The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > UN Security Council moves to end anonymity on Internet > Comments

UN Security Council moves to end anonymity on Internet : Comments

By David Singer, published 19/5/2016

The use of the Internet as a communications tool has been fuelled by the anonymity afforded to those who use it – enabling all kinds of hate and incitement to be spewed out daily.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. Page 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. 11
  13. ...
  14. 14
  15. 15
  16. 16
  17. All
You're contradicting yourself, Dave. On Monday it was ALL websites that you wanted to adopt your anti-privacy measures:

//Would you object if the following condition of publication was imposed by all web sites//

But on Tuesday, I am 'spot on' when I say that it would be acceptable if only some websites choose to do it:

//"I don't mind if some websites do it, I can just avoid those websites."

Spot on.//

So which do you really support, Dave? Some websites adopting your idea if they choose to, or all websites being required to adopt your idea whether they like it or not? You can't have it both ways - and only one of those ways is acceptable to people blessed with more common sense than righteous indignation.

//That too would hopefully deter many of the comments now being posted by the "trolls", "jerks" and "turds" (your words) on websites not being made or if made being rejected before they are published.//

Wait a second... it's okay if websites reject posts before they're published, but if they publish it and then reject (delete) it, that's not okay? Why is the order of such importance to you? If they delete the comment doesn't that send a clear message that offensive posts are unacceptable as well as removing them from the public domain? Sounds like it achieves the same goals regardless which order of publication and rejection come in. And since most websites (including this one) already have policies to delete offensive posts, it sounds like we don't need to change anything: the offensive comments of jerks will be rejected under the current system. It's just that for some perverse reason you don't want them to be. You wouldn't be one of these self-hating Jews we hear about would you Dave?

//The rest of your suggestion is mischievous because there is no requirement at present that people post their names and addresses on every internet site.//

But that's not what I said, was it Dave? What I said was:
Posted by Toni Lavis, Wednesday, 1 June 2016 11:38:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//requiring everyone who posts on our website to entrust us with sensitive personal details presents such a manifest risk to their privacy and security that we cannot, in good conscience, condone it.//

I'm beginning to suspect you are being deliberately obtuse when it comes to your apparent inability to comprehend the difference between websites publishing personal information, and websites obtaining said information and then having it nicked by hackers because it's not adequately secured.

I didn't say that people were required to POST their names and addresses. I pointed out that in order to post, people will be required to take the enormous risk of entrusting all websites they would like to use with sensitive personal data. Which the websites would naturally make every reasonable attempt to safeguard from ne'er-do-wells (e.g. not publishing it), but as I've already pointed out that's not an easy thing to do. Hackers live to get their hands on data they shouldn't have and which people have tried to safeguard from them. Often they succeed.

Since their data can't be safeguarded sensible people will do the sensible thing and avoid websites that have these requirements - which in your authoritarian fantasy is all of them. The internet will become a lifeless, empty place. A ghost internet. Do you think you'll enjoy it as much when it's just you and the tumbleweeds for company, Dave? What will you bitch and moan about then?

Put it this way, Dave: would you be happy to tell me your address and phone number? I promise not to misuse it or give it to anybody else or anything. Well, why not?

//On balance we seem to be reaching some form of agreement here with you, #armchair critic and #Yuyutsu all not objecting to some kind of restriction empowering any web site to not publish abusive, racist and offensive comments.//
Posted by Toni Lavis, Wednesday, 1 June 2016 11:39:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Once again you appear to be being deliberately obtuse. Yuyutsu probably objects to restrictions just on general principles, and I object strongly to your idiotic blanket restrictions being opposed to all websites. Any perceived agreement is in your imagination. Your idea is appallingly stupid and no reasonable person would ever support it.

Here's a suggestion, Dave: why don't you start your own website that imposes the very restriction you described? There's no law against that. You could make your own website just like OLO, only better, and with the restriction that participants have to give their details and hope you know enough about IT security to keep it safe (don't worry, you can hire a nerd to look after all the technical stuff - and hope that he knows his stuff well enough to keep out the hackers). Everyone who wants to play by your rules can go to your website, and the rest of us can keep doing things the sensible way. I suspect that you would have zero traffic, and that you'd probably really enjoy that - just imagine, Dave: a website of your very own where you can write whatever you want and there'll be nobody there to disagree with you. And if they do disagree with you you're in charge so you can evict them. Wouldn't that be nice for you?
Posted by Toni Lavis, Wednesday, 1 June 2016 11:41:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hey Toni,

Making a comment like that I'm going to have to request your personal address sorry...
I can assure you I don't mean any harm.

