← Back to context

Comment by llamaimperative

7 hours ago

> in some cases

some != all

therefore, it is not a real-name only network.

I'm not asking for Facebook to become a confirmed real-name only network. I am not asking for anyone to be compelled to supply a confirmed real-name only network.

I am saying: I wish that one existed and caught on with consumers.

10 comments

llamaimperative

Reply
ipython  3 hours ago

I totally get what you’re saying. I just don't know how you actually implement this at global scale. I dislike Facebook and have not used it in over a decade, but I do believe they at least used to try and enforce real name policies.

bdangubic  3 hours ago

this is the way…

I find absolutely ridiculous every social media / free speech discussion if platform does not have proof of identity. while you and I may have right to free speech the bots etc do not. hence, there is no free speech without proof of identity imo

  • programjames  2 hours ago

    I think anonymity is important for some kind of coordination problems (e.g. against an authoritarian government). A better solution is to have a nominal fee, maybe $10/yr to be platformed, that way it's expensive to bot.

    • llamaimperative  11 minutes ago

      Yeah I think anonymity is important to have available. But I wish not every single social media platform was trivial to bot.

      (GP and I disagree on whether every platform should require it)

    • bdangubic  1 hour ago

      this is solid but if I am China what is $400,000,000 to spend on 40,000,000 bots that now we think are real people…

  • krapp  3 hours ago

    Of course there is free speech without proof of identity. The Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment protects anonymous speech. The right to speak anonymously is fundamental to the right to speak freely.

    You haven't proven the identity of "bdangubic" to us yet here you are exercising your right to free speech.

    • llamaimperative  8 minutes ago

      You're misreading the argument.

      They're not saying people do not have the freedom to speak anonymously, they're saying that computer programs, by virtue of not being a person, do not have freedom of speech under the Constitution.

      Obviously you can argue that you have First Amendment protections to write programs that then speak for you, which is essentially where the argument should happen. I think a very reasonable concession is: you can write programs that speak for you, so long as they do not masquerade as another person (real or fake). I.e.: you can write a program that speaks as you, or you can write a program that speaks as a program.