. A similar mechanism should be applied to any other teaching and educational activities pursu-ed by schools or institutions that go beyond the curriculum or that involve issues covered by the cu-rriculum of Family Life Education, including those financed from public grants" == any parent can veto any external material on ideological grounds

by dreen 6y ago

My point is that proof of ID or ownership should be implemented, as that would get rid of the problem. Edit: I need to point out that this should be optional. Anonymity should still be the default.

mschuster91 6y ago

It would open yet another can of worms. The GDPR explicitly calls for the possibility of anonymous usage of services, for one. The other thing is - imagine I were a gay man living in Poland (a country that recently made europe-wide outrage headlines with "LGBT-free zones"), or in Russia where "advocating" for LGBT is a crime, or in Saudi-Arabia where you might end up literally decapitated. I could go and discuss topics regarding my sexuality on Twitter anonymously - but with a forced tie to a government ID?! I would have to fear authorities using my free speech to get me imprisoned or worse all the time!

dreen 6y ago
I agree totally it is a privacy minefield but proofs of ID are already required by many institutions that have far less resources than tech giants. In Poland for example (where I'm from), the National ID is required in all sorts of situations, both online and otherwise. Also, I never meant to suggest proof of ID would be mandatory to use the service! It would be an additional status you can get optionally, if you want to get extra credibility. If you desire anonymity instead, that should absolutely be your right. At the moment, you can get a checkmark on your twitter but how you do it is a bit unclear. Technically you have to be somewhat noteworthy, but the bar seems to be really low. If this was an entirely user-initiated process, over time people would associate that status with higher credibility.
- klyrs 6y ago
  Not really sure what any of this would accomplish -- conspiracy-minded folk would actively distrust check-marked accounts and "I'm not operating under my real name because The Man" is a signal of trustworthiness.
mamon 6y ago
>> Poland (a country that recently made europe-wide outrage headlines with "LGBT-free zones") Please don't spread the fake news. There is no such thing in Poland as "LGBT-free zones", just some asshole gay activist putting fake signs and posting photos of them on social media. I'm not aware of any significant persecution or hate towards gay people in Poland, although some LGBT activists try very hard to provoke it and paint themselves as victims (because in today's crazy world being a victim is desired, it opens many doors (and wallets) for you).
- pjc50 6y ago
  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-54191344 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-54191344 "Around 100 towns and regions across Poland, nearly a third of the country, have passed resolutions declaring themselves free of "LGBT ideology". These resolutions are essentially symbolic and unenforceable but they have provided fresh ammunition in Poland's increasingly bitter culture war." True or false?
  - mamon 6y ago
    False, obviously. The resolutions were about promoting family values, things like making towns family friendly environment by building kindergartens, etc. There's not a single word on LGBT, homosexuality, etc in any of those resolutions. You can read the whole thing here: https://v.fastcdn.co/u/ff8eca37/50262470-0-SKPR-commune-ENG.pdf https://v.fastcdn.co/u/ff8eca37/50262470-0-SKPR-commune-ENG....
    - mcphage 6y ago
      > There's not a single word on LGBT, homosexuality, etc in any of those resolutions. You can read the whole thing here. If you download that link, and read it, this is the very first section: > [...] including the protection of marriage, being a union of a man and a woman, as well as the family, motherhood and parenthood, the right to protect family life [...]
    - pjc50 6y ago
      Yeah, the other commenter has it right - you don't have to mention queerness to build a system of prejudice, and the "marriage is between a man and a woman" is just the top headline aspect of this. Further down in the document: "Programmes of partnerships with communi-ty organisations should respect the principle of strengthening the family and marriage and rule out the funding of any projects harmful to these values. It is especially crucial to exclude any chance of allocating public funds and public property for projects that undermine the con-stitutional identity of marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman" == explicit prohibition on use of public funds for any pro-non-straight marriage activism "Parents should be allowed to verify any external organisations operating on the premises of the school and any materials they use during non--compulsory classes dually: both individually and collectively – through the parents’ board. It is a good practice to present information inc-luding not only the name but also the program-me and profile of the organisation to each parent separately, in a way allowing them to become familiar with the content thereof before enrolment. A similar mechanism should be applied to any other teaching and educational activities pursu-ed by schools or institutions that go beyond the curriculum or that involve issues covered by the cu-rriculum of Family Life Education, including those financed from public grants" == any parent can veto any external material on ideological grounds