6 ms·

This is troubling logic if we expand it to other areas. For example, what if someone says "Let's ban killing other people"? Is it enough to point out that somet

by slg 5y ago

This is troubling logic if we expand it to other areas. For example, what if someone says "Let's ban killing other people"? Is it enough to point out that sometimes killing people saves the lives of other people? Should we outlaw killing in self defense? Should we outlaw killing people who are an imminent threat like active shooters? If you agree that sometimes killing can be justified, does that mean we need to allow all murder? Obviously not. These issues have nuance. There are always pros and cons. So I will repeat majormajor's point, the mere existence of a pro is not enough of an argument.

Cycl0ps 5y ago
I agree with that. My concern, and what I assume is the concern of others, is that those putting these regulations in place would have neither the knowledge or intentions to consider that nuance. Considering that nuance myself, I don't think I could properly implement such laws.
- slg 5y ago
  "It is hard to make a good law" is a bad reason to stop people from even trying.
  - JasonFruit 5y ago
    That's true. On the other hand, "The pros and cons of such a law are so mixed as to make a good one impossible," is a good reason not to make such a law. I think many of us see any law that could be described as "banning anonymous accounts" as being written with too broad a nib to be useful.
  - Cycl0ps 5y ago
    "No rule is better than bad rule" may be closer to my argument, though it dips further into anarchy than I'd like. People are welcome to try as they like, but governments aren't people. If Facebook wanted to try some system like Parler had I wouldn't protest against it, but the UK government mandating it would have far more reach and requires more consideration as a result.
JasonFruit 5y ago
The conversation (from the MP quoted in the article) started with those cons, so the pros were the necessary response. Our agreement on your point might have been more evident had I been less terse.
burnafter182 5y ago
You're diverting. Being attacked and/or killed is almost never voluntary. Viewing anonymous posts on the internet is almost always voluntary. Whatever damage is caused is emergent from the framework of interpretations of the individual. This is closer kin to victimless crime as opposed to real crime than it is conditional rules of engagement. I'm under the impression you're engaging in sophistry though, "This is troubling logic if we expand it to other areas." You're correct, a square peg does not fit in the round hole. And you've also failed to negate the myriad arguments favoring continued anonymity with any salient cons, but have instead erected a strawman.
- slg 5y ago
  >Viewing anonymous posts on the internet is almost always voluntary. No it isn't. Social media is a near required part of modern life for a lot of people, especially those in the public sphere. For example, it is near impossible to be a freelance journalist without a social media account. Once you have that account, people are free to push their anonymous posts to you. >This is closer kin to victimless crime as opposed to real crime than it is conditional rules of engagement. This is just a baffling comment and shows you are out of touch with the type of abuse we are talking about. I can't imagine you have seen any of this first hand if you think this is "close kin to victimless crime". There are very much victims on the end of this abuse.
  - burnafter182 5y ago
    You literally just indicated that anonymity is important. Freelancers could publish under a pseudonym - a form of anonymity to protect themselves from the public. And I mean, there was that one time that some dude, in person at a press conference threw a shoe at George W. Bush, the President of the United States of America, he wasn't anonymous, and what level of force could've been deployed as recourse ran up to death, evidently not adequate disincentive. I can make a victim out of myself by a few alterations in my personal narrative. I choose not to.
    - slg 5y ago
      This is classic victim blaming. It is the fault of the person being abused for either not being preemptively anonymous or for "choosing" to allow doxing, death threats, and the like being part of their "personal narrative"?

by slg 5y ago

Cycl0ps 5y ago

I agree with that. My concern, and what I assume is the concern of others, is that those putting these regulations in place would have neither the knowledge or intentions to consider that nuance. Considering that nuance myself, I don't think I could properly implement such laws.

slg 5y ago
"It is hard to make a good law" is a bad reason to stop people from even trying.
- JasonFruit 5y ago
  That's true. On the other hand, "The pros and cons of such a law are so mixed as to make a good one impossible," is a good reason not to make such a law. I think many of us see any law that could be described as "banning anonymous accounts" as being written with too broad a nib to be useful.
- Cycl0ps 5y ago
  "No rule is better than bad rule" may be closer to my argument, though it dips further into anarchy than I'd like. People are welcome to try as they like, but governments aren't people. If Facebook wanted to try some system like Parler had I wouldn't protest against it, but the UK government mandating it would have far more reach and requires more consideration as a result.

JasonFruit 5y ago

The conversation (from the MP quoted in the article) started with those cons, so the pros were the necessary response. Our agreement on your point might have been more evident had I been less terse.

burnafter182 5y ago

You're diverting. Being attacked and/or killed is almost never voluntary. Viewing anonymous posts on the internet is almost always voluntary. Whatever damage is caused is emergent from the framework of interpretations of the individual. This is closer kin to victimless crime as opposed to real crime than it is conditional rules of engagement. I'm under the impression you're engaging in sophistry though, "This is troubling logic if we expand it to other areas." You're correct, a square peg does not fit in the round hole. And you've also failed to negate the myriad arguments favoring continued anonymity with any salient cons, but have instead erected a strawman.

slg 5y ago
>Viewing anonymous posts on the internet is almost always voluntary. No it isn't. Social media is a near required part of modern life for a lot of people, especially those in the public sphere. For example, it is near impossible to be a freelance journalist without a social media account. Once you have that account, people are free to push their anonymous posts to you. >This is closer kin to victimless crime as opposed to real crime than it is conditional rules of engagement. This is just a baffling comment and shows you are out of touch with the type of abuse we are talking about. I can't imagine you have seen any of this first hand if you think this is "close kin to victimless crime". There are very much victims on the end of this abuse.
- burnafter182 5y ago
  You literally just indicated that anonymity is important. Freelancers could publish under a pseudonym - a form of anonymity to protect themselves from the public. And I mean, there was that one time that some dude, in person at a press conference threw a shoe at George W. Bush, the President of the United States of America, he wasn't anonymous, and what level of force could've been deployed as recourse ran up to death, evidently not adequate disincentive. I can make a victim out of myself by a few alterations in my personal narrative. I choose not to.
  - slg 5y ago
    This is classic victim blaming. It is the fault of the person being abused for either not being preemptively anonymous or for "choosing" to allow doxing, death threats, and the like being part of their "personal narrative"?