David's got the title wrong, this article should've actually been called 'Israel Moves To End Anonymity On The Internet'.

http://newobserveronline.com/israel-demands-world-internet-censorship/

http://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-eyes-world-coalition-to-force-social-media-platforms-to-block-incitement/

Also its a effort to stop Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/minister-boycott-movement-a-threat-to-the-whole-world/

I've decided that I will reduce my own comments on Davids threads and try not to inflame things with him as much these are the forum rules (plus he is a bit of a cry-baby anyway) and instead post quotes that others have said and link to those quotes.
This will make it a lot harder for David to intimidate and make threats the way he does.

Regarding BDS, this is a legitimate non-violent protest movement and its hypocritical for them to scream anti-Semitic hate speech when Jews themselves used and provoked Hitler with prior to WWII.

There's your first example I mentioned earlier too, David.
Its not anti-Semitic to point out real facts.

Did you all pay attention to what David did earlier?
He tried to trick everyone by creating a consensus on an issue most of you would agree with on face value, but which ultimately worked to limit everyone's speech under threat of prosecution, and that includes the owner of this site.
Posted by Armchair Critic, Friday, 3 June 2016 6:33:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"The Israeli Public Security Minister Gilard Erdan is out there saying that the world must censor the internet to block any criticisms of the actions of the government of Israel; because its just hate speech an its anti-Semitic because nobody would complain about anything Israel's doing if it were anybody but Jews doing it. They have bneen hammering that card so long it's wearing out, and that's why they are getting desperate."
"The first ammendment is there to recognises the right to criticise the government without fear of repercussion. And that means ANY GOVERNMENT ANYWHERE ON EARTH. That is our right, to criticise any government when they are wrong.
And they are trying to find some way they can trick the public into going along with this idea that instead of having freedom of speech we're going to have permitted speech.
We're only allowed to say positive things; and happy thoughts; and thats absolutely ridiculous."
"When you look at what's going on around the world, there's ample justification for criticising governments whether that of the United States, Great Britain, Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia; If we take away the ability to hold these governments to account for their actions they're only going to get worse, and more abusive."

Listen to the whole interview here at the What Really Happened radio show with Michael Rivero.

http://youtu.be/AhimCpF1FYs?t=1h2s
Posted by Armchair Critic, Friday, 3 June 2016 7:25:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
#Armchair critic

Nice to know you are now going to post links to articles supporting your opinions.

About time.

I do exactly that in my articles. Glad to know you are now onboard as well in wanting to do that.

Would that others follow your example.

Israel's action to try to stamp out incitement to violence on the internet has obviously resonated with the Security Council.

That in itself is groundbreaking. The Security Council usually doesn't have much time for listening to anything Israel says. Perhaps if it did the Middle East would not be enveloped in conflict and carnage as is presently occurring in Syria,Iraq, Libya,Lebanon and Yemen and millions of their hapless citizens would not be landing on Europe's beaches seeking asylum from the horrors visited on their countries.

You should contact the Security Council to demand the status quo on the internet be maintained. I obviously do not.

You might also like to direct me to any posts made by you anywhere in relation to any of the above conflicts

Pity you have immediately blotted your copybook with this throwaway unsubstantiated statement:
"Regarding BDS, this is a legitimate non-violent protest movement and its hypocritical for them to scream anti-Semitic hate speech when Jews themselves used and provoked Hitler with prior to WWII."

Can you direct me to any links to support this statement.

Seems it didn't take you five seconds to depart from your own welcome statement:

"I've decided that I will reduce my own comments on Davids threads and try not to inflame things with him as much these are the forum rules (plus he is a bit of a cry-baby anyway) and instead post quotes that others have said and link to those quotes.
This will make it a lot harder for David to intimidate and make threats the way he does."

The link or links please.
Posted by david singer, Friday, 3 June 2016 9:21:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. Page 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. 11
  13. ...
  14. 14
  15. 15
  16. 16
  17. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy