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 650563
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Comment from Joe
by zima on Sat 4th Nov 2017 21:07 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment from Joe"
zima
Member since:
2005-07-06

Also not necesserilly the case. ;) The left is more likely to protect rights and freedoms of minority groups like gays or unemployed, so that's about the individual. OTOH the right is for example more into religion, which is the essence of collectivism.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment from Joe
by judgen on Mon 6th Nov 2017 08:29 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment from Joe"
judgen Member since:
2006-07-12

The left protecting minorities? Do not make me laugh. Mao in PRC, Pol Pot in Kampuchea, Chaucescu in Romania and so on paints a good picture on how the left treats minorities once in power.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment from Joe
by zima on Wed 8th Nov 2017 14:51 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment from Joe"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

I gave specific and verifiable mainstream examples... You picked the most extreme examples (and not very accurate - majority of people had it hard under most of those regimes; plus arguably, many of those merely claimed to be on the left; so why aren't you against democracy, since many soviet-block countries had "democratic" in their names; or why didn't you mention the nazis, since they placed "socialist" in their name NSDAP as part of propaganda?)

Meanwhile, you princess live comfortably, sheltered and cozy in one of generally ~left nordic welfare states... (and who knows, I might yet become a ~refugee of sorts in one of them ;) ...largely because I, an individual, will be treated there much better than in my so called "home" country)

Reply Parent Score: 2