Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Republicans Social Networks The Almighty Buck

Republican Presidential Candidates Debate Anonymity on Social Media (cnbc.com) 174

Four Republican candidates for U.S. president debated Wednesday — and moderator Megyn Kelly had a tough question for former South Carolina governor Nikki Haley. "Can you please speak to the requirement that you said that every anonymous internet user needs to out themselves?" Nikki Haley: What I said was, that social media companies need to show us their algorithms. I also said there are millions of bots on social media right now. They're foreign, they're Chinese, they're Iranian. I will always fight for freedom of speech for Americans; we do not need freedom of speech for Russians and Iranians and Hamas. We need social media companies to go and fight back on all of these bots that are happening. That's what I said.

As a mom, do I think social media would be more civil if we went and had people's names next to that? Yes, I do think that, because I think we've got too much cyberbullying, I think we've got child pornography and all of those things. But having said that, I never said government should go and require anyone's name.

DeSantis: That's false.

Haley: What I said —

DeSantis:You said I want your name. As president of the United States, her first day in office, she said one of the first things I'm going to do --

Haley: I said we were going to get the millions of bots.

DeSantis: "All social medias? I want your name." A government i.d. to dox every American. That's what she said. You can roll the tape. She said I want your name — and that was going to be one of the first things she did in office. And then she got real serious blowback — and understandably so, because it would be a massive expansion of government. We have anonymous speech. The Federalist Papers were written with anonymous writers — Jay, Madison, and Hamilton, they went under "Publius". It's something that's important — and especially given how conservatives have been attacked and they've lost jobs and they've been cancelled. You know the regime would use that to weaponize that against our own people. It was a bad idea, and she should own up to it.

Haley: This cracks me up, because Ron is so hypocritical, because he actually went and tried to push a law that would stop anonymous people from talking to the press, and went so far to say bloggers should have to register with the state --

DeSantis:That's not true.

Haley: — if they're going to write about elected officials. It was in the — check your newpaper. It was absolutely there.

DeSantis quickly attributed the introduction of that legislation to "some legislator".

The press had already extensively written about Haley's position on anonymity on social media. Three weeks ago Business Insider covered a Fox News interview, and quoted Nikki Haley as saying: "When I get into office, the first thing we have to do, social media companies, they have to show America their algorithms. Let us see why they're pushing what they're pushing. The second thing is every person on social media should be verified by their name." Haley said this was why her proposals would be necessary to counter the "national security threat" posed by anonymous social media accounts and social media bots. "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," Haley said. "And then you're gonna get some civility when people know their name is next to what they say, and they know their pastor and their family member's gonna see it. It's gonna help our kids and it's gonna help our country," she continued... A representative for the Haley campaign told Business Insider that Haley's proposals were "common sense."

"We all know that America's enemies use anonymous bots to spread anti-American lies and sow chaos and division within our borders. Nikki believes social media companies need to do a better job of verifying users so we can crack down on Chinese, Iranian, and Russian bots," the representative said.

The next day CNBC reported that Haley "appeared to add a caveat... suggesting Wednesday that Americans should still be allowed to post anonymously online." A spokesperson for Haley's campaign added, "Social media companies need to do a better job of verifying users as human in order to crack down on anonymous foreign bots. We can do this while protecting America's right to free speech and Americans who post anonymously."

Privacy issues had also come up just five minutes earlier in the debate. In March America's Treasury Secretary had recommended the country "advance policy and technical work on a potential central bank digital currency, or CBDC, so the U.S. is prepared if CBDC is determined to be in the national interest."

But Florida governor Ron DeSantis spoke out forecefully against the possibility. "They want to get rid of cash, crypto, they want to force you to do that. They'll take away your privacy. They will absolutely regulate your purchases. On Day One as president, we take the idea of Central Bank Digital Currency, and we throw it in the trash can. It'll be dead on arrival." [The audience applauded.]
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Republican Presidential Candidates Debate Anonymity on Social Media

Comments Filter:
  • by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Sunday December 10, 2023 @07:36AM (#64070365)

    Whoever loses.

