Nikki Haley wants to cancel most of the Deplorables on this forum

[RoryN]

I'll just leave this right here...

Haley calls for social media reforms targeting user accountability​

"...every person on social media should be verified, by their name. That’s, first of all, it’s a national security threat. When you do that, all of a sudden, people have to stand by what they say.”

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4309883-haley-urges-social-media-reforms-user-accountability/

 

[coati]

But lack of accountability is the core policy of MAGAts. She just tossed away 50% of the GOP. Are they going to put up with that?

What happened to the Declaration of Independence, and freedom from accountability? Damn, where's Harpy when you need him?

 

[YDB95]

But lack of accountability is the core policy of MAGAts. She just tossed away 50% of the GOP. Are they going to put up with that?

Those who won't, also wouldn't vote for a woman of color.

 

[jaF0]

No forum I'm on has my name or location. Never has, never will.

 

[jaF0]

Little Nikkita just following her Master's plan:

Russian court fines Google for failing to store personal data on its users​

ABC|7 hours ago
A Russian court has fined Google for failing to store personal data on its Russian users, the latest in a series of fines on the tech giant amid tensions between Russia and the West over the war in Uk ...

 

[coati]

No forum I'm on has my name or location. Never has, never will.

Yes, because accountability for your statements and actions is so 1970s! After all, the internet was invented to free us from accountability and the distinction between facts and fiction, a God-given right guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence.

Nikki just committed blasphemy. The left and right shall now unite against her.

 

[dkovic77]

I'll just leave this right here...

Haley calls for social media reforms targeting user accountability​

"...every person on social media should be verified, by their name. That’s, first of all, it’s a national security threat. When you do that, all of a sudden, people have to stand by what they say.”

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4309883-haley-urges-social-media-reforms-user-accountability/

She seems to be talking about bots. Here we just have a bunch of folks who can’t get any traction unless they use their alts to chime in.

Thankfully though (knock on wood), the board has been a little quieter with some of the insane rhetoric from the usual suspects.. but that just means they are getting then new alts going or that facts are actually getting through into their skulls.

If it’s the latter, mazel tov. If it’s the former I’m sure they will be “creative” as always.

 

[coati]

Can you imagine what this forum would be like if it were conducted like a newspaper of old, where you had to sign your actual name to anything you wrote, and have that information verified?

Salamanders would quietly return to hiding under under a rock, and we would never hear from them again.

 

[jaF0]

So would most other members.

This forum as a whole and maybe the site as a whole would die without anonymity.

 

[Dribble]

No forum I'm on has my name or location. Never has, never will.

And that helps explain why a moderator refuses to allow PMs and just makes decisions without explaining how a post violates the Site Rules.

I believe this website...and every other website...is better off without the anonymity.

 

[Dribble]

So would most other members.

This forum as a whole and maybe the site as a whole would die without anonymity.

Says someone drunk on power. Heil jaF0

 

[coati]

So would most other members.

This forum as a whole and maybe the site as a whole would die without anonymity.

Yeah, most members would disappear, but the ones who are already openly and transparently being active in the real world would still be left with the option to express themselves online.

 

[LLCox]

No forum I'm on has my name or location. Never has, never will.

Yes, but you Internet Provider is not so discerning.

 

[RoryN]

Deplorables silent in here so far...

 

[coati]

Deplorables silent in here so far...

Deplorables are busy on another thread talking about how God and the Declaration of Independence granted us the right to wield AR-15s.

Maybe they can make that same argument for maintaining their total anonymity in their sovereign citizen online sleeper cells. You know, God now "trumps" all that Constitution stuff.

 

[DeluxAuto]

No forum I'm on has my name or location. Never has, never will.

In a former life, I would consider this a challenge and have fun with your ignorant ass.

 

[coati]

Little Nikkita just following her Master's plan:

A Russian court has fined Google for failing to store personal data on its Russian users, the latest in a series of fines on the tech giant amid tensions between Russia and the West over the war in Uk ...

But consider something a bit different from what Russia is doing. Yeah, we have a right to keep our credit card info, health data, and even explicit contact info private, but what about this transition made by online forums to anonymous editorializing and "news" reporting? No reputable newspaper has ever published anything I wrote without getting me to sign it along with my town of residence.

