Jump to content

Make verified ID a requirement for opening a social media account.


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, CircleSeven said:

Regarding Owlstalk Neil owns the platform and his decision is final. That’s one of the terms of the platform. If you don’t like it don’t use it or set up your own platform. 
 

The kind of posting we are are talking about on the large social media platforms are things that would actually get you arrested if you shouted them on the street. Eradicating that from a platform isn’t censorship, it’s enforcement of local laws. If the Sun printed these comments in the Letters from Readers pages they would face prosecution. Social media companies take no responsibility for content and in my view they should. 

He’s childish at times though.. got no interest in running a platform myself so will just dip in and out on here when he’s not being unreasonable 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Manwë said:

Won't be signing it, as it'll be pointless anyway.  Any interaction that requires a verifiable form of ID for tens of millions of people will require a staff of hundreds, verifying such IDs, and who is going to do that?  Twitter?  Facebook?   The Govt?  The police?  

 

Let's say, for instance, that the UKGov introduced such a law and France doesn't.  Then will unverified French people be able to speak/criticise/share with verified UK people?    If Yes, then the law is pointless because it's simple to create an account from any country within reason.  If no, then the UK really will be cutting itself off from the rest of the world.  

 

Secondly, I've been following social media this year quite heavily on a number of topics, mostly human rights, and the level of debate is beyond sad.  Don't agree with mass migration?  Then you're a fascist*.  Don't think that Laurel Hubbard should compete under the women's section at Tokyo?  Then you're a transphobe*.    Eat meat?  Then you take enjoyment in seeing animals suffer*.  Yes you do, stop denying it.

 

*Not really, you just have a difference of opinion, which may be right or wrong, but ultimately, your right to hold such a view is a right too.   

 

But not everyone believes you're entitled to a different opinion, and some even believe a difference of opinion is possibly a criminal offence, or should be.  And who better to determine that than the police?    So let's call the police when someone disagrees, and let them be the judge of what's right or wrong online.  No thanks.

 

Racism has no place in society, but stifling free-speech for the sake of online fire-and-forget trolls is not the way to go about it.

 

We live in a digitally connected age, and no unilateral decision by the UK will stop any digital crime, no matter how well intentioned.  The only solution, is to stop the internet.  

Well said mate. I made a similar point recently and was told I was being over dramatic.

When you also consider that the government are slipping through legislation banning protest and making it a criminal offence to be a nuisance, we are heading into dangerous times.

I have absolutely no time for racism it is abhorrent. But I think we have to think long and hard before handing even more power over to big tech and government.

Plus, if our police are unable to find the uneducated half breeds that are doing this it’s a very sad state of affairs. This is some moron sat in his council flat not some deep state MI 5 plant. 

I would imagine anyone with half decent computer skills could find them in ten minutes.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've signed the petition.

 

Let me set out my stall - I AM RACIST. I am WHITE, ENGLISH CHRISTIAN, AND PROUD OF IT

I am not against anyone of a different colour, creed or anything else to me.

I believe in speaking my mind, and accept anyone else holding a different viewpoint.

I have travelled to many places, and wherever I have gone, I have respected their views and way-of-life. For instance, if I enter a Muslim country. I would respect its traditions, as, I believe, they should do when visiting my home land

As for 'taking the knee' I would refuse This is not to disrespect the views of those who do Yes. Black lives matter. But so too do White lives

As for the abuse to the three players who missed penalties, I deplore that they did. Not because they were coloured, but because I don't believe an ENGLISH player should miss a penalty, and that includes my hero, Chris Waddle, who famously did so.

I believe in proper free Speech, but I believe that, with the freedom to say what you think, also comes the freedom of others to disagree, and if you say it, be prepared to speak out publicly!

Incidentally, it is the police job to prevent and catch offenders who break the law as set by Parliament, not to make the laws themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just heard on the radio that various footballers including Josh Windas have been involved in the setup of a new social media platform where you have to verify your identity when signing up.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Leaping Lannys Perm said:

universally agreed acceptable

 

 

The whole point of online debate is that there generally isn't consensus about most issues, so who will agree what you can and can't write on the internet?  Facebook?  Is that the dear holder of a human moral code?  The Govt?  Which Govt?  The Tories?  The SNP?   Oh yes, I'd love to see BoJo, Patel and Sturgeon telling you what you can and can't write on the internet.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Signed & wouldn’t it be fantastic if instead of sanctions the headlines Wednesday make in future were all about inclusivity, togetherness & respect - on the pitch, in the stands, in the boardroom & in the community?