    We win.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      And whoever wins, we lose. Politicial are all a bunch of self-serving assholes.

      • by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Sunday December 10, 2023 @09:56AM (#64070551)

        And that's the difference between a candidate debate and a double act.

        In a double act, there's a straight man and a banana man, where the banana man comes across as a dolt with the straight man being the intelligent one, but during the very entertaining exchange between them, it becomes obvious that the straight man isn't as smart as he appeared and he eventually is the loser.

        In a candidate debate, two banana men who try to appear as straight men have a not quite so entertaining exchange between them where it becomes obvious that they are not as intelligent as they want to appear, but in the end you also know that no matter which one you choose, you'll be the loser.

    • by taustin ( 171655 )

      None of these people have the faintest hope of getting the Republican nomination. Zero, zilch, nada, none. Trump already has the nomination sewed up, and the more the also-rans vie for the spot, the more securely Trump has it sewed up. The smart ones know that, and are vying for the VP spot. Most of them have no clue.

      Next election is going to be one of the most hated people in the US against a senile old man who isn't aware of whether or not he's wearing pants.

      Again.

      • by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Sunday December 10, 2023 @01:35PM (#64071041)

        It's one of those elections where someone could hold a gun to your temple and say "Ok, choose!" and the only thing you could reply is "To hell with it, shoot".

      • I have broken more Elton John records. He seems to have a lot of records. And I, by the way, I donâ(TM)t have a musical instrument. I donâ(TM)t have a guitar or an organ. No organ. Elton has an organ. And lots of other people helping. No, weâ(TM)ve broken a lot of records. Weâ(TM)ve broken virtually every record. Because you know, look, I only need this space. They need much more room. For basketball, for hockey and all of the sports, they need a lot of room. We donâ(TM)t need it. We have people in that space. So we break all of these records. Really, we do it without, like, the musical instruments. This is the only musical â" the mouth. And hopefully the brain attached to the mouth, right? The brain. More important than the mouth is the brain. The brain is much more important.

        It's a testament to the effectiveness of right wing propaganda that people think Trump isn't, at a minimum, as senile and addled as Biden. There's many more quotes as bad as the above. Go on, tell me with a straight fucking face Trump isn't duller than Biden, especially when 90% of what you idiots claim is senility is just Biden's lifelong stuttering and foot-in-mouth problem. If Biden isn't aware he's wearing pants, Trump isn't aware what year it is, where he is, or capable of doing anything besides being

  • by bsolar ( 1176767 ) on Sunday December 10, 2023 @07:46AM (#64070381)

    I will always fight for freedom of speech for Americans; we do not need freedom of speech for Russians and Iranians and Hamas.

    Except the Constitution actually does not distinguish between citizens and non-citizens in respect to freedom of speech.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by burtosis ( 1124179 )

      Except the Constitution actually does not distinguish between citizens and non-citizens in respect to freedom of speech.

      It does mention people though, and it is a restriction on the government not a duty to force others to host or otherwise associate themselves with speech and individuals they don’t like. If we want first amendments baked into speech on the internet, the government needs to host it because they are legally required to uphold all amendments including the 4th.

      • Except the Constitution actually does not distinguish between citizens and non-citizens in respect to freedom of speech.

        It does mention people though, ...

        A useful point. The quote selected was clipped to leave out the sentences before and after:
        "I also said there are millions of bots on social media right now. They're foreign, they're Chinese, they're Iranian. ...We need social media companies to go and fight back on all of these bots that are happening."

        • I also said there are millions of bots on social media right now. They're foreign, they're Chinese, they're Iranian. ...We need social media companies to go and fight back on all of these bots that are happening."

          Haley is only worried about the bots because they are foreign, not because they are bots, the Five Eyes Countries really don't care because their technologies are well past simple Bots, they have direct feeds into the Social Media streams. They only get subpoenas to obfuscate have much access they have.

      • So, you're saying we need to have a corporation run the bots to grant them full legal rights and personhood?

