9 ms·

Meta forced to reveal anonymous Facebook user's identity

223 points by skilled 3y ago

redkinght99 3y ago
[flagged]
- stef25 3y ago
  Not really relevant to the conversation. Zuck now probably half the planet's details > I've never once believed that Meta would honor / fight for anonymous accounts of any kind on their platform. The way I see it is that they are honoring anonymity and they are being compelled by the court to release personal information after initially refusing to do so. The problem is with the courts, not with Meta. Ideally they should just eat the 100K fine.
  - redkinght99 3y ago
    I think the current CEO is very relevant to a company. Leadership comes from the top. "Ideally they should just eat the 100K fine." , I don't see that happening with their current leadership; a half-fought court battle for PR sake seems on brand though.
  - qwytw 3y ago
    > The problem is with the courts, not with Meta. Ideally they should just eat the 100K fine. Is it that straightforward? You can slander anyone and/or reveal their private information without the 'victim' having no recourse whatsoever besides complaining to FB?
    - cnity 3y ago
      There are a lot of illegal things you can do without being found out, and victims have no recourse then either. Should everyone be under surveillance 100% of the time just in case?
      - qwytw 3y ago
        > under surveillance 100% of the time just in case No, but this seems completely tangential to what is discussed in the article. If understand it correctly: - Person A anonymously published some supposedly defamatory information about person B on platform X - Platform X knows who person B is - While it's not determined that the information was indeed slanderous* the court compels platform X to reveal the identity of person A. - Person A sues person B in civil court etc. This does not seem to be at all unreasonable to me. *only thing I'm really concerned about is that while obviously (given how legal systems work) you can't determine whether it was slander or not without both parties, the court should still try to determine whether the accusation is at least somewhat valid before compelling the platform to reveal that person's identity. Of course some could say that eventually this might lead to situations where governments would restrict/ban any platform which allows users to post without revealing their person details to the platform (and well Facebook already does that on their own). That would of course be terrible..
        cnity 3y ago
        I urge you to consider the downsides of celebrating the compulsion of a platform to reveal otherwise anonymous information: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/05/uk-online-safety-bill-must-not-violate-our-rights-free-speech-and-private https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/05/uk-online-safety-bill-...
        qwytw 3y ago
        Why do you think I'm celebrating anything? And again, it seems mostly tangential to the matter at hand. I think it's far from ideal that Facebook and some other platforms force you to reveal your identity. However once they have, I don't see how can it be unreasonable for a court to able to compel them to reveal the identify of one of their users in certain cases. I don't see how Online Safety Bill is related? It's not like the identity of anonymous posters on FB is E2E encrypted and requiring an order from a court to reveal it is not exactly the same as 'screening of all user content'..
    - stef25 3y ago
      Billions of people are online often showing the worst versions of themselves. That doesn't make it ok but chasing down every potential slanderer on Facebook just seems like something that should be very low priority for the courts in question.
      - qwytw 3y ago
        So do you believe defamation laws should not exist at all or that they should not apply to anything publicly published on Facebook? Obviously courts should consider severity and other factors but factors like damage to reputation, other damages etc. should be the deciding factor on whether a court would accept the case not whether it's published on Facebook or anonymously.
naillo 3y ago
Good motivation to build or support platforms where this can't even be a possibility, i.e. without phone number authentication or other identity revealing steps as part of authentication.
- suddenclarity 3y ago
  I'm having trouble seeing this being a major thing in a decade or two. To me it looks more like we're running towards more control in the name of stopping hate. ID verification to access internet and social media seem more likely. Sell it as a way to stop pedophiles on social media, kids from accessing violent/nude content, and people from posting hate. We don't have anything to hide, right? Even if a platform wanted, the laws will prohibit it by requiring user knowledge.
  - guwop 3y ago
    i think 'in the name of stopping AI agents' is much more likely to be what sells this. perhaps hate spread by AI?
    - pawelmurias 3y ago
      Left rampant AI agents can drown a platform with a deludge of advertising shit or hate or woke crap.
  - phkahler 3y ago
    >> We don't have anything to hide, right? Privacy and anonymity are not the same thing.
- austin-cheney 3y ago
  Done: https://github.com/prettydiff/share-file-systems/blob/master/documentation/decentralization.md https://github.com/prettydiff/share-file-systems/blob/master... You would need a warrant to extract the messages/identity directly from a person's computer as there is nothing otherwise to obtain.
- Cthulhu_ 3y ago
say_it_as_it_is 3y ago
[flagged]
- arijun 3y ago
  The plaintiff is not anonymous.
dale_glass 3y ago
There's anonymity on Facebook? Don't they have a real name policy still?
- tyingq 3y ago
  To the degree they bother enforcing it. I still see lots of vanity accounts people create for their dogs and cats, for example.
- adamckay 3y ago
  There's a feature where you can post to groups anonymously, still using your real account, rather than creating a new account with fake data to make you appear anonymous.
  - bananatype 3y ago
    Just to add to this. If the anonymous post was made on a group, the group administrators could still see it. So it's only anonymous for the rest of the (non-admin) group members.
  - gcoakes 3y ago
    There's a dead comment sibling to this one talking about how group admins can see through the anominity. I don't understand why it is dead. It wasn't even rudely stated. Is it just flat wrong, or did it cross some unknown social boundary by pointing out a fact? Was it edited posthumously? Edit: And, when I refresh it's not dead... I don't understand this system apparently.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - sgift 3y ago
      > Edit: And, when I refresh it's not dead... I don't understand this system apparently. If enough people vouch for a dead comment it goes back to normal. That's probably what you saw.
- 3y ago
naillo 3y ago
Sidenote, I love how clean and readible this site is. No popups, just clean and well written text in the middle.
- Keirmot 3y ago
  And as a bonus it supports RSS
- mananaysiempre 3y ago
  The huge title banner with the redundant snippet and the Meta logo of the unnecessary margins could use some dieting—the black-on-white body of the article cuts of at "identifying data of an anonymous Facebook user" for me, incongruously even earlier than the dark-gray-on-black snippet above it. Otherwise it's pretty nice, yes. (Is it weird that I think text.npr.org mostly looks better than the main npr.org?)
barrysteve 3y ago
We really need a separate digital wilderness for single men to blow off steam. Making the old online hitching posts (like facebook, google, video games, ect) family friendly, or else! then a lot of disaffected young men are going to be venting their lack of financial/dating success somewhere else. Are we just going to dump these people out onto the streets and hope it all works out politically?
- detourdog 3y ago
  We have the space already we just have to move the and build infrastructure. The nonsense is all commercial based. There is no need to know anything about visitors to a site unless you want to make money.
- burnished 3y ago
  Where are you pulling this from? The article does not discuss the nature of the messages in any way.
  - jeroenhd 3y ago
    The available summary of the preliminary injunction doesn't mention the messages themselves, but it does state that the plaintiff is being accused of (sexually) transgressive behaviour by the posts they want to see removed. It's possible that this is just some abusive asshole using the court to clear their name. It's equally possible that the accusations are all made up and that the person who posted them has a grudge against the plaintiff for rejecting them. We have no real indication either way, other than that the judge believed that there is a chance the plaintiff is in the right. Either way, I think it's fair to assume something went wrong during a date. I'm not sure what the rest of the parent post is referring to.
    - jeltz 3y ago
      There does not have to have been a date though. The story could have been made up by someone who just saw his profile on some dating site and did some creative writing based on that.
tgv 3y ago
It sounds like the court considers facebook a publisher. Which is true in the everyday sense, of course.
mnd999 3y ago
If he went on the date with them you’d think he might already know their name. If not it probably wasn’t a good date.
- MertsA 3y ago
  That kinda lends credence to the notion that the post really was just libel. If it was true and more than just a one sentence diatribe then the plaintiff wouldn't have needed to bring Meta into this suit. I don't really see what they would possibly get out of this unless they really had no idea who this was that posted about them.
