Nikki Haley vows to abolish anonymous social media accounts: 'It's a national security threat'

L4sBot@lemmy.worldmod to Technology@lemmy.world – 429 points – Nikki Haley vows to abolish anonymous social media accounts: 'It's a national security threat'
wpde.com

Nikki Haley vows to abolish anonymous social media accounts: 'It's a national security threat'::WPDE covers news, sports, weather, and local events in and around the Grand Strand, Pee Dee, and the Border Belt.

126

But she's fine with continuing the anonymous donations to all the PACs that fund her.

But that's different you see. Because money is speech and therefore needs to be protected, including by allowing total anonymity of donors. Whereas we're talking about online accounts, where people of course never engage in speech or express ideas. Hey, wait a second that can't be right. Hmmm, okay maybe it's because she's saying it's a security risk, because you don't know if they're a foreign national spreading propaganda online. This is totally different from political donations, which of course have never been bribes from foreign powers masked by anonymity... Hey wait! She got us again. Almost like she's some kind of shill who wipes her butt with the constitution while trying to create a crony supported facist state. No that can't be.

But yeah, according to Republicans, money is speech, but speech is not speech. I'm expecting their next campaign platform to be 2+2=5.

1 more...
1 more...

Republicans really hate privacy don't they. In 20 years theyre gonna ban bathroom doors so they can make sure the "right" people are in the "right" bathrooms.

We really aren't that far removed from codified segregation. I have parents, who grew up in the NE US, not even in the South, and they remember living with segregation. Separate bathrooms, separate water fountains, different entrances (if people of color were allowed in the establishment at all), etc etc

And they're really not that old. Go ask your parents (or grandparents if you're a little younger. Or both).

Such a move would lead to an increase in ā€œcivility,ā€ Haley believes. ā€œWhen they know their pastor, their family members can see it, it's going to help our kids and it's going to help our country," she said.

That's what everyone said about posting next to your real name on Facebook. How did that turn out?

Pretty good, actually. It was nice of the traitors to upload pictures of themselves in the act on Jan 6.

their pastor

Aren't they obliged to confess their sins to those anyway? Not that having that obligation stopped many from doing bad things anyway.

A pastor usually leads a Protestant church. Catholic churches are led by priests.

Confession of sins to (God though) a priest is a rite in the Catholic church, but not in Protestant churches. Protestant churches often encourage members to ask forgiveness for their sins directly to God through prayer.

There are more Catholics than protestants in the world, but there are more protestants than Catholics in the U.S. The type of Christianity most often associated with socially conservative Republican/MAGA primary voters is Protestant "evangelical" Christianity.

Evangelicals are a hardcore subset of Protestants who take the Bible literally. They're sometimes called "Born-again Christians" because of their belief in the importance of personal conversion. That is, you're not really a real Christian until, as an autonomous adult, you willingly choose to surrender yourself, mind body and soul, and devote your life to (your pastor's teachings about) the teachings of Jesus.

Anyway, now I've done an eight-hours-later four-paragraph TED-talk riff on what is otherwise quite a fine and clever comment. I mean no offense and hope none is taken. I mostly just wanted to note that when Nikki Haley talks about "pastors," she isn't talking to Catholics; she's talking directly to the GOP evangelical voter base.

Cheers for the insight, I didn't pick up on that difference, thought I would've known in my own vernacular.

I always admire the tenacity for a detailed in depth explanation, it bellies a passion for sharing knowledge.

It's telling that pastors are the first people she wants to see what people are saying. Got to keep those sinners in line.

Civility is code for "stop complaining about how we treat you". Jesse Gender has a pretty good video about civility politics (2hrs 21mins): https://youtu.be/-1TL9id26Ec

Yes yes think of the children how can we not when it's all you ever talk about

1 more...

I agree with Nimarata Hailey, everyone should use their real names in social media and everywhere

Ohhh the irony

Hey, you never know, maybe their real name is Meridian Longitude. I've never heard of Longitude as a last name but I wouldn't put it past some parents to name their kid Meridian.

lol that was sarcasm. Iā€™m not putting my real name on lemmy but I do think itā€™s funny she doesnā€™t use her real name either because her maga supporters would go nuts

I looked it up, and it's actually spelled Nimrata. Which is funny, because it sounds like it would be a romantic language's feminine form of nimrod.

That could be close to the actual etymology. I believe "Nimrod" is the name of a person in the Bible.

Nimrod is a biblical figure mentioned in the Book of Genesis and Books of Chronicles. The son of Cush and therefore a great-grandson of Noah, Nimrod was described as a king in the land of Shinar. The Bible states that he was "a mighty hunter before the Lord [and]... began to be mighty in the earth".

Some funny trivia with "might hunter": Bugs Bunny called Elmer Fudd nimrod, saying something like "nice shot, nimrod!" -- the insult was that Elmer was a bad hunter. But the obscure reference was lost on most people, much less a child audience (myself included), and so nimrod became a generic insult akin to "idiot" or "imbecile.

Maybe I've been playing too much Dwarf Fortress lately, but that quote reads so much like something you'd read in Legends mode lol

I would love to see how the Trump base would try to pronounce her real name.

