Slashdot Mirror
Digital IDs Needed To End 'Mob Rule' Online, Says UK's Security Minister (independent.co.uk)
Digital IDs should be brought in to end online anonymity that permits "mob rule" and lawlessness online, the security minister of United Kingdom has said. From a report: Ben Wallace said authentication used by banks could also by employed by internet firms to crack down on bullying and grooming, as he warned that people had to make a choice between "the wild west or a civilised society" online. He also took aim at the "phoniness" of Silicon Valley billionaires, and called for companies such as WhatsApp to contribute to society over the negative costs of their technology, such as end-to-end encryption. It comes after Theresa May took another step against tech giants, saying they would be ordered to clamp down on vile attacks against women on their platforms. The prime minister will target firms such as Facebook and Twitter as she makes the pitch at the G7 summit this weekend, where she will urge social media firms to treat violent misogyny with the same urgency as they do terror threats. Mr Wallace told The Times: "A lot of the bullying on social media and the grooming is because those people know you cannot identify them. It is mob rule on the internet. You shouldn't be able to hide behind anonymity."
Digital ID's needed for all - so we can arrest Twitter users speaking out against the State.
Sounds farfetched? The UK is doing that today.
I mean, they do that already without digital ID"s, but it would save the police state a lot of time and bother if they could have the address pop up alongside the reported thought crim... er I mean tweet.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Every few years, someone comes out with a social thing for forum thing or whatever, and they insist that using "real" names will make people better-behaved. Every time they are proven wrong. People we well-behaved in small groups, people are not well-behaved in large groups. Full stop. There's surely a marginal size where knowing who people are will make a difference, like when you grow from 50,000 people to 100,000 people maybe, but "online" or "The Internet" are far far far beyond that region, so it doesn't matter.
This isn't just a problem in online forums. I've seen it in workplaces, a workplace with under a thousand people can feel fairly homey and interconnected and grounded, 5,000 people starts to get a little dicey but workable, but when you get up to like 25,000 people, even with the best intentions things routinely get out of control and mobs are always forming. It's not only that people fell they can get away with stuff, it's that people stop standing up for what's right. In a smaller group, when someone gets drunk at a company event and starts making an ass of themselves, unrelated people step up and usher them out. In a larger group, everyone feels like they aren't responsible for the group, so nobody steps up, and the asshole just keeps on going until something horrible happens.
National socialism (nationalsozialismus) != socialism.
You cannot simply split up the word into "national" and "socialism" and then consider each word separately, because it's supposed to be one word in its native language, where the definition comes from. English doesn't do conjugated verbs, which leads to this silly (or intentional, by idiots) misunderstanding.
It should be "nationalsocialism", which is distinct from both "nationalism" and "socialism".
But I bet you already knew that, and you're just being a dumbass.
Eat the rich.
Tommy Robinson breached a reporting ban (his second offense of this type). This type of ban is typically put in place in order to prevent mob justice and harassment of suspects who are still not convicted, in cases of a sensitive nature.
Would you want your name and face live streamed to Facebook, simply for being the suspect in a trial, where you may or may not be guilty?
Tommy Robinson tried to short-circuit the legal system, including the protections put in place for suspects who are yet to be convicted. In other words he tried to impose his own personal judgment on a case in which he has absolutely no right to interfere. Not to mention that this is the second time he's done so, hence the harsher punishment this time. Tommy Robinson is a radicalized extremist who apparently thinks he is above the law. He is not.
Eat the rich.
His crime was attempting to short-circuit the legal protections of the suspect in an ongoing court case. That is contempt of court, and realistically actually contempt for the entire legal system. Something which the legal system does not look lightly upon.
You may disagree with their decisions, but that is not the right way to change things.
Eat the rich.
As someone who lives in the UK, I take a slightly different view from the somewhat rabid and over-hyped fear-mongers on this site.
Let's have some context:
The UK government is in a mess. The whole Brexit fiasco was poorly thought out and people were asked to vote on little/no information at best and outright lies at worst. This has resulted in many many views on what the result meant and massive in-fighting in the government which is spending so much time on the issue nothing else substantive seems to be happening. Couple this with an election leaving a minority party in power, with little opportunity to make any changes and you have a confused muddle.
So what to do? take decisive action? no too hard!! -- let's have a distraction: royal weddings are good for a couple of months run-up but even they pass. An attack on internet companies is always a short term winner - it panders to the worst elements of the press (who see their business model of peddling hate and discord being threatened) and hits the hot buttons of "terror" and "what of the children/women?".
The level of debate here shows the distraction technique works.
As for implementation -- just look at history: England have more chance of winning the world cup than a UK Government IT system working properly. A few consultancies and IT companies may make some money (but at least nowadays the government does try to claw back overspend on its fiascos)
I seriously doubt that anything will really change and in six months to a year's time things will be just the same.
I know it's scary. We have 15 Muslim MPs out of a total of 650. The 5% Muslim population is completely over-represented by the 2.3% of Muslim MPs... They're even more over-represented in the Lords, with a whopping 10 out of 800! Where will the insanity end?
On a slight tangent, those 10 peers (who's peerages, like most, were awarded merit*) are outnumbered 26 to 10 by the "Lords Spiritual" who are given a seat in the Lords solely on their religion.
* Yes, I accept not all on are merit - there's plenty of cronyism, and the system is far from perfect.
Erich Roehm, who was killed in the Night of the long Knives, was a socialist with leftie tendencies, being a mamber of the Workers Party before he joined the NSDAP. He wanted the National Socialist party to actually live the socialist part of the name. Roehm had control over the militia at the time, the SA. Hitler was worried he would use his SA thugs to toss him out and live his dreams, and evidence would suggest that the idea did cross Roehm's mind.
Hitler decided to move first so out Roehm went. Since Hitler was going for the kill anyways, so did quite a few others. But the name stayed.
The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
The US ranks in 18th place on the index of economic freedom, behind many European nations, including the UK. The US spends more per capita on social welfare and spends more per capita on single payer, government healthcare, retirement, and education that many European nations. In what sense is it "very rightwing and right extremist"?
The US spends more per capita on social welfare and spends more per capita on single payer, government healthcare, retirement, and education that many European nations. In what sense is it "very rightwing and right extremist"?
The US has to spend so much on those services, at least in part because of the extreme version of capitalism practised in the US. Take healthcare - in UK, the NHS can keep lid on the cost of medicines etc, because they are part of government and have the power to do so; apparently this is not the case in the US. To quote https://www.investopedia.com/a...:
"Most other developed countries control costs, in part, by having the government play a stronger role in negotiating prices for healthcare."
It is easy to understand, I think: private companies will ALWAYS seek to maximise their profits, and since there is no real competition, they feel free to drive prices up.