  - tsimionescu 3y ago
    How would they sue person X for libel if they couldn't prove that the libelous post was created by person X?
    - MertsA 3y ago
      Same way you sue anyone. Sue them if you have a reasonable basis for your claims and subpoena the defendant directly instead of trying to approach this like suing a John Doe. If they try to delete it this is no different than any other civil suit, go after the spoliation of evidence.
- devsda 3y ago
  May be he believes that his date went well and so the person who posted those comments could not have been the same person that went on the date with him. He might be trying to figure out who else is making those comments.
- SiempreViernes 3y ago
  Sure, but he probably wants to be able to prove to a court that he's accusing the correct person?
ed_mercer 3y ago
Now I know why you should never use your real email and/or phone number when signing up for a service.
- benterix 3y ago
  True, but not enough: > The court's ruling mandates Meta to disclose key identifying information, including the username, email address, telephone number, and the IP address used during registration and logins.
- piokoch 3y ago
  No longer doable, at least in Europe, you can't buy per-paid phone card without showing you government ID. And I believe you will not be able to create Twitter (that is, X) or Facebook account without being forced to provide something more than email. I've tried, and account was immediately lock until I provide more credentials (gov id or phone number). All of this is to fight child porn, as always, although, unlike normal people, those who earn on child porn can make that additional effort to find some homeless person, drug addict, etc. and get sim card activated. So we are where we are with lack of privacy for regular people. Maybe one day governments will realize that not only them have access to all of this information, foreign intelligence too, which make much easier to recruit/blackmail spies and in the end, shattered privacy costs much more than imaginary child porn fight.
  - marcjuul 3y ago
    Why do you think this is the case across all of Europe? You can definitely buy SIM cards in vending machines in Denmark still.
    - weberer 3y ago
      There seems to be a trend on HN to assume every country in Europe has the same laws. Confusingly, most of these comments come from people living in European countries.
      - 3y ago
oldgradstudent 3y ago
Why is it news that Meta has to answer to a subpoena issued by a court in a country they operate in legally? I was under the impression that this is routine.
- ranting-moth 3y ago
  Because people don't understand free speech. They confuse the right to anonymity to "do whatever I want as anonymous".
  - criley2 3y ago
    Speaking of "not understanding free speech", in America (where Meta is) free speech exclusively refers to our Bill of Rights and the limitation on government to unfairly suppress your speech, specifically your political speech. It is completely unrelated to a private citizen interacting with a private business in the eyes of American law, American business and Americans ourselves. The only free speech issue here from our perspective is "Is the government illegally restricting Meta's corporate right to free speech?" And no, making Meta identify a user is not a violation of their 1A free speech rights to us. If you're speaking of a totally different European legal concept, it might be helpful for you to identify that.
    - arzig 3y ago
      Export the free speech is a red herring. The underlying issue is whether an aggrieved party can compel certain kinds of discovery to respond to libel (which has never been perfected speech). Prime were just able to be libelous with impunity because … the interwebs…
      - criley2 3y ago
        Libel - Another legal concept that varies dramatically by region. In America, proving libel is extremely difficult and requires you to demonstrate real damages. So in this case if it were American, unless the aggrieved party can demonstrate monetary damages, under American law there is no libel as we do not consider "hurt feelings" or "damaged reputation" to be libel. So in America we would demand that the offended party demonstrate that they have been financially harmed before we unmask the anonymous individual to fully investigate and adjudicate the claim. If you're discussing libel under a EU or European nations context, it could be helpful to identify which version of libel law you are referencing, because this case from an American's perspective is no where near our extremely high bar. (And, as a side note, under American law all international libel convictions are automatically unenforceable here, to prevent tourism to areas who do not require sufficiently high bar)
ranting-moth 3y ago
[flagged]
- veave 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - ranting-moth 3y ago
    You can definitely not say anything you want in NK. You get censored at multiple stages.
    - PurpleRamen 3y ago
      Censoring is everywhere, even in free countries. The only difference is the degree of censoring, and the topics.
  - throw_a_grenade 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - qwytw 3y ago
      Perhaps, I'm not sure what does this have to do with the article, though.
    - Ylpertnodi 3y ago
      >No, it's more like in woke left. Could you explain what "woke left" is? I understand 'left', i guess, but reading the rest of your comment i see that 'cancelling' [I'm guessing again - censoring?] is what 'the right' do too.
      - throw_a_grenade 3y ago
        Certainly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woke https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woke https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancel_culture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancel_culture Cancelling is distinct from censorship, because it's post-factum "consequences" (i.e. character assassination). "Censorship" is usually understood as measures that prevent publication in the fist place, before the actual speech happens.
veave 3y ago
[flagged]
- snvzz 3y ago
  I do not see a connection with freedom of speech.
  - veave 3y ago
    In some countries this would be laughed out of court.
    - qwytw 3y ago
      How do we know that? Slander is something you can sue another person for in just about anywhere(?) and there is nothing in the article about what was actually said. In this case the (allegedly) injured party doesn't even know who to sue (besides Facebook I guess..) does that seem entirely reasonable to you?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
JacobSeated 3y ago
I support the idea of anonymous accounts, but they should not be available easily to everyone. Perhaps they should start out in a sandbox, and of course, monitored more actively for signs of abuse. Other account types should really have a verified identity imo. It would drastically limit the amount of abuse.
- ivan_gammel 3y ago
  Is there any reason to prefer anonymity to protected aliases? I'd say people should be able to post under their nicknames and only their lawyers/notaries/trustees should be able to disclose their identity in a some lawful procedure. It should not be a responsibility of a platform, but there must be someone who knows the true identity and can certify the relationship between it and the alias.
  - wnkrshm 3y ago
    Then the alias itself has to be protected though, else someone could harm you by impersonating your alias.
- whywhywhywhy 3y ago
  > It would drastically limit the amount of People happily spout abuse under their real name on Facebook. Seems very naive to think preventing anonymity would curb it as much as you think.
  - JacobSeated 3y ago
    I happen have investigated vast amounts of spam accounts and content posted by people engaged in conspiracy theories, and in my experience the main propagators of this type of disinformation are fake accounts and people hiding behind anonymity. Facebook do not even care that they are blatantly breaking the community guidelines, and will typically always ignore reports of "fake accounts". If you get rid of the main propagators, other users will have very little of this type of content to engage with in the first place, and it WILL limit the amount of inspiration material other users will be exposed to. We only have this problem because of the easy access to social media. It used to be dubious corners on internet forums and newsgroups no one was interested in, but now everyone is exposed to all this grotesque filth. Many such accounts main purpose is, very conspicuously, to spread misinformation, and as such there is no real reason why they should be on Facebook in the first place. I support anonymity when necessary, but as history has clearly shown, limitless anonymity will be abused by bad actors. If there are no limits in place, then bad actors will be able to drown us in a flood of disinformation – this will, as is somewhat currently the case, allow conspiracy theorists to control the flow of information more easily. Repeatedly disproven claims can be repeated in all eternity, and we will never move these people's understanding. Fact checking will not catch everything, unfortunately. Currently the AI systems is not fast enough to tag things that has already been fact checked, lacks context, or is just manipulative. There are consistent ways to post content and behave that does not directly spread misinformation, but when looked at as a whole, is, actually very clearly intended to manipulate people with misinformation. So, don't reject things you don't understand so quickly.
arijun 3y ago