I don't give a shit if the web currently makes money on the anonymous aspect of fake news and wacky editorializing. Make people sign their names to that shit. Nikki might be on to something here.

 

[SimonDoom]

This is a terrible idea. First of all, it's obviously a massive infringement of the freedom of speech, and it wouldn't survive scrutiny under the First Amendment. It would severely impact speech online. It would destroy a place like Literotica. Virtually every author at Literotica is anonymous and wants it kept that way.

There's nothing per se wrong with anonymous speech. It's been around a long time and has an honorable and critical place in history. The Federalist Papers originally were published anonymously.

The so-called "harm" of anonymous speech is greatly exaggerated. Its benefits vastly outweigh its harms. It's silly to call it a national security threat. 99% of anonymous speech online is like what we're doing here: there's no threat whatsoever, and no case whatsoever to be made that we should be forced to give up our anonymity. What a dumb idea, along with being an obviously unconstitutional one.

 

[coati]

I'm talking about news and editorializing on the Politics Board, not erotic literature. The literature aspect could go on with pseudonyms, but the Politics Board would have the same accountability standards as any reputable newspaper. It is not unconstitutional for news outlets to have accountability standards, and they have been doing this for centuries.

Vetting authors and facts is the backbone of a democracy.

 

[SimonDoom]

I'm talking about news and editorializing on the Politics Board, not erotic literature. The literature aspect could go on with pseudonyms, but the Politics Board would have the same accountability standards as any reputable newspaper. It is not unconstitutional for news outlets to have accountability standards, and they have been doing this for centuries.

Vetting authors and facts is the backbone of a democracy.

They choose to have standards. They are not forced to by government. Free speech means literally that: you don't have to sign up for anything or get verified to have the right of speech. There are no conditions on it. If social media platforms WANT to adopt standards like those applied by traditional newspapers, good for them. But they don't have to, just like newspapers don't have to, either. There are such things as underground newspapers, too. This is an incredibly authoritarian proposal. Whatever you think of its practical wisdom, there's absolutely no way it would survive a constitutional challenge.

 

[Chernosoth]

This has been coming for decades. The internet became less home user oriented and more corporate. Rising expenses are changing business models and squeezing many businesses and sites out. The people who are young enough to adapt to a changing world may now be learning to do more and live more offline.

 

[coati]

They choose to have standards. They are not forced to by government. Free speech means literally that: you don't have to sign up for anything or get verified to have the right of speech. There are no conditions on it. If social media platforms WANT to adopt standards like those applied by traditional newspapers, good for them. But they don't have to, just like newspapers don't have to, either. There are such things as underground newspapers, too. This is an incredibly authoritarian proposal. Whatever you think of its practical wisdom, there's absolutely no way it would survive a constitutional challenge.

Libel, slander, sex trafficking, and physical threat laws have survived constitutional challenges, as have incitement laws related to treason. Parents are sick of anonymous dealers marketing drugs to their children online. These are just a few examples of problems that are emerging on the internet during its early decades of existence.

Some level of regulation will be required to easily determine who is violating these laws and then allow the courts to resolve the offenses. Newspapers, including underground publications, can indeed be prosecuted or sued for facilitating any of those offenses, so they identify the content contributors. Social media platforms that shield major lawbreakers from prosecution should be shut down, and then any new sites will have a lot more incentive to adopt standards that newspapers have held for so long.

Furthermore, AI-generated content should be labelled, just like the feds label food and drugs.

The "free" market does not solve all problems on its own, and government has a legitimate role to play in regulating the internet.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

It was a foolish comment that she’s already walking back. It’s gotta be hard to walk anything back in 5 inch heels though.

 

[DeluxAuto]

It was a foolish comment that she’s already walking back. It’s gotta be hard to walk anything back in 5 inch heels though.

Did she borrow them from DeSantis?

 

[coati]

This has been coming for decades. The internet became less home user oriented and more corporate. Rising expenses are changing business models and squeezing many businesses and sites out. The people who are young enough to adapt to a changing world may now be learning to do more and live more offline.

Good advice for young people. As battery tech improves, more of them will be less dependent upon the electrical grid, also, especially in the sunny regions. Rooftop solar electricity buy-back rates by the major utilities are getting ridiculously low-- might as well separate your panels from the grid and put them directly to use on your property, like some of my tribal neighbors do.

Liberate yourself from being the slaves of corporations. Rediscover nature.