The Republican presidential candidate said, if elected, she will force social media companies to 'show America their algorithm.'
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.
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.
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 “civility,” Haley believes. “When 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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
Except SS is a terrible form of authentication that is compromised already by the credit-reporting agencies for a significant fraction of American citizens.
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.
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).
I’d be quite happy if social media offered a way to link your identity in this way, but it’s quite a stretch to mandate it.
"Every political donation should be verified by their name. It’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.
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.
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!
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 I’ve seen of the far right, for some of them that’s the point.
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 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.
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
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."
"Every person on social media should be verified by their name. It’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.
I wish people wouldn't use that word. It's just propagating the patriarchy.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Yeah Facebook radicalized a lot of people all with their names attached. People fucking showed their face while attempting a coup. We’ve got some real fucking idiots in America
internet discourse would be slightly more civil if people’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 don’t disagree with you. But there’s also a flip side. Nazis and other bigots wouldn’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 wouldn’t be able to sow mis- and disinformation so readily.
For the record, I believe Nikki’s plan is dumb and will never, ever happen. I’m just using my imagination to see some potential for benefits.
internet discourse would be slightly more civil if people’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.