Ah yes, more of that American freedom I hear so much about as an American.

This is some 00s level politicians not understanding how the Internet works.

Why even bother? It's not like anything is ever done about the non-anonymous threats we currently see. Ffs.

1 more...

Terrible idea. Look, the nerds set up the internet and from the beginning never used their real names. There's a reason for that.

So if these genius' knew better, Hayley should learn from that.

"I'm an internet Originalist. What did the founding nerds think? That's all that matters."

I enjoy this take quite a lot and will be using it myself.

As long as you take the metaphor to its natural end. That is, to only apply that test when it's convenient for you. Otherwise, ignore it completely.

The dumb part is this vow doesn't even make sense on the face of it to protect national security.

National security is now anyone's feelings about mean things.

What insecure nation

So she wants reddit and youtube like platforms to be named individuals. Is she going to then go after all the forums that still exist? If so, I guess I'll see you guys next in a Dialup BBS.

First they came for our shit post accounts, and I said nothing....

Don't anybody tell her that the Fediverse exists. It might break her brain.

So how is she going to make them non-anonymous in a way that businesses can properly verify identity? Does every single social media site need to have its own ID analysis system for every state-ID? I mean that seems like it would be ridiculously hard.

For that to be practical, they'd need something nation-wide, and probably digital.

So, does she want to suggest to her fanbase a national digital ID? How would htat go?

To be fair, we all already use a national id with the social security numbers.

So pretty simply, the government would set up a SS number verification API, tech companies would call that, and use it to verify who you are.

It's a terrible idea and I hate it, but that's probably how it would work.

Great so only us citizens can use the internet?

What if they ban you from the internet? Should that even be possible if youā€™re not breaking the law?

This seems like the most anti American fascist thing Iā€™ve heard in a while and that really says something.

Except SS is a terrible form of authentication that is compromised already by the credit-reporting agencies for a significant fraction of American citizens.

Fuck that. We need to move away from using SSN for literally every-fucking-thing

It's funny because the SS card explicitly states it shouldn't be used for identification purposes.

Yes. I'm wondering if the identity would need to be verified and known/published to the social media site, or just verified to confirm not some Russian disinformation troll. Is there a way to use tokens, or hashes to allow a website to confirm if multiple accounts are the same user without knowing who the users are. I hate this all too, but if it had to be done maybe there's a way to still protect some anonymity but allow verification. If the issue is national security, I imagine we are just talking about catching foreign bad actors.

An ID card, with a tattoo of a QR code for scanning. Christians will love that. Something something mark, something something beast. Haha

It wouldn't be difficult. Online age verification systems already exist for stuff like vaping supplies.

In some countries this would be dead simple; look at the nordics, where there are government supported, nationwide systems that verifies identity (you have to physically show up with your passport to collect your set up log in details).

Iā€™d be quite happy if social media offered a way to link your identity in this way, but itā€™s quite a stretch to mandate it.

"Every political donation should be verified by their name. Itā€™s a national security threat," she said. "When you do that, all of a sudden people have to stand by what they say and it gets rid of the Russian bots, the Iranian bots and the Chinese bots."

"Verified" bot accounts incoming, lol. Looking back at Reddit, and now at X, I am absolutely certain that the only people unable to get verified accounts will be people.

This will help me afford a home! This will help me afford kids! This will make me feel safe at traffic stops! This will help my union at work! This will help our extreme temperature swings!

Agree with her views on algorithm transparency, however abolishing anonymous accounts won't improve the situation around misinformation.

Facebook has required your real name for a long time, and it still resorted into people dissecting into echo chambers supporting their views points.

Yes, anonymous accounts allow people to hide behind a mask, but a lot of people spreading misinformation aren't afraid of being humiliated or ridiculed. It even helps spread it faster (celebrities, influencers, etc) in a lot of situations.

There are people who will defend this

There was a petition for the UK Parliament to implement what this politician wants by requiring verification for accounts (Piers Morgan was endorsing it iirc), and I believe a petition to not implement it under the pretense of it harming transgender individuals (e.g. deadnaming, having to come out to a stranger for verification).

Parliament did respond saying such legislation would stifle the freedom of expression, which is true, but it doesn't matter when the UK has other legislation doing the same thing.

Ok as a trans person yeah we were my first thought, but my immediate second was abuse victims. Making cyberstalking easier will get people hurt, though from what Iā€™ve seen of the far right, for some of them thatā€™s the point.

The same people who say they have nothing to hide.

She doesn't have enough support for anybody to defend it.

Show us your Pornhub account, Nikki

How are you going to disable anonymous accounts? You can always be anonymous if you want, meaning that this ends, AGAIN, with normies not having anonymous access and nerds and criminals still having anonymous access

I'm game for this...Republicans would disappear from the net overnight if they had to use their real names.

I wish that were true but what actually happens is some people are nicer, but asshats are still asshats. People who might have called an asshat an asshat, now just respond politely, but the asshats grow more bold.