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Sunday December 10, 2023 @08:25AM (#64070425) Homepage Journal

      I didn't think that that the case, given how the US treats non-citizens, but apparently it is. I learned that from classic Star Trek episode The Omega Glory, which is terrible even by parallel-Earth episode standards, but does have a speech at the end where Kirk reminds the parallel US that the constitution applies to everyone or its words are meaningless.

      • True, nowhere does it mention speech by computer program can’t be curtailed as people are mentioned. That said it’s a restriction on the government so if we want first amendment rights backed into speech on the internet then the government needs to host it. The government would be legally bound to uphold all amendments. Of course as you point out the legal system needs some work to say the least.
      • I didn't think that that the case, given how the US treats non-citizens

        You must be thinking of the UK, where seditious speech is no longer illegal for citizens, but it still is for everyone else.

      • It is pretty clear where it does mean 'everyone' and where it means only 'citizens'.
        https://scholarship.law.george... [georgetown.edu]

        Genuine question: how, precisely, does the US 'treat non citizens' in any way worse than other countries?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      Except the Constitution actually does not distinguish between citizens and non-citizens in respect to freedom of speech.

      It sure as heck prescribes a specific geographical boundary.

      "We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America."

    • by Registered Coward v2 ( 447531 ) on Sunday December 10, 2023 @09:17AM (#64070501)

      I will always fight for freedom of speech for Americans; we do not need freedom of speech for Russians and Iranians and Hamas.

      Except the Constitution actually does not distinguish between citizens and non-citizens in respect to freedom of speech.

      I guess the questions would be:

      1. Are Constitutional Protections extra-territorial? In other words, can someone not in the US and not a US citizen exert a First Amendment right if they are not located in the US?

      2. Does accessing a US server from outside the US via the Internet constitute being in the US and thus having a First Amendment right?

      Finally, does an ID law infringe on the services First Amendment rights since it potential is prior restraint by establishing conditions to be able to speak?

      • I will always fight for freedom of speech for Americans; we do not need freedom of speech for Russians and Iranians and Hamas.

        Except the Constitution actually does not distinguish between citizens and non-citizens in respect to freedom of speech.

        I guess the questions would be:

        1. Are Constitutional Protections extra-territorial? In other words, can someone not in the US and not a US citizen exert a First Amendment right if they are not located in the US?

        2. Does accessing a US server from outside the US via the Internet constitute being in the US and thus having a First Amendment right?

        Finally, does an ID law infringe on the services First Amendment rights since it potential is prior restraint by establishing conditions to be able to speak?

        To your point 1, it would seem that freedom of speech extends to all people worldwide, as per the constitution.

        That being said, the constitution lists rights that are protected by the US federal government and of course the US government has no authority in other countries.

        This came up recently with the supreme court decision on abortion, where it was held that since abortion was not specifically mentioned in the constitution, and it was not considered a common-law right before the constitution, it was not

        • by bsolar ( 1176767 )

          That being said, the constitution lists rights that are protected by the US federal government and of course the US government has no authority in other countries.

          But the US goverment can still act outside of the US, so the question is "when it does, it's still bound to the constitution"? The answer is clearly "yes", see e.g. Boumediene v. Bush: [justia.com]

          The federal government is subject to the Constitution even when it acts outside U.S. borders.

      • Different rights are treated differently for different people. e.g. non-citizens in the US don't have a right to keep and bear arms because the purpose of the amendment is to provide for the national defense, but they do have a right to free speech because the purpose of that right is to provide for people's personal and inherent right to an opinion. People all over the world have a right to free speech which protects them from US reprisal on that basis. But then again, that right doesn't protect you when s

      • The Preamble of The Declaration of Independence states

        We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness.

        They are NOT rights granted by the Constitution, limited to Citizenship or territoriality, they are rights INHERENT to Mankind that the US Government is specifically prohibited from interfering with.

    • "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

      "The people" is an old way of saying "citizens". It comes from the starting part of "We the People of the United States". It does distinguish between citizens and non-citizens.

      https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/
      • You need to actually read the amendment you quoted, the only right it gives to just "the people" are the rights to freely assemble and to petition the government. It does not mention "the people" when giving the right to free speech or any of the other rights.