I understand the fears people are raising here, the potential for abuse. But on the other hand, what should someone do if they are truly wronged by something like this? They lost their job, their spouse left them, all because someone decided to slander them under the veil of anonymity. Should they have any recourse?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- phkahler 3y ago
  [flagged]
- renegat0x0 3y ago
  It goes both ways. If you are not anonymous, then every your action can be taken against you. I remember a post where music companies searched reddit against user comments posted on 2011. What if you are pro trans people? In 10 years you can be prosecuted by it, if a new party is elected. It can have new 'standards'. You will not be able to contradict mainstream narrative. You will not be able to say anything against corporations and governments. If you will do anything outside of 'boundaries' set by companies, governments you will lost your job, spouse will leave you, all because you wanted 'a better world'. On one side of scales is a place of total invigilation, on the other is a place with internet trolls. Companies like meta and twitter are quite good in rooting our trolls. So the current situation is inconvenient, but we can live with it. If we opt out anonymity then the overall result will be a lot worse than the current situation is.
ochronus 3y ago
[flagged]
crossroadsguy 3y ago
> However, Meta initially responded stating that it did not find the posts defamatory and hence would not accede to his request Oh, that’s so very Meta and Twitter and Reddit. I believe they return a delayed response only to maintain appearances of some human being having had a look at the reports. What I don’t understand is how come a user was anonymous in a Facebook group.
- Mindwipe 3y ago
  Facebook groups have an option to permit anonymous posts, on the basis the group moderator can handle the tidal wave of bad that will probably happen. Of course, you're not anonymous on the back end, just publicly.
subroutine 3y ago
The word "Forced" here is a bit misleading given Meta faces a penalty of just 1k euros per day, up to 100k, if it decides not to comply with the court's decision.
- nhinck 3y ago
  Do you believe that you can pay $100k to ignore any further punishment?
  - subroutine 3y ago
    I believe $100k to Meta is like $3 to me. If there is additional punishment beyond "a maximum fine of $100k", the article does not mention it.
    - nhinck 3y ago
      Just logically, do you believe that Meta can pay $100k to ignore a court order?
      - subroutine 3y ago
        According to the article, $100k is the maximum penalty for ignoring this specific court order. Do you think the article is lying?
    - waithuh 3y ago
      You need a few million and some vacations to ignore the law. $100k is just the initial fee and timeslot for potentially pulling out of said country (or do what Apple is doing with the UK)
      - subroutine 3y ago
        The article states the maximum penalty is $100k. Show me where it says otherwise and I'll believe you.
    - 3y ago
Modified3019 3y ago
>the Court of The Hague has ruled... In case you were wondering where such a ruling happened.
- hef19898 3y ago
  In a court in the Dutch city of The Hague?
cuttysnark 3y ago
> Meta faces a penalty of one thousand euros per day, up to a maximum of one hundred thousand euros, if it fails to comply with the court's decision. Well that settles that, then.
neilv 3y ago
> Meta faces a penalty of one thousand euros per day, up to a maximum of one hundred thousand euros, if it fails to comply with the court's decision. As a purely business move, should Meta just play this as a principled stand, and eat the fine? If there's any negative reaction chatter, maybe it's on one of their platforms, in which case it's engagement?
- jsnell 3y ago
  No. First, why in the world do you want Meta to get into a habit of ignoring the law of the land? Second, fines for non-compliance to court orders are not one off events. The fine is set with the purpose of compelling action. If the action doesn't happen, higher fines will follow.
  - neilv 3y ago
    I don't want them to ignore laws; I'm just asking out of curiosity, and given Meta being who they are. As a purely business move, can Meta increase brand goodwill by publicly resisting for awhile?
    - ShamelessC 3y ago
      They answered you already.
    - shadowgovt 3y ago
      In general, I don't think "The American company thinks it can flout a European court decision" is actually going to increase brand goodwill in the market they care about increasing brand goodwill in.
NVHacker 3y ago
"Forced" is a strong word given that the maximum penalty for non-compliance is 100k.
- progbits 3y ago
  Any publicly traded company will sell you out for way less than that.
- shashashasha___ 3y ago
  I don't get it. what are you suggesting? that meta would break the law on purpose just because its 100k fine?
  - NVHacker 3y ago
    I'm quite sure Meta would never break the law on purpose. I'm pretty sure that on the multiple fronts where they are breaking the law, it can easily be explained by some sort of misunderstanding. And the fact that they are benefiting a lot in those cases must be just a giant coincidence.
dncornholio 3y ago
I love this outcome. User disrespects another users privacy by posting anonymous, so they get their privacy invoked. All systems nominal.
jeroenhd 3y ago
Court case here: https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/#!/details?id=ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2023:11254 https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/#!/details?id=ECLI:NL:RBDH... I find court summaries of the Dutch courts to be quite readable. Google translate also seems to work quite well. It should be noted that this is a "kort geding", which i believe translates to a "preliminary injunction" but I don't have the legal education to say what the differences between the two may be. Some anonymous user claims that the person who started legal action committed gross sexual misconduct. The judge ruled that there's little evidence to back these claims and that the plaintiff is suffering an impact significant enough to warrant further action. It should also be noted that Dutch law considers defamation to be a crime (as in, illegal under criminal law), not a civil law issue. This isn't the first time a company has had to hand over subscriber information because of libel or slander either. I don't really see what the big deal is.
- marginalia_nu 3y ago
  Dunno if this is the case in the Netherlands, but it's worth noting in some legal systems defamation is defined something like spreading harmful accusations as opposed to spreading harmful lies. The intent being that if you have an accusation that is true, you settle it in the courts rather than in the press, with an angry mob, on social media, or the like. Since the whether or not the accusations are true doesn't factor into such a crime, it can be enforced on the presence of harmful accusations alone, which has fairly big implications for the sort of social media witch hunts that we've seen cropping up in the recent decade.
  - jorams 3y ago
    The Netherlands has both. "Laster" requires the accusation to be untrue. "Smaad" is the broader form that does not require the accusation to be untrue. Justifications defined in the law are "necessary defense" and "common interest". The second one is specified as "believed in good faith that the charges were true and that the public interest required the charge." IANAL, but I think this can apply to social media witch hunts to at least some extent.
  - carlosjobim 3y ago
sebow 3y ago
I feel like some of the discussion about anonimity here is kind of misplaced. Just because illegal activies can be done under anonimity shouldn't mean anonimity should be banned aswell(in order to "prevent illegal activities"). That's one of the worst things that can happen(and it's somewhat happening already), and if I'm not mistaken this could also be interpreted as illegal and unconstitutional in countries/places where there is such thing as a "right to (>and not<) associate"(and it's various forms). And I'm sorry for the upcoming little rant, but whoever thinks they're anonymous while using a Meta(or any Big Tech platform, really) product is an idiot, tech literate or not. Not even places like 4chan have true anonimity, depending on the place & jurisdiction we're talking about[remember the case of the guy making a call to violence(illegal) that got arrested]. The 'traditional' web is not anonymous at all:not only the underlying protocol(s) is/are inherently not anonymous by design, but you add insane surveillance and you can eventually crack anything. Even things like TOR/others are not truly anonymous, and the US regime proved that if they want to find you, they will, assuming they have jurisdiction. Coming back: I don't quite get why people talk about free speech in this context. Not only S230 is a broken f&ckfest but we're also talking about a non-US place. What's more hilarious is that even if we would have talked about the US, defamation (w/ calls to violence & other speech not protected by 1A) is still illegal.
- JacobSeated 3y ago
