4 ms·

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 acc

by 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.

by stef25 3y ago

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.