4 ms·

>Given official news and political parties lie constantly about state affairs.... This would stop. This is what we want to stop. I don't think "real name" pol

>Given official news and political parties lie constantly about state affairs.... This would stop. This is what we want to stop. I don't think "real name" policies are enough. FB, Google, and Twitter need to collect credit cards and take deposits that are lost when you use your account to spread lies and hate.

tehjoker 6y ago
You know their names right now. They are displayed in a banner on the TV.
- shuntress 6y ago
  The hate speech and insane theories from anonymous/unaccountable profiles underpin and bolster what you see on TV.
  - tehjoker 6y ago
    Many of those people post under their real name.
  - raxxorrax 6y ago
    I rather enjoy seeing people furious that they cannot hold people accountable for some perceived sleights. Makes me happy, especially in these times, we should never give that up again. I don't see this as a problem, I see it as a feature. There are cases where it can be bad, but I would have problems giving any examples. Wouldn't change the point anyway.
shuntress 6y ago
Like a security deposit. You could get it back a year later with a slight increase that doubles as a payment for the data they've harvested.
bluGill 6y ago
Who defines lies and hate. Hint: is the the republicans and democrats who lie and spread hate the most. While the lies and hate are somewhat different neither side is willing to give up anything. Also you will run into first amendment issues.
- jay_kyburz 6y ago
  Yeah, I'm arguing for monumental shift in our entire society. Some things will have to change. >Who defines lies and hate. I would argue we need a much cheaper, more efficient court system, where a group of peers is gathered to examine evidence. In other words "society" does. They can also consider if the lie was deliberate or a mistake, leading to harsher penalties.
  - bdamm 6y ago
    This sounds like a recipe for exacerbating climate change denialism. Let the truth be defined by your peers? I don't think so.
    - jay_kyburz 6y ago
      My understanding is that, that's how most science works. Experts come to a consensus.
      - bdamm 6y ago
        Except that who did the analysis is part of the analysis, which allows you to select and trace based on qualifications that you think are important. This above proposal sounds like a bunch of random people off the street, which is not at all going to result in the same quality of analysis. If the proposal is to create a board of qualified information judges and a process for selecting those judges, I could get behind that.

tehjoker 6y ago

You know their names right now. They are displayed in a banner on the TV.

shuntress 6y ago
The hate speech and insane theories from anonymous/unaccountable profiles underpin and bolster what you see on TV.
- tehjoker 6y ago
  Many of those people post under their real name.
- raxxorrax 6y ago
  I rather enjoy seeing people furious that they cannot hold people accountable for some perceived sleights. Makes me happy, especially in these times, we should never give that up again. I don't see this as a problem, I see it as a feature. There are cases where it can be bad, but I would have problems giving any examples. Wouldn't change the point anyway.

shuntress 6y ago

Like a security deposit. You could get it back a year later with a slight increase that doubles as a payment for the data they've harvested.

bluGill 6y ago

Who defines lies and hate. Hint: is the the republicans and democrats who lie and spread hate the most. While the lies and hate are somewhat different neither side is willing to give up anything. Also you will run into first amendment issues.

jay_kyburz 6y ago
Yeah, I'm arguing for monumental shift in our entire society. Some things will have to change. >Who defines lies and hate. I would argue we need a much cheaper, more efficient court system, where a group of peers is gathered to examine evidence. In other words "society" does. They can also consider if the lie was deliberate or a mistake, leading to harsher penalties.
- bdamm 6y ago
  This sounds like a recipe for exacerbating climate change denialism. Let the truth be defined by your peers? I don't think so.
  - jay_kyburz 6y ago
    My understanding is that, that's how most science works. Experts come to a consensus.
    - bdamm 6y ago
      Except that who did the analysis is part of the analysis, which allows you to select and trace based on qualifications that you think are important. This above proposal sounds like a bunch of random people off the street, which is not at all going to result in the same quality of analysis. If the proposal is to create a board of qualified information judges and a process for selecting those judges, I could get behind that.