So what you'll get is any sense of reasonable Republican to quiet down, and the worst Republicans to speak louder.

Trump can call people vermin and Republicans celebrate. Biden responds that such language is Nazi-like, since we can't call him an actual Nazi, and Republicans scream back that Biden is overreacting.

Right? This is another in a hilarious series of self-owns. The vast majority of problematic accounts are right wing assholes.

Seriously. They are too cowardly to even use their main accounts. A lot of them have alts because they know they're unpopular.

Yup. Wouldnā€™t put it past her to be targeting Trans kids who are seeking help anonymously though.

Repugnantcants need it easier to dox harras and threaten people they dissagree with while claiming its the OTHER group ruining everything.

How exactly does she believe they're going to accomplish this? Serious question cause it doesn't seem possible from where I'm sitting, anonymously.

You would go after the platforms. Make it more expensive to resist than to cooperate, and the big ones will roll over... you might even add in a carrot by giving them some legal protections or promises of data purchasing contracts

From there you make examples of smaller sites that start to gain traction, and developers will get scared to do otherwise

I don't think it could happen now, but it's certainly achievable. Especially since large platforms like the idea - it makes their data much more valuable and gives them more control.

After a couple years of getting the public ready for the idea? It's entirely possible unfortunately

that bitch take away her name privileges i will not associate with her

without anonymous i am not really using the internet

Wait, your real name isn't nutsack? Now see here, what exactly are you playing at bub?

all this just to find the person with a Vegeta avatar that clowned on them on Twitter or whatever

As long as it's primary season and we're workshopping far right brain farts ... free guns for all kindergartners? Make dogs wear pants? NBA but for white people? Grammy category for songs about how things used to be better?

@L4s This dumb broad would need to ban the Federalist Papers, too, since they were anonymous.

McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission ~>

"Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority [.....] It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation [.....] at the hand of an intolerant society."

www.eff.org/issues/anonymity

Tricky Nikki said:

"Every person on social media should be verified by their name. Itā€™s a national security threat," she said. "When you do that, all of a sudden people have to stand by what they say and it gets rid of the Russian bots, the Iranian bots and the Chinese bots."

Her handlers just want to control all narratives. She doesn't care about Russian bots. Nikki Haley is a bot.

What a weak nation. Even internet trolls are security threat to it.

I'm gonna be interested how that's supposed to work with false positives, err, collateral damage, err, plausibly deniable canceling of free speech of citizens. Nice try.

What a dumb cunt.

  1. I wish people wouldn't use that word. It's just propagating the patriarchy.

  2. She's actually a pretty smart person. I'll give you evil. She knows how's she's manipulating people and that this is a bad plan, which is frankly much worse than just being dumb.

This is idiotic but it did make me think, would you end up with like... some sort of MAD policy but for doxxing? If everyone can be doxxed then no one can be doxxed?

Would love this. Social media is a cancer affecting the whole world.

The way I feel about this is similar to how I feel about getting rid of all guns. It would definitely make the country safer on the whole, but it would also endanger the vulnerable and violate the bill of rights. It would also be government overreach.

Unpopular opinion: internet discourse would be slightly more civil if peopleā€™s real names were attached to their Internet Hot Takes.

But yeah, have fun enforcing that, Nikki.

I dunno. Iā€™ve seen some pretty abhorrent shit over Facebook throughout the years.

Yeah Facebook radicalized a lot of people all with their names attached. People fucking showed their face while attempting a coup. Weā€™ve got some real fucking idiots in America

internet discourse would be slightly more civil if peopleā€™s real names were attached to their Internet Hot Takes.

Let's say that you're right. Everyone's words are now connected to their identities. Instead of expressing themselves openly, people now censor themselves because they're afraid of how their family will react when they talk about wanting to transition, they're afraid of how their social activities will be judged by future employers, and they're generally afraid to make any mistakes that might be held against them for the rest of their lives because it's difficult to remove information from the internet once it's there. Is this a better world? Politeness through fear and surveillance?

I donā€™t disagree with you. But thereā€™s also a flip side. Nazis and other bigots wouldnā€™t be so open in their bigotry, which could lead to them recruiting fewer people to their cause. Also, state actors such as Russia and China wouldnā€™t be able to sow mis- and disinformation so readily.

For the record, I believe Nikkiā€™s plan is dumb and will never, ever happen. Iā€™m just using my imagination to see some potential for benefits.

Got a wake up call for you

They would only enforce it against the ones speaking out against the bigots and nazis.

This is a way to track online dissidents who will be a threat to project 2025

Yes a social score is required for a healthy life. -China

internet discourse would be slightly more civil if peopleā€™s real names were attached

It was that way in the very beginning of the internet (before www and during the first years of www).

Everthing was relatively civil, and most people went by real names or by mostly well-known nicknames/pseudonyms.

Then money moved in and took control. Anonymity (as opposed to pseudonymity) became neccessary sometimes.

Then huge waves of stupid people moved in and believed that they were in control. Anonymity and pseudonymity was everywhere (and hardly anyone knew the difference).

The bad news: Neither money nor stupid people have any plans to move out.