And as a small but very purposeful step how about Owlstalk being an early adopter of the ethos & principles behind the petition?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Manwë said:

 

 

The whole point of online debate is that there generally isn't consensus about most issues, so who will agree what you can and can't write on the internet?  Facebook?  Is that the dear holder of a human moral code?  The Govt?  Which Govt?  The Tories?  The SNP?   Oh yes, I'd love to see BoJo, Patel and Sturgeon telling you what you can and can't write on the internet.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dont these same people tell you how fast to drive,  that murder is wrong, and all the other laws that are out there? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, CircleSeven said:

There could be much better language filtering for sure. But you can get around that kind of thing. 
On here if I type poo testicles it filters it out. 
But if I change it to shît bôllox it gets through. 
You need technology but you also need people.

 

agree with you and it would have to be moderated and continually updated by real people for sure, but just the simple addition of such filters would remove masses of posts from these types of idiots and that has to be better than nothing. 

 

i dont agree with mandatory ID privison for social media accounts, but i also dont agree with being able to hide whilst you spout hate and abuse at anyone either. These Social media platforms actually need to step up now and spend some of the billions they rake in to make their platforms a better and safer place for all. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, OwlinOldham said:

 

agree with you and it would have to be moderated and continually updated by real people for sure, but just the simple addition of such filters would remove masses of posts from these types of idiots and that has to be better than nothing. 

 

i dont agree with mandatory ID privison for social media accounts, but i also dont agree with being able to hide whilst you spout hate and abuse at anyone either. These Social media platforms actually need to step up now and spend some of the billions they rake in to make their platforms a better and safer place for all. 

 

Totally agree. If adverts were banned where abuse was un policed the social media companies would be all over it!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, @owlstalk said:



That's shocking!!


For instance - I only have one account on here

Only one account you can remember the login details for 

Lol

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, billyblack said:

at the minute there are no repercussions.

And that's the problem...these cretins can post racist crap without any punishment. I think life bans from football would be a start

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, jp1981 said:

Just heard on the radio that various footballers including Josh Windas have been involved in the setup of a new social media platform where you have to verify your identity when signing up.

This is it.

 

Screenshot_20210713-121551_Instagram.jpg

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ChapSmurf said:

It is up to the individual to secure his or her account accordingly. If they have a weak password, or stupidly share their password, then that is something they will have to deal with should the time come. However abuse of this nature is easily traced and it will be more than obvious to those in the know if an account has been breached. For example, software is already in use by our Government and Police force to recognise the construct and writing styles of individuals. The way I construct my sentences, and write them, will be completely different to everyone else's. It's unique to me, and therefore it applies to me only, like my fingerprint. Therefore it can be proven, with some amount of work involved, to show that either someone hasn't posted through their account, or has.

Whilst that bit is true to some extent, passwords can be leaked due to bad security on the website's part - i.e. in no way preventable by the individual themselves.
For example, years ago adobe (among many other websites) got hacked / had millions of users password information leaked, and that didn't become public knowledge until years after, so for years people's passwords were open to people who had the know how of how to find and use them and it didn't matter how strong the passwords were. 
A few years back I went and found my own email and passwords in password lists online from this, and surprisingly it was very easy to then log into various accounts of mine from that. I am much more careful since and keep separate passwords for each website.

Some other big sites this has happened to since include dropbox, myfitnesspal, myspace, facebook, wattpad, and various universities. 

So then, with the rest of it, I don't post on my twitter or facebook, I just use them to get information usually, but if someone accessed one of those, they could easily cause me a lot of hassle by being toxic or abusive to people and even if eventually I could prove it wasn't me, the consequences of that if linked to my actual ID and name would be much more severe than now where my accounts tend to be under another name. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Owl-about-that-then said:

Whilst that bit is true to some extent, passwords can be leaked due to bad security on the website's part - i.e. in no way preventable by the individual themselves.
For example, years ago adobe (among many other websites) got hacked / had millions of users password information leaked, and that didn't become public knowledge until years after, so for years people's passwords were open to people who had the know how of how to find and use them and it didn't matter how strong the passwords were. 
A few years back I went and found my own email and passwords in password lists online from this, and surprisingly it was very easy to then log into various accounts of mine from that. I am much more careful since and keep separate passwords for each website.

Some other big sites this has happened to since include dropbox, myfitnesspal, myspace, facebook, wattpad, and various universities. 

So then, with the rest of it, I don't post on my twitter or facebook, I just use them to get information usually, but if someone accessed one of those, they could easily cause me a lot of hassle by being toxic or abusive to people and even if eventually I could prove it wasn't me, the consequences of that if linked to my actual ID and name would be much more severe than now where my accounts tend to be under another name. 



Two factor authentication (eg to log in you have to have a text sent to your phone) helps


 


Owlstalk Shop

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, CircleSeven said:

Totally agree. If adverts were banned where abuse was un policed the social media companies would be all over it!

 

Spot on!! Adverts make them money and stopping and investigating abuse online costs them money. You know where the most effort is being put. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...