Should Domain-Name Registrations Require A Verifiable Real Name? (blogspot.com)

lpress writes: The Internet was a major source of news -- fake and real -- during the election campaign. The operators of fake sites, whether motivated by politics or greed, are often anonymous. We avoid voter fraud by requiring verification of ones name, age and address. A verifiable real-names domain registration policy would discourage information fraud.
"I understand the wish to protect the privacy of a person or organization registering a domain name," argues the linked-to blog post, "but there is also a public interest." ICANN already requested comments on this back in 2015, but I'm curious what Slashdot's readers think. Should domain name registrations require a verifiable real name?

Comments

Discourage?

[Calydor]

Just two days ago there was an article about a guy who put up what he thought were satirical stories, with the main actors all having HIS OWN NAME.

And people still bought it.

With as little fact-checking as we see today, do you really think a journalist is gonna do a thorough WHOIS lookup on the domain before rushing to post, let alone the average internet surfer?

Re:Discourage?

[SirSlud]

At this point, the civilized world doesn't need to worry about the government coming at them - they need to worry about the multinationals coming at their government. Trade agreements are good in theory. This is the problem. People look at trade agreements between countries. They are more like agreements that companies want to make, with no particular interest in being fair. Citizens tend to have no particular interest in being fair either, favoring what is best locally. Governments *should* in theory be working towards a general contract as we do locally. Compromises that are beneficial. But people vote for governments or vote for weakening the power governments have over the single minded goal of industry.

Anonymity

[darkain]

This is all you need to know: https://www.eff.org/issues/ano...

Re:Anonymity

[No Longer an AC]

Damn, I already used all my mod points.

EFF says it better than I could.

It sounds like a good idea to require a real name, but simply for free speech doing so could have chilling effects and work to silence people.

Most of us are posting somewhat anonymously here even though I don't believe it's an impenetrable mask. We build up our own karma (or lose it) and are identifiable by pseudonym so others can judge our credibility based on past posts.

Complete anonymity can lead to complete lack of credibility which is why so few people here pay any attention to Anonymous Cowards at all.

I hope no one takes this as a challenge, but for some random web surfer I would hope it would not trivial to take off my mask. I'm still careful about what I say, but it's unlikely anyone will google my real name and be able to find everything I've posted here or on other sites and that makes me feel free enough to post at all.

If I were of the wrong political persuasion in a country like Turkey right now I would either be afraid to post at all or I would take greater steps to hide my identity for obvious reasons and yet I believe free speech is a basic human right.

Now Thats a Stupid Question

[rtb61]

Domain names are a nickname for an IP address, nothing more. Should you require real name to associate a nickname with an IP address, well, kinda up to each and every single domain name registry, they want a real name, then they get a real name, they don' want a real name, they don't get a real name.

When it comes to fake news, well no one is worse than the multi-national news organisations the very worst example of fake news being Fox News with CNN a close second. So, it is easy, simply make 'NEWS' are protected word, you use that word in your title or identity yourself with that in a substantive sense ie using that nomenclature to attract an audience to generate views and or revenue, than when challenged on veracity you should be required to prove it in court, big or small. Fake news in a corporate sense also means claiming to be a news station when all you produce is celebrity pulp to sell shit, throw in a tiny amount of real news to bring in viewers and censor everything you come across that your main advertisers do not wish the greater public to see. So fake news channels like Fox News and CNN how do you categorise active censorship and not on an individual basis but as a cartel.

Now the main propagandists are just all butt hurt because they have been fucked over by independent media as main stream media could no longer steal an election and nobody much gives a fuck what they write about any more. New York TImes, have not bothered with it in over 4 years, why log into something I could no longer be bothered to read. The BBC went real bad when the 'fake' conservatives took over and stacked it with corporate propagandists from the top down.

In the most absurd fashion imaginable to get more accurate news about any country the last place you go to is that countries news site. So for the US go to RT for Russia, well, you are stuck with the Beeb (BBC) there are still plenty of good journalists in there, etc. Real legislation is required to protect the word NEWS, why, because it is no different from yelling fire in a crowded fire and that is exactly what most of those fuckers have been doing for decades, even lead to war and millions of deaths just in the last couple of decades (US news, you are shite, do not use for anything, except local community news channels which can be quite good and are often far more accurate than the main stream media channels).

Re:SuperPACs can go first

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Money doesn't influence elections.

Ohhh, that must be why so many poor people become president.

And that must be why large-money donors and super-pacs pour hundreds of millions of dollars into elections, because it has no influence. No siree, none at all. *cough*