3 ms·

It’s extremely suspect that they’re moving to ban anonymity and “legal but harmful”[0] speech as part of the response to an attack that doesn’t appear to have a

It’s extremely suspect that they’re moving to ban anonymity and “legal but harmful”[0] speech as part of the response to an attack that doesn’t appear to have anything to do with online activity. It’s interesting how the tabloids that regularly call people incredibly vile things don’t get singled out… Frankly, I think this is politicians getting tired of being heckled by the citizenry, and this is a convenient crisis to take advantage of. Must not be a lot of fun to go from giving speeches in parliament to being called a wanker or ratio’d online, but that seems like something they should get over rather than curtailing our rights. 0 - Part of the Online Harms bill, being debated now.

Veen 5y ago
As many UK media organisations have pointed out, linking David Amess’ murder to online speech and incivility allows politicians to be seen to do something without having to address the politically awkward problem of Islamic extremism in the UK. Naturally, Owen Jones chooses not to mention that too.
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  Frankly, I still smell a rat. Islamic terrorism is a problem, therefore everyone in the UK must use their real name when calling their MP a wanker on Twitter? Even if you acknowledge that the problem is real, the proposed solution does not follow. No, it seems far better targeted at getting people to stop saying mean things about them on Twitter more than anything else.
  - throwaway472927 5y ago
    It doesn't need to work for politicians to successfully "be seen to do something". But I see your point.
BitwiseFool 5y ago
They say it is to protect us, but I suspect it is actually to protect themselves.
gorwell 5y ago
There's a book about this called `Revolt of the Public`. That's more or less the thesis in a nutshell. “All over the world, elite institutions from governments to media to academia are losing their authority and monopoly control of information to dynamic amateurs and the broader public. This book, until now only in samizdat (and Kindle) form, has been my #1 handout for the last several years to anyone seeking to understand this unfolding shift in power from hierarchies to networks in the age of the Internet.” --Marc Andreessen
- wolverine876 5y ago
  SV 'titans' seem to think their authority and power should only increase.
  - RobRivera 5y ago
    doesnt make their observations less credible
    - wolverine876 5y ago
      I think it does: First, their response doesn't vary with the facts, suggesting it doesn't depend on the facts. Second, it does strongly match plain old megalomania and lust for power. Look at the language: "samizdat", very clever, as if they are revolutionaries. They aren't revolutionaries, they are the vested powers, the most powerful business-people in the world.
      - ashtonkem 5y ago
        Vary with what facts? You haven’t specified what facts they aren’t responding to, which makes this conversation very hard to have. Secondly, the vast majority of people I’ve seen commenting on this phenomenon have been extremely minor social commentators, who have very little to gain in terms of personal power one way or the other. Myself included; I won’t be any more or less important if the traditional sources of cultural power and influence succeed or fall. You don’t have to trust or like VCs, I certainly don’t, but I wouldn’t declare a commentator to be invalid or untrustworthy because a VC really likes their book. That’s straight up guilt by association, and not terribly persuasive.
musicale 5y ago
It's high time to unmask and punish Banksy for vandalism and anti-government speech.
jfklsdfjsdf 5y ago
I don't think politicians are bothered about being "heckled" online. I suspect they are fully aware that, as long as they stay out of it, it's us mugs who spend our time "communicating" online, while they set the real-life rules that we all follow. I used to strongly support the principles of free, uncensored, and anonymous online speech, but it never seems to actually provide any benefits. I now strongly believe that in-person social skills and networks are much more useful, when it comes to getting things done.

Veen 5y ago

As many UK media organisations have pointed out, linking David Amess’ murder to online speech and incivility allows politicians to be seen to do something without having to address the politically awkward problem of Islamic extremism in the UK. Naturally, Owen Jones chooses not to mention that too.

ashtonkem 5y ago
Frankly, I still smell a rat. Islamic terrorism is a problem, therefore everyone in the UK must use their real name when calling their MP a wanker on Twitter? Even if you acknowledge that the problem is real, the proposed solution does not follow. No, it seems far better targeted at getting people to stop saying mean things about them on Twitter more than anything else.
- throwaway472927 5y ago
  It doesn't need to work for politicians to successfully "be seen to do something". But I see your point.

BitwiseFool 5y ago

They say it is to protect us, but I suspect it is actually to protect themselves.

gorwell 5y ago

There's a book about this called `Revolt of the Public`. That's more or less the thesis in a nutshell. “All over the world, elite institutions from governments to media to academia are losing their authority and monopoly control of information to dynamic amateurs and the broader public. This book, until now only in samizdat (and Kindle) form, has been my #1 handout for the last several years to anyone seeking to understand this unfolding shift in power from hierarchies to networks in the age of the Internet.” --Marc Andreessen

wolverine876 5y ago
SV 'titans' seem to think their authority and power should only increase.
- RobRivera 5y ago
  doesnt make their observations less credible
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    I think it does: First, their response doesn't vary with the facts, suggesting it doesn't depend on the facts. Second, it does strongly match plain old megalomania and lust for power. Look at the language: "samizdat", very clever, as if they are revolutionaries. They aren't revolutionaries, they are the vested powers, the most powerful business-people in the world.
    - ashtonkem 5y ago
      Vary with what facts? You haven’t specified what facts they aren’t responding to, which makes this conversation very hard to have. Secondly, the vast majority of people I’ve seen commenting on this phenomenon have been extremely minor social commentators, who have very little to gain in terms of personal power one way or the other. Myself included; I won’t be any more or less important if the traditional sources of cultural power and influence succeed or fall. You don’t have to trust or like VCs, I certainly don’t, but I wouldn’t declare a commentator to be invalid or untrustworthy because a VC really likes their book. That’s straight up guilt by association, and not terribly persuasive.

musicale 5y ago

It's high time to unmask and punish Banksy for vandalism and anti-government speech.

jfklsdfjsdf 5y ago

I don't think politicians are bothered about being "heckled" online. I suspect they are fully aware that, as long as they stay out of it, it's us mugs who spend our time "communicating" online, while they set the real-life rules that we all follow. I used to strongly support the principles of free, uncensored, and anonymous online speech, but it never seems to actually provide any benefits. I now strongly believe that in-person social skills and networks are much more useful, when it comes to getting things done.