        If you think that "the people" somehow applies to the previous clauses, then you need lessons in basic grammar.

    • by taustin ( 171655 )

      Except the Constitution actually does not distinguish between citizens and non-citizens in respect to freedom of speech.

      It also doesn't apply outside the US, despite the insane fantasies of some politicians (on both sides).

  • Anonymity (Score:2, Interesting)

    by quenda ( 644621 )

    I'm so old, I remember when everyone's internet posts had not just their real names, but email address and office phone number attached (vi a .signature file).
    People think twice before posting with their real names.

    I am not proposing mandating that, but it sure was a more civilised age. No spams, no scams. And if you gave incorrect advice, somebody would correct it - perhaps not diplomatically, but not abusive.
    OK, there were some exceptions, such as soc.culture.palestine. Some things never change :(

    • by dfm3 ( 830843 )
      That first month the internet existed was really nice, it was back one August if I recall...

      Things may not have been like that at first but were inevitable as the internet scaled up. Names and signatures can be faked. Even if there had been very robust systems in place from the very beginning to prevent anonymity, people would have worked to find ways around it. There will always be scammers and people trying to abuse any system in an attempt to make money.
    • Re:Anonymity (Score:5, Insightful)

      by JaredOfEuropa ( 526365 ) on Sunday December 10, 2023 @08:56AM (#64070469) Journal
      Giving up online anonymity would make it more civilized, for sure. I prefer to call it sanitized, though. There are plenty of things I post online that I would not post if my real name was attached. That is not because those posts are impolite or crass, or hateful. They are not insulting nor inflammatory, and I stand behind each and every one of them. But I would not post them under my real name because these days, having the "wrong" opinion with the wrong crowd can land you in real trouble, and affect your social standing, career or even physical safety.
      • Re:Anonymity (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Calydor ( 739835 ) on Sunday December 10, 2023 @09:02AM (#64070479)

        Not to mention the very real cases of eg. gays who haven't yet come out, either because they haven't had the courage to do so or because they know with certainty they would lose their friends, family, home, or anything else. They would no longer be able to seek like-minded individuals for support online because they'd have to attach their names to any such posts.

        • because they know with certainty they would lose their friends, family, home, or anything else.

          The issue is more fundamental. Do you think it is better to live in a lie or to lose a friend? Yeah there are toxic homophobic shits out there. But there are also kind loving people who don't care where you stick your dong. Maybe the real solution is to seek out friends who will be your friends rather than lie to those who would give you up over such things.

          We are becoming a fake species, pandering and lying our way rather than expressing who we are or what we think. We fear reprisal rather than actively fi

      • Anonymity didnâ(TM)t stop cyberbullying. Try being under 18 these days, it can be brutal, and definitely not necessarily anonymous.

        • by PPH ( 736903 )

          But pure anonymity doesn't do people any good in a world where they are trying to build a reputation around their identity. Or pseudonymous identity. You can't build an online 'rep' or accumulate likes if you are truly anonymous.

          On the other hand, anonymity plays very well into the hands of the bullies. Witness the number of IDs that have appeared right here on /. who just lurk, accumulate mod points, use them to push some agenda or just knock down someone they don't like. And then promptly disappear. The

      • There are plenty of things I post online that I would not post if my real name was attached.

        This is fundamentally a problem. For two reasons, including one you state. We are in a world where online anonymity leads to two things:
        a) toxic pieces of shit showing their true colours, only pretending to be civilised due to the threat of punishment.
        b) cowardice, where people have such little conviction in their belief they will not stand by what they say for fear of being judged.

        Regardless of the outcome to the person, the outcome to society is horrendous. We're literally developing into fake people, pan

    • Gary Thuerk reportedly sent the first spam email in 1978. How far back are you going?
    • I'm so old, I remember when everyone's internet posts had not just their real names, but email address and office phone number attached (vi a .signature file). People think twice before posting with their real names. I am not proposing mandating that, but it sure was a more civilised age.

      https://www.penny-arcade.com/c... [penny-arcade.com]

      • Today, it would result in an age of self-censoring because people would be afraid that some looney with too much time on their hand makes it their agenda to make your life miserable. It already happens enough online where people, even here, can't post in peace because a slew of morons have nothing better to do than to slander them whenever they post anything.

