3 ms·

> Fortunately your opinion doesn’t trump the Constitution or settled law. Neither does yours? This is a nonsense claim. > Anonymous (or at least pseudonymous)

by ericmay 9mo ago

> Fortunately your opinion doesn’t trump the Constitution or settled law. Neither does yours? This is a nonsense claim. > Anonymous (or at least pseudonymous) speech has been a feature of American discourse since before the Revolution. You're just cherry-picking which ideas you like from the founders or early America. Slavery was also a feature of the United States. Whether we had something in the past or not isn't necessarily a good enough argument to keep doing it. > Without anonymity, you lose whistleblowers, We can figure out other ways to have whistleblowers without social media. > effective criticism of the powerful from the weak, and “public interest” leaks like the Snowden revelations. Snowden, who is living in Russia. > You lose outlets where the abused can ask for help and advice in escaping bad situations. The only way to do this is on social media, anonymously? If so, we have a much bigger problem. An emergency, even. > You lose any/all criticism of employers current and past; who wants to hire a complainer? I complain about past employers all the time. I don't think you lose this. > You silence people who are afraid to give their opinion because of their employer or parent. I don't think so. And both left and right political blocks have gotten plenty of people fired, even those who post anonymously.

iamnothere 9mo ago
> Slavery was also a feature of the United States. Yes, and it required a Constitutional amendment to remove it. You’re welcome to try and push through an amendment to limit free speech rights, but it won’t pass! > We can figure out other ways to have whistleblowers without social media. I doubt it! The media is mostly dead or coopted, and the powerful won’t willingly set up a system where you can rat them out. > Snowden, who is living in Russia. Yes, to avoid retaliation. Your point? > The only way to do this is on social media, anonymously? If so, we have a much bigger problem. An emergency, even. Good, you’re getting it. > I complain about past employers all the time. I don't think you lose this. The popularity of anonymous outlets for this shows that most people don’t share your opinion. It would have a chilling effect. > I don't think so. And both left and right political blocks have gotten plenty of people fired, even those who post anonymously. Thanks for making my point for me. It’s even easier to target people when they are not anonymous. A number of left and right wing commentators are having to pay for private security because of threats. The ones who successfully remain anonymous don’t have to do this.
- ericmay 9mo ago
  > Yes, and it required a Constitutional amendment to remove it. Yea but I can think of lots of other examples. You are missing the point. > You’re welcome to try and push through an amendment to limit free speech rights, but it won’t pass! I'm in favor of free speech so I wouldn't want to limit it. > I doubt it! The media is mostly dead or coopted, and the powerful won’t willingly set up a system where you can rat them out. Sounds like defeatism. > Yes, to avoid retaliation. Your point? He's not just there in Russia because of that. My point is he is either an actual traitor, or someone who was duped into doing what he did. > Good, you’re getting it. Haha I think you missed the point, but I can explain it for you. If you are relying on social media for these things, you have already screwed up. Regulating them one way or another is immaterial, because the dependency is a far greater problem. > The popularity of anonymous outlets for this shows that most people don’t share your opinion. It would have a chilling effect. I don't think it'll have a chilling effect. People publicly complain about their employers all the time using their real information. The popularity of something isn't an acceptable argument to me. > Thanks for making my point for me. It’s even easier to target people when they are not anonymous. A number of left and right wing commentators are having to pay for private security because of threats. The ones who successfully remain anonymous don’t have to do this. Maybe you shouldn't say things that result in you needing private security? It's no different than walking down the street yelling vulgar or offensive things. You might get punched. I see much more harm done by anonymous broadcasting here than I see benefits. Plus you are never truly anonymous on these platforms. Sure it's slightly more difficult for someone to identify you, but if you make enough people mad you will be identified and no amount of "anonymity" will save you. If the government itself wanted to identify you it can do so at the snap of a finger.
  - iamnothere 9mo ago
    > Maybe you shouldn't say things that result in you needing private security? It's no different than walking down the street yelling vulgar or offensive things. You might get punched. Maybe you shouldn’t have spoken up. Maybe you shouldn’t have walked down that street. Maybe you shouldn’t have worn that dress. Done with this convo, I think this says enough.

by ericmay 9mo ago

iamnothere 9mo ago

> Slavery was also a feature of the United States. Yes, and it required a Constitutional amendment to remove it. You’re welcome to try and push through an amendment to limit free speech rights, but it won’t pass! > We can figure out other ways to have whistleblowers without social media. I doubt it! The media is mostly dead or coopted, and the powerful won’t willingly set up a system where you can rat them out. > Snowden, who is living in Russia. Yes, to avoid retaliation. Your point? > The only way to do this is on social media, anonymously? If so, we have a much bigger problem. An emergency, even. Good, you’re getting it. > I complain about past employers all the time. I don't think you lose this. The popularity of anonymous outlets for this shows that most people don’t share your opinion. It would have a chilling effect. > I don't think so. And both left and right political blocks have gotten plenty of people fired, even those who post anonymously. Thanks for making my point for me. It’s even easier to target people when they are not anonymous. A number of left and right wing commentators are having to pay for private security because of threats. The ones who successfully remain anonymous don’t have to do this.

ericmay 9mo ago
> Yes, and it required a Constitutional amendment to remove it. Yea but I can think of lots of other examples. You are missing the point. > You’re welcome to try and push through an amendment to limit free speech rights, but it won’t pass! I'm in favor of free speech so I wouldn't want to limit it. > I doubt it! The media is mostly dead or coopted, and the powerful won’t willingly set up a system where you can rat them out. Sounds like defeatism. > Yes, to avoid retaliation. Your point? He's not just there in Russia because of that. My point is he is either an actual traitor, or someone who was duped into doing what he did. > Good, you’re getting it. Haha I think you missed the point, but I can explain it for you. If you are relying on social media for these things, you have already screwed up. Regulating them one way or another is immaterial, because the dependency is a far greater problem. > The popularity of anonymous outlets for this shows that most people don’t share your opinion. It would have a chilling effect. I don't think it'll have a chilling effect. People publicly complain about their employers all the time using their real information. The popularity of something isn't an acceptable argument to me. > Thanks for making my point for me. It’s even easier to target people when they are not anonymous. A number of left and right wing commentators are having to pay for private security because of threats. The ones who successfully remain anonymous don’t have to do this. Maybe you shouldn't say things that result in you needing private security? It's no different than walking down the street yelling vulgar or offensive things. You might get punched. I see much more harm done by anonymous broadcasting here than I see benefits. Plus you are never truly anonymous on these platforms. Sure it's slightly more difficult for someone to identify you, but if you make enough people mad you will be identified and no amount of "anonymity" will save you. If the government itself wanted to identify you it can do so at the snap of a finger.
- iamnothere 9mo ago
  > Maybe you shouldn't say things that result in you needing private security? It's no different than walking down the street yelling vulgar or offensive things. You might get punched. Maybe you shouldn’t have spoken up. Maybe you shouldn’t have walked down that street. Maybe you shouldn’t have worn that dress. Done with this convo, I think this says enough.