Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 1st Nov 2017 23:33 UTC
Internet & Networking

This week, representatives from Google, Facebook, and Twitter are appearing before House and Senate subcommittees to answer for their role in Russian manipulation during the 2016 election, and so far, the questioning has been brutal. Facebook has taken the bulk of the heat, being publicly called out by members of Congress for missing a wave of Russian activity until months after the election.

But one of the most interesting parts of yesterday's proceedings actually came after the big companies had left the room, and a national security researcher named Clint Watts took the floor. Watts is one of the most respected figures in the nascent field of social media manipulation - and when it came time to diagnose root of Russia's platform meddling, he put much of the blame on the decision to allow anonymous accounts. As long as Russian operatives can get on Twitter and Facebook without identifying themselves, Watts diagnosed, foreign actors will be able to quietly influence our politics.

I decided to keep this particular part of the hearings currently underway out of the previous item I posted because I feel it's too important not to be discussed on its own merit. The concept of anonymity online is a complex issue, and instinctively, I want to say it's one of the greatest things about the internet. What part of it are we willing to give up - assuming we still have it or parts of it to begin with - to prevent dictators like Putin from meddling with our elections?

Thread beginning with comment 650485
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by Lazarus
by Lazarus on Thu 2nd Nov 2017 00:09 UTC
Lazarus
Member since:
2005-08-10

Banning online anonymity only benefits people in power. You bet it'll be pushed hard.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Comment by Lazarus
by blockplanning on Thu 2nd Nov 2017 00:27 in reply to "Comment by Lazarus"
blockplanning Member since:
2015-03-22

I think that's an awfully inaccurate generalization; victims of cyber-bullying and online harassment are relatively powerless and would benefit significantly from a persistent online identify.

Persistent online identity shifts potential for abuse towards powerful people, but it benefits everybody.

Whether or not it's a good thing depends entirely on how trustworthy authority is relative to the general population.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by Lazarus
by Lazarus on Thu 2nd Nov 2017 00:46 in reply to "RE: Comment by Lazarus"
Lazarus Member since:
2005-08-10

Getting rid of anonymity will not get rid of bullying.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by Lazarus
by Brendan on Thu 2nd Nov 2017 22:51 in reply to "RE: Comment by Lazarus"
Brendan Member since:
2005-11-16

Hi,

I think that's an awfully inaccurate generalization; victims of cyber-bullying and online harassment are relatively powerless and would benefit significantly from a persistent online identify.


That's only scratching the surface - it'd also help to stop spammers, scammers, identity thieves, malware creators and a lot of other cyber-crime; where currently it's too hard to find the person responsible and virtually impossible to block them.

Ironically; for rigging elections it's like worrying about a small paper-cut on your finger while your legs are being shredded. Voters are routinely manipulated by deceitful marketing by almost everyone including the candidates and their parties, large companies, etc (and then after the election there's the whole "represent the lobby groups and not the people" problem). Why shouldn't Russia be allowed to participate in the farce that the democratic process has become? It can't make anything worse!

- Brendan

Reply Parent Score: 5