Read on Twitter
I argued against this when @margarethodge called for something similar, in sum:
1. Plenty of those that spew hate are already identifiable
2. They'll find ways around it - they always have.
3. Identifying people opens them to offline-harms. https://twitter.com/mrdanwalker/status/1355855016079335428
1. Plenty of those that spew hate are already identifiable
2. They'll find ways around it - they always have.
3. Identifying people opens them to offline-harms. https://twitter.com/mrdanwalker/status/1355855016079335428
The people who'll come of worse from this are those who have already been victimised. Think of cultural groups who use social media to express part of their identities they can't expose to their families.
Think of those women who use social media to escape arranged marriages.
Think of those women who use social media to escape arranged marriages.
There is a pressing need to sort out the issues of content moderation, or as @mrdanwalker puts it, "fooligans & numpties" but if this was workable, it'd be done already.
It reminds me back in 2007 with the idea to stop spam: Email deposits. If the email was wanted, the sender would have the deposit returned. In instances of spam, the receiver would keep it.
Nice ideas, but sadly ignore the realities of socio-technologically led activities.
Nice ideas, but sadly ignore the realities of socio-technologically led activities.
In reality, I do and I don't mind when celebs like @mrdanwalker & @RachelRileyRR provide suggestions. It brings the issue of #Contentmoderation to the table.
On the negative, we might end up with terrible ideas such as treating platforms like publishers, or forced verification.
On the negative, we might end up with terrible ideas such as treating platforms like publishers, or forced verification.