        Now imagine that, but not on some board nobody gives a fuck about but in your real life, affecting your real livelihood.

        • by XXongo ( 3986865 )

          Today, it would result in an age of self-censoring because people would be afraid that some looney with too much time on their hand makes it their agenda to make your life miserable. It already happens enough online where people, even here, can't post in peace because a slew of morons have nothing better to do than to slander them whenever they post anything.

          Yes and no. Those "slew of morons" would also have their names non-anonymized. So the rape threats and death threats and "I'm going to kill your children" threats would no longer be anoymous.

          • Since they're thriving on a persecution complex, they certainly wouldn't mind that.

            • by XXongo ( 3986865 )

              Since they're thriving on a persecution complex, they certainly wouldn't mind that.

              It would greatly cut down the actual death threats, which would be a great boon to free speech.

    • Those days were long in the past the first time I got on the internet. Anonymous accounts weren't that rare or really difficult to acquire.

      In 1991. Before the web had pictures that displayed in a browser.

      Not sure why you're nostalgic for those times, the internet was somewhat useful then, but absolutely sucked compared to now.

    • The reason for this is simple. There are way too many people with way too much time and way too little real problems who make it their agenda to make your life miserable if they disagree with you but are too stupid to counter their arguments.

      It's basically school bullying on an internet level. I can't argue with you, so I beat you up.

    • by taustin ( 171655 )

      You remember a completely different internet than I do. The only real difference is that that abuse has been automated, and thus, happens on a vaster scale. But the nature of it is largely the same.

      • by quenda ( 644621 )

        You remember a completely different internet than I do.

        Maybe you are new. The golden age is often regarded as before September 1993, when AOL brought its teeming hordes to the Internet. This was also the year that NCSA Mosaic was released.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

  • by FudRucker ( 866063 ) on Sunday December 10, 2023 @07:59AM (#64070389)
    the bias leans in favor of those that own & control the social media platform, and to pretend its not shows the user is ignorant of human nature which proves itself everyday in various clever ways, i know many of my comments get ghosted because they don't jive with the owner's desired dialog, i refuse to change my opinion to satisfy some other person i don't ecen know and would probably not even like anyway
  • by iAmWaySmarterThanYou ( 10095012 ) on Sunday December 10, 2023 @08:13AM (#64070399)

    It matters only in the sense that each of them has a _small_ following but overall no, not in any significant legal, political or social way.

    The only reason their message is getting out right now is they're candidates for President but when all combined poll lower than "that other guy" none of them is going to be the candidate. Love him, hate him, doesn't matter, the R primaries were over the day he announced.

    As far as anonymity on the net, yes it is critical that anonymity is an option. Without that we'd see people with important messages clam up because long before their message got life and spread there'd be jackboots at their door destroying their life. Yes anonymous posting does allow trolls and liars and spam and the rest but those are a small price to pay to provide a way to safely counter the government's lies.

    No matter how much I liked a candidate's other ideas I would never ever vote for someone who had any plan at all in anyway to strip anonymity.
    Freedom first.

  • by Mr. Dollar Ton ( 5495648 ) on Sunday December 10, 2023 @08:52AM (#64070465)

    I will always fight for freedom of speech for Americans; we do not need freedom of speech for Russians and Iranians and Hamas.

    Of course, we know what she really means, but is a bit uncomfortable saying out loud.

  • Allow anonymity and pseudonymity but mandate systems exist for proper ID verification for any online systems where real world PII is being deliberately collected. Then all one has to do is let the free market decide the rest.

    The end result will be greater privacy for everyone. Companies which do not need your real identity info will stop collecting it and will likely find a large influx of people who want to keep their private real lives separate from their online shitposts. On the flip side, those who o
    • "Proper ID verification"... how?

      You are aware that the biggest disinformation problem on social media are state sponsored bullshit peddlers, right? You really think they'd have a problem providing "proper ID verification"?