  As I already discussed in my own thread, there has to be limits to people's anonymity online, because otherwise you are just allowing the bad actors to control the flow of information, and thereby also shift opinions simply by the sheer volume of information they post. This is the classical behaviour of conspiracy theorists. E.g. The "evidence" presented in Pizzagate. It is bassily a flood of non-evidence intended to overwhelm and drown meaningful facts and discussion. Anonymous accounts should not be disallowed entirely, but they should be observed more actively for misbehaviour, including things such as spreading of miss- and disinformation and manipulative content. Sometimes individual posts does not really spread misinformation, but when you look at the bulk of the content it becomes clear that they are actually engaging in the active spreading of disinformation. This brings me to a very important point: anonymous accounts should be clearly marked as being anonymous. They should therefore not allow a profile picture. Disinformation can also be in the form of suggestive or questioning material. E.g. Sharing a piece of misinformation and writing "interesting?" or "I really hope this is not real?". If such behaviour is consistent, then it is usually because that account is used to re-share disinformation, and if the account has nothing else of relevance. E.g. Does not have any authentic connections outside of this "conspiracy" network, then obviously it has no authentic purpose on social media. So while anonymity is important to defend, we also need to identify the bad actors that abuse it. For this there are some behavioral patterns that are easy to identify, and this could, to some extent probably be automated already now.
kleton 3y ago
The Hague? Don't they usually stick to serious war crimes?
- hef19898 3y ago
  One of the other courts in Den Hague... Or do you think the only court in D.C. is the Supreme Court?
- Vinnl 3y ago
  The Hague is a city in the Netherlands ("Den Haag" in Dutch). Admittedly it's a bit of an unconventional name for a city, so I can understand that it might be interpreted as just a funny name for the International Criminal Court, which is seated in that city as well. (It's also the seat of the government, so you'll also see sentences like "The Hague says..." in the media that actually refer to the government.)
  - didntcheck 3y ago
    For reference, this is known as a metonym. It's most common with places, but AFAIU the term also covers things like referring to execs as "the suits" or "upstairs" (if they are based up there) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metonymy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metonymy
- dragonelite 3y ago
  Only if you're a non western country :p.
elzbardico 3y ago
You need to be very naive technologically to believe it is trivial to have an “anonymous” Facebook account. This probably it is only possible if you use a burner phone bought cash without a SIM card and use exclusively public WiFi hotspots.
- PUSH_AX 3y ago
  I think the key is “anonymous” from which perspective. It's likely a safe assumption that you are anonymous from the other users, which was the original intended functionality. You're talking about being anonymous from any and all people and agencies, and it could be argued that you probably haven't gone far enough in your description of how to be truly anonymous from even the most motivated person/agency.
larata_media 3y ago
> “Meta argued that Facebook users should be able to express criticism, even if it is severe and anonymous.” It’s interesting to see Meta taking the opposite stance in this argument when they’ve been so instrumental about suppressing criticism deemed misinformation by the CISA, DOJ, FBI, NIAID, CDC, etc…
rossdavidh 3y ago
"Furthermore, Meta's conditions permit data from users to be shared with third parties." ...I don't know if it has any legal implications, but it sure does undercut Meta's ethical high ground, that they will tell people all about their users for money in order for them to serve up advertisements. The case in question would on the surface appear at least as valid a reason.
- ajross 3y ago
  > it sure does undercut Meta's ethical high ground, that they will tell people all about their users for money I'm sorry, where do you infer that? Meta literally refused to do exactly that, and went to court to defend the practice. They're only doing so now because they lost.
- loeg 3y ago
  Meta does not share individual user identities and other metadata the court is demanding with 3rd party advertisers.
- renewiltord 3y ago
  Go on, then. Go buy some emails from Facebook (not public ones like mine that I have listed intentionally public) and show us. You won't be able to. Facebook doesn't sell emails or identifying data.
  - lesuorac 3y ago
    I don't think you understand. The complaint isn't that FaceBook sells data; it's that it gives it freely away. To literally quote from the Privacy Policy [1] > We share information about you with marketing vendors. For example, we share your device identifier or other identifiers --- But this is all irrelvant. Meta's Privacy Policy makes it extremely clear that they will share your data when there is a court order. > We access, preserve, use and share your information: > In response to legal requests, like search warrants, court orders, production orders or subpoenas. These requests come from such as civil litigants, law enforcement and other government authorities. about when we respond to legal requests. [1]: https://www.facebook.com/privacy/policy?subpage=4.subpage.11-MarketingVendors https://www.facebook.com/privacy/policy?subpage=4.subpage.11...
anon7331 3y ago
If they wanted to be anonymous they shouldn't be using Facebook or any Meta property.
someguy7250 3y ago
I feel there is a lack of "local" apps to emulate the old town sqaure, exactly because nobody wants to moderate and track users when a legal issue happens. If we could make an exception in the law, then it might help create more small tech companies in small towns. I could be daydreaming here, but: What if we make it legal to run unmoderated social media apps as long as (1) they are operated by a local company with their own software (instead of saas) (2) they function with the same kinds of limitations as a physical town notice board?
- gcoakes 3y ago
  I don't understand. Isn't this already the case in America with Section 230? (The original post is about the Netherlands, so this is now tangenting.) It's just that no one actually acts as a platform. I'll daydream with you except mine is different. The optimal social media in my view is one tied to your real identity. Moderation would only be applied under court order by the relevant jurisdiction for the view of the content within that jurisdiction. i.e.: 1) American posts content critical of Indian officials. That content is restricted by order of an Indian court and no such order is additionally given by an American court. It would be hidden from view within India but not from within America. The inverse would be true. 2) Indian posts content critical of Indian officials. That content is restricted by order of an Indian court. America (or any other nation) has no duty to protect that speech and thus no claim over it. That content is censored everywhere. Additionally, everyone would have client-side filters which may be published. Emphasis on "published" because the publisher would be accountable for their words just as much as a newspaper within their jurisdiction. Though they wouldn't need to say much (i.e.: list of people I [dis]like). Unique identity and nationality are the only ones I can think of right now. More complex examples: 1) An American publishes a list of politicians who have made inflammatory public statements. They have evidence of this for each person on the list and make no additional assertions about their behavior. People not interested in such content could subscribe to the filter. (I guess people interested in chaos could view the inverse.) No court is willing to censor this list because their statements are protected speech. 2) An American publishes a list of men who have committed sexual crimes (such as in the original post). They assert it as fact not alleged crimes. They include someone who has not been proven in a court of law to have committed that crime. They can be sued for libel and possibly forced to remove the person from the list or reword the list description. Anonymity between the user and the social media service wouldn't exist, but it might between users. The service could be mandated by the jurisdiction to unmask or otherwise ensure the accused does not fall within the jurisdiction.
Pixie_Dust 3y ago
So, your Facebook posts are neither anonymous or private.
demindiro 3y ago
This precedent definitely won't be abused. Or at least most people here seem to think that? I wish the article would go into detail what exactly the "transgressive behaviour" is, because now it is unclear to me how far I can take criticism that is either directly or indirectly linked to an individual. For example, what if I have an extremely poor experience with a seller? Does it matter if this seller is a business or some random individual getting rid of 2nd hand items? What if the user being criticized is also anonymous? In any case, I shall be using throwaway accounts more frequently just to be safe.
- starkparker 3y ago
  From the top-voted comment, the link to the case. Point 1.1 ("De zaak in het kort"): https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/#!/details?id=ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2023:11254 https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/#!/details?id=ECLI:NL:RBDH... > A Facebook user has made anonymous statements in Facebook groups about dating, accusing [the plaintiff], among other things, of having the intention to use and then dump women, of being a pathological liar, and of secretly recording women. Two images of [the claimant] have been placed with these statements. [the claimant] argues that the allegations are untrue and intimidating and that he suffers considerable (reputational) damage. [the claimant] wants Meta to remove what he considers to be unlawful messages. In addition, [the claimant] wants Meta to provide him with information about the identity of the anonymous Facebook user and about any other groups in which this user has made these statements.
hulitu 3y ago
> Anonymous Facebook User Anonymous Facebook User is a contradiction in terms. Same for Anonymous Microsoft User, Anonymous Google User, Anonymous Apple User, Anonymous Amazon User.

223 points by skilled 3y ago

redkinght99 3y ago

[flagged]

stef25 3y ago
Not really relevant to the conversation. Zuck now probably half the planet's details > I've never once believed that Meta would honor / fight for anonymous accounts of any kind on their platform. The way I see it is that they are honoring anonymity and they are being compelled by the court to release personal information after initially refusing to do so. The problem is with the courts, not with Meta. Ideally they should just eat the 100K fine.
- redkinght99 3y ago
  I think the current CEO is very relevant to a company. Leadership comes from the top. "Ideally they should just eat the 100K fine." , I don't see that happening with their current leadership; a half-fought court battle for PR sake seems on brand though.
- qwytw 3y ago
  > The problem is with the courts, not with Meta. Ideally they should just eat the 100K fine. Is it that straightforward? You can slander anyone and/or reveal their private information without the 'victim' having no recourse whatsoever besides complaining to FB?
  - cnity 3y ago
    There are a lot of illegal things you can do without being found out, and victims have no recourse then either. Should everyone be under surveillance 100% of the time just in case?
    - qwytw 3y ago
      > under surveillance 100% of the time just in case No, but this seems completely tangential to what is discussed in the article. If understand it correctly: - Person A anonymously published some supposedly defamatory information about person B on platform X - Platform X knows who person B is - While it's not determined that the information was indeed slanderous* the court compels platform X to reveal the identity of person A. - Person A sues person B in civil court etc. This does not seem to be at all unreasonable to me. *only thing I'm really concerned about is that while obviously (given how legal systems work) you can't determine whether it was slander or not without both parties, the court should still try to determine whether the accusation is at least somewhat valid before compelling the platform to reveal that person's identity. Of course some could say that eventually this might lead to situations where governments would restrict/ban any platform which allows users to post without revealing their person details to the platform (and well Facebook already does that on their own). That would of course be terrible..
      - cnity 3y ago
        I urge you to consider the downsides of celebrating the compulsion of a platform to reveal otherwise anonymous information: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/05/uk-online-safety-bill-must-not-violate-our-rights-free-speech-and-private https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/05/uk-online-safety-bill-...
        qwytw 3y ago
        Why do you think I'm celebrating anything? And again, it seems mostly tangential to the matter at hand. I think it's far from ideal that Facebook and some other platforms force you to reveal your identity. However once they have, I don't see how can it be unreasonable for a court to able to compel them to reveal the identify of one of their users in certain cases. I don't see how Online Safety Bill is related? It's not like the identity of anonymous posters on FB is E2E encrypted and requiring an order from a court to reveal it is not exactly the same as 'screening of all user content'..
  - stef25 3y ago
    Billions of people are online often showing the worst versions of themselves. That doesn't make it ok but chasing down every potential slanderer on Facebook just seems like something that should be very low priority for the courts in question.
    - qwytw 3y ago
      So do you believe defamation laws should not exist at all or that they should not apply to anything publicly published on Facebook? Obviously courts should consider severity and other factors but factors like damage to reputation, other damages etc. should be the deciding factor on whether a court would accept the case not whether it's published on Facebook or anonymously.

naillo 3y ago

Good motivation to build or support platforms where this can't even be a possibility, i.e. without phone number authentication or other identity revealing steps as part of authentication.

suddenclarity 3y ago
I'm having trouble seeing this being a major thing in a decade or two. To me it looks more like we're running towards more control in the name of stopping hate. ID verification to access internet and social media seem more likely. Sell it as a way to stop pedophiles on social media, kids from accessing violent/nude content, and people from posting hate. We don't have anything to hide, right? Even if a platform wanted, the laws will prohibit it by requiring user knowledge.
- guwop 3y ago
  i think 'in the name of stopping AI agents' is much more likely to be what sells this. perhaps hate spread by AI?
  - pawelmurias 3y ago
    Left rampant AI agents can drown a platform with a deludge of advertising shit or hate or woke crap.
- phkahler 3y ago
  >> We don't have anything to hide, right? Privacy and anonymity are not the same thing.
austin-cheney 3y ago
Done: https://github.com/prettydiff/share-file-systems/blob/master/documentation/decentralization.md https://github.com/prettydiff/share-file-systems/blob/master... You would need a warrant to extract the messages/identity directly from a person's computer as there is nothing otherwise to obtain.
Cthulhu_ 3y ago

say_it_as_it_is 3y ago

[flagged]

arijun 3y ago
The plaintiff is not anonymous.

dale_glass 3y ago

There's anonymity on Facebook? Don't they have a real name policy still?

tyingq 3y ago
To the degree they bother enforcing it. I still see lots of vanity accounts people create for their dogs and cats, for example.
adamckay 3y ago
There's a feature where you can post to groups anonymously, still using your real account, rather than creating a new account with fake data to make you appear anonymous.
- bananatype 3y ago
  Just to add to this. If the anonymous post was made on a group, the group administrators could still see it. So it's only anonymous for the rest of the (non-admin) group members.
- gcoakes 3y ago
  There's a dead comment sibling to this one talking about how group admins can see through the anominity. I don't understand why it is dead. It wasn't even rudely stated. Is it just flat wrong, or did it cross some unknown social boundary by pointing out a fact? Was it edited posthumously? Edit: And, when I refresh it's not dead... I don't understand this system apparently.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - sgift 3y ago
    > Edit: And, when I refresh it's not dead... I don't understand this system apparently. If enough people vouch for a dead comment it goes back to normal. That's probably what you saw.
3y ago

naillo 3y ago

Sidenote, I love how clean and readible this site is. No popups, just clean and well written text in the middle.

Keirmot 3y ago
And as a bonus it supports RSS
mananaysiempre 3y ago
The huge title banner with the redundant snippet and the Meta logo of the unnecessary margins could use some dieting—the black-on-white body of the article cuts of at "identifying data of an anonymous Facebook user" for me, incongruously even earlier than the dark-gray-on-black snippet above it. Otherwise it's pretty nice, yes. (Is it weird that I think text.npr.org mostly looks better than the main npr.org?)

barrysteve 3y ago

We really need a separate digital wilderness for single men to blow off steam. Making the old online hitching posts (like facebook, google, video games, ect) family friendly, or else! then a lot of disaffected young men are going to be venting their lack of financial/dating success somewhere else. Are we just going to dump these people out onto the streets and hope it all works out politically?

detourdog 3y ago
We have the space already we just have to move the and build infrastructure. The nonsense is all commercial based. There is no need to know anything about visitors to a site unless you want to make money.
burnished 3y ago
Where are you pulling this from? The article does not discuss the nature of the messages in any way.
- jeroenhd 3y ago
  The available summary of the preliminary injunction doesn't mention the messages themselves, but it does state that the plaintiff is being accused of (sexually) transgressive behaviour by the posts they want to see removed. It's possible that this is just some abusive asshole using the court to clear their name. It's equally possible that the accusations are all made up and that the person who posted them has a grudge against the plaintiff for rejecting them. We have no real indication either way, other than that the judge believed that there is a chance the plaintiff is in the right. Either way, I think it's fair to assume something went wrong during a date. I'm not sure what the rest of the parent post is referring to.
  - jeltz 3y ago
    There does not have to have been a date though. The story could have been made up by someone who just saw his profile on some dating site and did some creative writing based on that.

tgv 3y ago

It sounds like the court considers facebook a publisher. Which is true in the everyday sense, of course.

mnd999 3y ago

If he went on the date with them you’d think he might already know their name. If not it probably wasn’t a good date.