      It doesn't change a thing if you let the fox guard the chicken den.

  • by XXongo ( 3986865 ) on Sunday December 10, 2023 @09:45AM (#64070537) Homepage
    It is amusing; deSantis is hammering Haley about not allowing anonynmity on the net, but indeed, he is the governor of the state introducing a bill to de-anonymize bloggers who criticize him. https://news.slashdot.org/stor... [slashdot.org]
    • Governors don't control what bills Congress introduces. It's called separation of powers. Is there any evidence DeSantis actually was part of developing this bill or that he supports it?

      • by XXongo ( 3986865 )

        Governors don't control what bills Congress [i.e., the state legislature] introduces. It's called separation of powers.

        In principle they don't. In the real world, when the legislature is the same party as the governor, they very much do.

    • Rules for thee, not for me!

    • by Entrope ( 68843 )

      That bill died in committee [flsenate.gov] because it was the idea of one random legislator and didn't have support from other Republicans.

  • Yeah, when I heard Nikki say that, I was horrified. Thankfully, I don't think the overwhelming majority of candidates feel that way at all.

    An important part of freedom of expression/speech is the ability to post anonymously if you choose. Yes, there is a LOT of noise and garbage and nasty stuff posted by anonymous people. But that doesn't mean it should be completely banned. There are times it is truly needed. For example, to prevent the tyranny of the majority. When coupled with user-based moderatio

    • All of the candidates (including Biden and whoever may attempt to run against him in Democrat primaries) will happily dox someone. The conditions will vary from one candidate to the next. Haley seems intent on doxxing everyone.

  • Google and Cloudflare actively work on software with the intend to deanonymize website users without their knowledge. What you think are all those recaptchas for? And they plan to get rid of cookies so you cannot even control them by deleting files.

    If you want to preserve anonymity, start with the pros.

  • They all want a police state. They absolutely love the idea of having complete control over the citizens. Caring about freedom is just an act they put forth to get in to power. Some of the worst regimes in history started out pandering to citizens. Both have said things that are pretty counter to the freedoms laid out in our constitution...but when they're on a bigger stage they claim they didn't. It's the standard political move.

    Don't worry..we'll go through our fascist regime soon. We're too much of a div

  • by RossCWilliams ( 5513152 ) on Sunday December 10, 2023 @11:51AM (#64070757)
    Haley is an authoritarian. That is what her "as a mom" comments really indicate. But these arguments about what somebody said are stupid. What is important is what they will actually do or intend to do. If they say something that taken literally isn't what they intend, the media and politicians can play games with it. But the rest of us ought to ignore it.
  • so long as they agree with it. These are people who would support Blasphemy laws if they could get away with it, and several of them have been caught supporting those laws (of course only for their God).

    Every single person on that stage was either a Christian Nationalist or more than happy to implement Christian Nationalism. Yes, even Ramaswamy.

    The Nazis were all in on free speech before they were in power too. Seriously, look it up.

    I'm not saying we take their speech rights away. Good people al
    • Also true of the left. Hence, we can conclude that all are for free speech as long as they agree with it. The complement is vanishingly small.

      • Can you list 10 things the left wants censored?
        And I mean most of the left, not just a small group or loud internet people.

  • These people lead such sheltered lives that they have no idea what goes on. Even right here on /., if I were doxxed, I'd probably have (metaphorical) torch-carriers at my door in short order.

  • by lennier1 ( 264730 ) on Sunday December 10, 2023 @01:17PM (#64070997)

    Brought to you by the same party that just had the faces of domestic terrorists blurred on the Jan. 6 footage because someone might identify them and inform law enforcement to punish crimes?

  • to protect them on the internet - and don't give me that garbage about 'it takes a villige' after all you didnt ask the villiage before having a child and if we are willing to give up our annomity on the internet,
  • Fight misinformation with truth. Fight propaganda with proposals and actions people actually want. Build trust. Represent the voters instead of the donors.
  • I wonder if Haley will also require people at protests and rallies to wear name tags, and have them checked against ID at the gates?

Row, row, row your bits, gently down the stream...

Working...