MertsA 3y ago
That kinda lends credence to the notion that the post really was just libel. If it was true and more than just a one sentence diatribe then the plaintiff wouldn't have needed to bring Meta into this suit. I don't really see what they would possibly get out of this unless they really had no idea who this was that posted about them.
- tsimionescu 3y ago
  How would they sue person X for libel if they couldn't prove that the libelous post was created by person X?
  - MertsA 3y ago
    Same way you sue anyone. Sue them if you have a reasonable basis for your claims and subpoena the defendant directly instead of trying to approach this like suing a John Doe. If they try to delete it this is no different than any other civil suit, go after the spoliation of evidence.
devsda 3y ago
May be he believes that his date went well and so the person who posted those comments could not have been the same person that went on the date with him. He might be trying to figure out who else is making those comments.
SiempreViernes 3y ago
Sure, but he probably wants to be able to prove to a court that he's accusing the correct person?

ed_mercer 3y ago

Now I know why you should never use your real email and/or phone number when signing up for a service.

benterix 3y ago
True, but not enough: > The court's ruling mandates Meta to disclose key identifying information, including the username, email address, telephone number, and the IP address used during registration and logins.
piokoch 3y ago
No longer doable, at least in Europe, you can't buy per-paid phone card without showing you government ID. And I believe you will not be able to create Twitter (that is, X) or Facebook account without being forced to provide something more than email. I've tried, and account was immediately lock until I provide more credentials (gov id or phone number). All of this is to fight child porn, as always, although, unlike normal people, those who earn on child porn can make that additional effort to find some homeless person, drug addict, etc. and get sim card activated. So we are where we are with lack of privacy for regular people. Maybe one day governments will realize that not only them have access to all of this information, foreign intelligence too, which make much easier to recruit/blackmail spies and in the end, shattered privacy costs much more than imaginary child porn fight.
- marcjuul 3y ago
  Why do you think this is the case across all of Europe? You can definitely buy SIM cards in vending machines in Denmark still.
  - weberer 3y ago
    There seems to be a trend on HN to assume every country in Europe has the same laws. Confusingly, most of these comments come from people living in European countries.
    - 3y ago

oldgradstudent 3y ago

Why is it news that Meta has to answer to a subpoena issued by a court in a country they operate in legally? I was under the impression that this is routine.

ranting-moth 3y ago
Because people don't understand free speech. They confuse the right to anonymity to "do whatever I want as anonymous".
- criley2 3y ago
  Speaking of "not understanding free speech", in America (where Meta is) free speech exclusively refers to our Bill of Rights and the limitation on government to unfairly suppress your speech, specifically your political speech. It is completely unrelated to a private citizen interacting with a private business in the eyes of American law, American business and Americans ourselves. The only free speech issue here from our perspective is "Is the government illegally restricting Meta's corporate right to free speech?" And no, making Meta identify a user is not a violation of their 1A free speech rights to us. If you're speaking of a totally different European legal concept, it might be helpful for you to identify that.
  - arzig 3y ago
    Export the free speech is a red herring. The underlying issue is whether an aggrieved party can compel certain kinds of discovery to respond to libel (which has never been perfected speech). Prime were just able to be libelous with impunity because … the interwebs…
    - criley2 3y ago
      Libel - Another legal concept that varies dramatically by region. In America, proving libel is extremely difficult and requires you to demonstrate real damages. So in this case if it were American, unless the aggrieved party can demonstrate monetary damages, under American law there is no libel as we do not consider "hurt feelings" or "damaged reputation" to be libel. So in America we would demand that the offended party demonstrate that they have been financially harmed before we unmask the anonymous individual to fully investigate and adjudicate the claim. If you're discussing libel under a EU or European nations context, it could be helpful to identify which version of libel law you are referencing, because this case from an American's perspective is no where near our extremely high bar. (And, as a side note, under American law all international libel convictions are automatically unenforceable here, to prevent tourism to areas who do not require sufficiently high bar)

ranting-moth 3y ago

[flagged]

veave 3y ago
[flagged]
- ranting-moth 3y ago
  You can definitely not say anything you want in NK. You get censored at multiple stages.
  - PurpleRamen 3y ago
    Censoring is everywhere, even in free countries. The only difference is the degree of censoring, and the topics.
- throw_a_grenade 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - qwytw 3y ago
    Perhaps, I'm not sure what does this have to do with the article, though.
  - Ylpertnodi 3y ago
    >No, it's more like in woke left. Could you explain what "woke left" is? I understand 'left', i guess, but reading the rest of your comment i see that 'cancelling' [I'm guessing again - censoring?] is what 'the right' do too.
    - throw_a_grenade 3y ago
      Certainly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woke https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woke https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancel_culture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancel_culture Cancelling is distinct from censorship, because it's post-factum "consequences" (i.e. character assassination). "Censorship" is usually understood as measures that prevent publication in the fist place, before the actual speech happens.

veave 3y ago

[flagged]

snvzz 3y ago
I do not see a connection with freedom of speech.
- veave 3y ago
  In some countries this would be laughed out of court.
  - qwytw 3y ago
    How do we know that? Slander is something you can sue another person for in just about anywhere(?) and there is nothing in the article about what was actually said. In this case the (allegedly) injured party doesn't even know who to sue (besides Facebook I guess..) does that seem entirely reasonable to you?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

JacobSeated 3y ago

I support the idea of anonymous accounts, but they should not be available easily to everyone. Perhaps they should start out in a sandbox, and of course, monitored more actively for signs of abuse. Other account types should really have a verified identity imo. It would drastically limit the amount of abuse.

ivan_gammel 3y ago
Is there any reason to prefer anonymity to protected aliases? I'd say people should be able to post under their nicknames and only their lawyers/notaries/trustees should be able to disclose their identity in a some lawful procedure. It should not be a responsibility of a platform, but there must be someone who knows the true identity and can certify the relationship between it and the alias.
- wnkrshm 3y ago
  Then the alias itself has to be protected though, else someone could harm you by impersonating your alias.
whywhywhywhy 3y ago
> It would drastically limit the amount of People happily spout abuse under their real name on Facebook. Seems very naive to think preventing anonymity would curb it as much as you think.
- JacobSeated 3y ago
  I happen have investigated vast amounts of spam accounts and content posted by people engaged in conspiracy theories, and in my experience the main propagators of this type of disinformation are fake accounts and people hiding behind anonymity. Facebook do not even care that they are blatantly breaking the community guidelines, and will typically always ignore reports of "fake accounts". If you get rid of the main propagators, other users will have very little of this type of content to engage with in the first place, and it WILL limit the amount of inspiration material other users will be exposed to. We only have this problem because of the easy access to social media. It used to be dubious corners on internet forums and newsgroups no one was interested in, but now everyone is exposed to all this grotesque filth. Many such accounts main purpose is, very conspicuously, to spread misinformation, and as such there is no real reason why they should be on Facebook in the first place. I support anonymity when necessary, but as history has clearly shown, limitless anonymity will be abused by bad actors. If there are no limits in place, then bad actors will be able to drown us in a flood of disinformation – this will, as is somewhat currently the case, allow conspiracy theorists to control the flow of information more easily. Repeatedly disproven claims can be repeated in all eternity, and we will never move these people's understanding. Fact checking will not catch everything, unfortunately. Currently the AI systems is not fast enough to tag things that has already been fact checked, lacks context, or is just manipulative. There are consistent ways to post content and behave that does not directly spread misinformation, but when looked at as a whole, is, actually very clearly intended to manipulate people with misinformation. So, don't reject things you don't understand so quickly.

arijun 3y ago

I understand the fears people are raising here, the potential for abuse. But on the other hand, what should someone do if they are truly wronged by something like this? They lost their job, their spouse left them, all because someone decided to slander them under the veil of anonymity. Should they have any recourse?

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
phkahler 3y ago
[flagged]
renegat0x0 3y ago
It goes both ways. If you are not anonymous, then every your action can be taken against you. I remember a post where music companies searched reddit against user comments posted on 2011. What if you are pro trans people? In 10 years you can be prosecuted by it, if a new party is elected. It can have new 'standards'. You will not be able to contradict mainstream narrative. You will not be able to say anything against corporations and governments. If you will do anything outside of 'boundaries' set by companies, governments you will lost your job, spouse will leave you, all because you wanted 'a better world'. On one side of scales is a place of total invigilation, on the other is a place with internet trolls. Companies like meta and twitter are quite good in rooting our trolls. So the current situation is inconvenient, but we can live with it. If we opt out anonymity then the overall result will be a lot worse than the current situation is.

ochronus 3y ago

[flagged]

crossroadsguy 3y ago

> However, Meta initially responded stating that it did not find the posts defamatory and hence would not accede to his request Oh, that’s so very Meta and Twitter and Reddit. I believe they return a delayed response only to maintain appearances of some human being having had a look at the reports. What I don’t understand is how come a user was anonymous in a Facebook group.

Mindwipe 3y ago
Facebook groups have an option to permit anonymous posts, on the basis the group moderator can handle the tidal wave of bad that will probably happen. Of course, you're not anonymous on the back end, just publicly.

subroutine 3y ago

The word "Forced" here is a bit misleading given Meta faces a penalty of just 1k euros per day, up to 100k, if it decides not to comply with the court's decision.

nhinck 3y ago
Do you believe that you can pay $100k to ignore any further punishment?
- subroutine 3y ago
  I believe $100k to Meta is like $3 to me. If there is additional punishment beyond "a maximum fine of $100k", the article does not mention it.
  - nhinck 3y ago
    Just logically, do you believe that Meta can pay $100k to ignore a court order?
    - subroutine 3y ago
      According to the article, $100k is the maximum penalty for ignoring this specific court order. Do you think the article is lying?
  - waithuh 3y ago
    You need a few million and some vacations to ignore the law. $100k is just the initial fee and timeslot for potentially pulling out of said country (or do what Apple is doing with the UK)
    - subroutine 3y ago
      The article states the maximum penalty is $100k. Show me where it says otherwise and I'll believe you.
  - 3y ago

Modified3019 3y ago

>the Court of The Hague has ruled... In case you were wondering where such a ruling happened.

hef19898 3y ago
In a court in the Dutch city of The Hague?

cuttysnark 3y ago

> Meta faces a penalty of one thousand euros per day, up to a maximum of one hundred thousand euros, if it fails to comply with the court's decision. Well that settles that, then.

neilv 3y ago

> Meta faces a penalty of one thousand euros per day, up to a maximum of one hundred thousand euros, if it fails to comply with the court's decision. As a purely business move, should Meta just play this as a principled stand, and eat the fine? If there's any negative reaction chatter, maybe it's on one of their platforms, in which case it's engagement?

jsnell 3y ago
No. First, why in the world do you want Meta to get into a habit of ignoring the law of the land? Second, fines for non-compliance to court orders are not one off events. The fine is set with the purpose of compelling action. If the action doesn't happen, higher fines will follow.
- neilv 3y ago
  I don't want them to ignore laws; I'm just asking out of curiosity, and given Meta being who they are. As a purely business move, can Meta increase brand goodwill by publicly resisting for awhile?
  - ShamelessC 3y ago
    They answered you already.
  - shadowgovt 3y ago
    In general, I don't think "The American company thinks it can flout a European court decision" is actually going to increase brand goodwill in the market they care about increasing brand goodwill in.

NVHacker 3y ago

"Forced" is a strong word given that the maximum penalty for non-compliance is 100k.

progbits 3y ago
Any publicly traded company will sell you out for way less than that.
shashashasha___ 3y ago
I don't get it. what are you suggesting? that meta would break the law on purpose just because its 100k fine?
- NVHacker 3y ago
  I'm quite sure Meta would never break the law on purpose. I'm pretty sure that on the multiple fronts where they are breaking the law, it can easily be explained by some sort of misunderstanding. And the fact that they are benefiting a lot in those cases must be just a giant coincidence.

dncornholio 3y ago

I love this outcome. User disrespects another users privacy by posting anonymous, so they get their privacy invoked. All systems nominal.

jeroenhd 3y ago

Court case here: https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/#!/details?id=ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2023:11254 https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/#!/details?id=ECLI:NL:RBDH... I find court summaries of the Dutch courts to be quite readable. Google translate also seems to work quite well. It should be noted that this is a "kort geding", which i believe translates to a "preliminary injunction" but I don't have the legal education to say what the differences between the two may be. Some anonymous user claims that the person who started legal action committed gross sexual misconduct. The judge ruled that there's little evidence to back these claims and that the plaintiff is suffering an impact significant enough to warrant further action. It should also be noted that Dutch law considers defamation to be a crime (as in, illegal under criminal law), not a civil law issue. This isn't the first time a company has had to hand over subscriber information because of libel or slander either. I don't really see what the big deal is.

marginalia_nu 3y ago
Dunno if this is the case in the Netherlands, but it's worth noting in some legal systems defamation is defined something like spreading harmful accusations as opposed to spreading harmful lies. The intent being that if you have an accusation that is true, you settle it in the courts rather than in the press, with an angry mob, on social media, or the like. Since the whether or not the accusations are true doesn't factor into such a crime, it can be enforced on the presence of harmful accusations alone, which has fairly big implications for the sort of social media witch hunts that we've seen cropping up in the recent decade.
- jorams 3y ago
  The Netherlands has both. "Laster" requires the accusation to be untrue. "Smaad" is the broader form that does not require the accusation to be untrue. Justifications defined in the law are "necessary defense" and "common interest". The second one is specified as "believed in good faith that the charges were true and that the public interest required the charge." IANAL, but I think this can apply to social media witch hunts to at least some extent.
- carlosjobim 3y ago

sebow 3y ago

I feel like some of the discussion about anonimity here is kind of misplaced. Just because illegal activies can be done under anonimity shouldn't mean anonimity should be banned aswell(in order to "prevent illegal activities"). That's one of the worst things that can happen(and it's somewhat happening already), and if I'm not mistaken this could also be interpreted as illegal and unconstitutional in countries/places where there is such thing as a "right to (>and not<) associate"(and it's various forms). And I'm sorry for the upcoming little rant, but whoever thinks they're anonymous while using a Meta(or any Big Tech platform, really) product is an idiot, tech literate or not. Not even places like 4chan have true anonimity, depending on the place & jurisdiction we're talking about[remember the case of the guy making a call to violence(illegal) that got arrested]. The 'traditional' web is not anonymous at all:not only the underlying protocol(s) is/are inherently not anonymous by design, but you add insane surveillance and you can eventually crack anything. Even things like TOR/others are not truly anonymous, and the US regime proved that if they want to find you, they will, assuming they have jurisdiction. Coming back: I don't quite get why people talk about free speech in this context. Not only S230 is a broken f&ckfest but we're also talking about a non-US place. What's more hilarious is that even if we would have talked about the US, defamation (w/ calls to violence & other speech not protected by 1A) is still illegal.

JacobSeated 3y ago
As I already discussed in my own thread, there has to be limits to people's anonymity online, because otherwise you are just allowing the bad actors to control the flow of information, and thereby also shift opinions simply by the sheer volume of information they post. This is the classical behaviour of conspiracy theorists. E.g. The "evidence" presented in Pizzagate. It is bassily a flood of non-evidence intended to overwhelm and drown meaningful facts and discussion. Anonymous accounts should not be disallowed entirely, but they should be observed more actively for misbehaviour, including things such as spreading of miss- and disinformation and manipulative content. Sometimes individual posts does not really spread misinformation, but when you look at the bulk of the content it becomes clear that they are actually engaging in the active spreading of disinformation. This brings me to a very important point: anonymous accounts should be clearly marked as being anonymous. They should therefore not allow a profile picture. Disinformation can also be in the form of suggestive or questioning material. E.g. Sharing a piece of misinformation and writing "interesting?" or "I really hope this is not real?". If such behaviour is consistent, then it is usually because that account is used to re-share disinformation, and if the account has nothing else of relevance. E.g. Does not have any authentic connections outside of this "conspiracy" network, then obviously it has no authentic purpose on social media. So while anonymity is important to defend, we also need to identify the bad actors that abuse it. For this there are some behavioral patterns that are easy to identify, and this could, to some extent probably be automated already now.

kleton 3y ago

The Hague? Don't they usually stick to serious war crimes?

hef19898 3y ago
One of the other courts in Den Hague... Or do you think the only court in D.C. is the Supreme Court?
Vinnl 3y ago
The Hague is a city in the Netherlands ("Den Haag" in Dutch). Admittedly it's a bit of an unconventional name for a city, so I can understand that it might be interpreted as just a funny name for the International Criminal Court, which is seated in that city as well. (It's also the seat of the government, so you'll also see sentences like "The Hague says..." in the media that actually refer to the government.)
- didntcheck 3y ago
  For reference, this is known as a metonym. It's most common with places, but AFAIU the term also covers things like referring to execs as "the suits" or "upstairs" (if they are based up there) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metonymy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metonymy
dragonelite 3y ago
Only if you're a non western country :p.

elzbardico 3y ago

You need to be very naive technologically to believe it is trivial to have an “anonymous” Facebook account. This probably it is only possible if you use a burner phone bought cash without a SIM card and use exclusively public WiFi hotspots.

PUSH_AX 3y ago
I think the key is “anonymous” from which perspective. It's likely a safe assumption that you are anonymous from the other users, which was the original intended functionality. You're talking about being anonymous from any and all people and agencies, and it could be argued that you probably haven't gone far enough in your description of how to be truly anonymous from even the most motivated person/agency.

larata_media 3y ago

> “Meta argued that Facebook users should be able to express criticism, even if it is severe and anonymous.” It’s interesting to see Meta taking the opposite stance in this argument when they’ve been so instrumental about suppressing criticism deemed misinformation by the CISA, DOJ, FBI, NIAID, CDC, etc…

rossdavidh 3y ago

"Furthermore, Meta's conditions permit data from users to be shared with third parties." ...I don't know if it has any legal implications, but it sure does undercut Meta's ethical high ground, that they will tell people all about their users for money in order for them to serve up advertisements. The case in question would on the surface appear at least as valid a reason.

ajross 3y ago
> it sure does undercut Meta's ethical high ground, that they will tell people all about their users for money I'm sorry, where do you infer that? Meta literally refused to do exactly that, and went to court to defend the practice. They're only doing so now because they lost.
loeg 3y ago
Meta does not share individual user identities and other metadata the court is demanding with 3rd party advertisers.
renewiltord 3y ago
Go on, then. Go buy some emails from Facebook (not public ones like mine that I have listed intentionally public) and show us. You won't be able to. Facebook doesn't sell emails or identifying data.
- lesuorac 3y ago
  I don't think you understand. The complaint isn't that FaceBook sells data; it's that it gives it freely away. To literally quote from the Privacy Policy [1] > We share information about you with marketing vendors. For example, we share your device identifier or other identifiers --- But this is all irrelvant. Meta's Privacy Policy makes it extremely clear that they will share your data when there is a court order. > We access, preserve, use and share your information: > In response to legal requests, like search warrants, court orders, production orders or subpoenas. These requests come from such as civil litigants, law enforcement and other government authorities. about when we respond to legal requests. [1]: https://www.facebook.com/privacy/policy?subpage=4.subpage.11-MarketingVendors https://www.facebook.com/privacy/policy?subpage=4.subpage.11...

anon7331 3y ago

If they wanted to be anonymous they shouldn't be using Facebook or any Meta property.

someguy7250 3y ago

I feel there is a lack of "local" apps to emulate the old town sqaure, exactly because nobody wants to moderate and track users when a legal issue happens. If we could make an exception in the law, then it might help create more small tech companies in small towns. I could be daydreaming here, but: What if we make it legal to run unmoderated social media apps as long as (1) they are operated by a local company with their own software (instead of saas) (2) they function with the same kinds of limitations as a physical town notice board?

gcoakes 3y ago
I don't understand. Isn't this already the case in America with Section 230? (The original post is about the Netherlands, so this is now tangenting.) It's just that no one actually acts as a platform. I'll daydream with you except mine is different. The optimal social media in my view is one tied to your real identity. Moderation would only be applied under court order by the relevant jurisdiction for the view of the content within that jurisdiction. i.e.: 1) American posts content critical of Indian officials. That content is restricted by order of an Indian court and no such order is additionally given by an American court. It would be hidden from view within India but not from within America. The inverse would be true. 2) Indian posts content critical of Indian officials. That content is restricted by order of an Indian court. America (or any other nation) has no duty to protect that speech and thus no claim over it. That content is censored everywhere. Additionally, everyone would have client-side filters which may be published. Emphasis on "published" because the publisher would be accountable for their words just as much as a newspaper within their jurisdiction. Though they wouldn't need to say much (i.e.: list of people I [dis]like). Unique identity and nationality are the only ones I can think of right now. More complex examples: 1) An American publishes a list of politicians who have made inflammatory public statements. They have evidence of this for each person on the list and make no additional assertions about their behavior. People not interested in such content could subscribe to the filter. (I guess people interested in chaos could view the inverse.) No court is willing to censor this list because their statements are protected speech. 2) An American publishes a list of men who have committed sexual crimes (such as in the original post). They assert it as fact not alleged crimes. They include someone who has not been proven in a court of law to have committed that crime. They can be sued for libel and possibly forced to remove the person from the list or reword the list description. Anonymity between the user and the social media service wouldn't exist, but it might between users. The service could be mandated by the jurisdiction to unmask or otherwise ensure the accused does not fall within the jurisdiction.

Pixie_Dust 3y ago

So, your Facebook posts are neither anonymous or private.

demindiro 3y ago

This precedent definitely won't be abused. Or at least most people here seem to think that? I wish the article would go into detail what exactly the "transgressive behaviour" is, because now it is unclear to me how far I can take criticism that is either directly or indirectly linked to an individual. For example, what if I have an extremely poor experience with a seller? Does it matter if this seller is a business or some random individual getting rid of 2nd hand items? What if the user being criticized is also anonymous? In any case, I shall be using throwaway accounts more frequently just to be safe.

starkparker 3y ago
From the top-voted comment, the link to the case. Point 1.1 ("De zaak in het kort"): https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/#!/details?id=ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2023:11254 https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/#!/details?id=ECLI:NL:RBDH... > A Facebook user has made anonymous statements in Facebook groups about dating, accusing [the plaintiff], among other things, of having the intention to use and then dump women, of being a pathological liar, and of secretly recording women. Two images of [the claimant] have been placed with these statements. [the claimant] argues that the allegations are untrue and intimidating and that he suffers considerable (reputational) damage. [the claimant] wants Meta to remove what he considers to be unlawful messages. In addition, [the claimant] wants Meta to provide him with information about the identity of the anonymous Facebook user and about any other groups in which this user has made these statements.

hulitu 3y ago

> Anonymous Facebook User Anonymous Facebook User is a contradiction in terms. Same for Anonymous Microsoft User, Anonymous Google User, Anonymous Apple User, Anonymous Amazon User.