As a politician, I hear constant reports of the hurt that nameless hatred can inflict.
Freedom without responsibility is not freedom at all. Yet that is what the online world has become, a space where harm hides behind anonymity and accountability is optional. We would never accept this in our streets, our schools or our workplaces. So why do we tolerate it online?
The online world is not a parallel universe. It shapes our relationships, our children’s lives, our politics and our democracy. Yet it remains the only place where we still seriously argue that rules are an attack on freedom, rather than a basic condition of safety.
Much commentary on proposed online safety legislation misses this fundamental point. The objective is not to silence people or to strip citizens of their right to express unpopular views. The objective is to make the digital “public square” safer, fairer and more accountable.
Critics frame the debate as a choice between anonymity and freedom. That is a false choice. We accept limits on behaviour in every other sphere of life without calling it censorship. We have defamation law, public order law and child protection law, not because we want to control speech, but because unregulated behaviour causes real harm.
Continue @ Indo.
A disingenuous piece, the problem with Grok was not the anonymity of those using it, but what the app could and was allowed to do. The government did not want to challenge Musk over this app and now uses it as an excuse for control. Authoritarian regimes always dress their repression up in concern and Ireland is like most of Europe going down that path. What the govt. wants is to force everyone to register in order to have an opinion with no guarantees possible that the information won't be used against you. Women fleeing abusive husbands forced Facebook to overturn their policy of making people use their real names etc. So how does Boland propose protecting them? She doesn't. This is a regressive measure.
ReplyDeleteI don't see it as disingenuous.
DeleteIt is not opposed to anonymity but the abuse of it when it is used for the purposes of bullying. Free speech should not be extended to bullying for the simple reason that bullying is used to intimidate people out of speaking freely.
People should stand over what they say. Invisible people, invisible rights. Freedom of opinion has been too hard fought for to allow it to be suppressed by bullies hiding behind the cloak of anonymity.
What government might do if it gets the power it seeks is another matter. But the general theme of opposition to anonymous abuse holds good.
It is what we try to abide by on this site. The anonymous expression of an idea is fine but not the anonymous expression of insults.
People who are willing to express an opinion in their own name should be protected from the person who uses anonymity to bully them out of that opinion.
It is the thin edge of the wedge with restrictive measures. They didn't restrict the app Grok, they laid the blame on the people, now they want everyone's ID, that is a great tool for any regime. I wonder does China have it. There are other things to do with bullying, but that would put the onus on the companies and they don't want to do that. They want people to register to be able to use their social media accounts, everyone that is. This is Big Brother stuff.
ReplyDeleteYet the need remains to prevent bullies using anonymity to suppress free speech.
DeleteIf people have something to say online then do so without anonymity.
And yet you manage to allow people to comment here anonymously and just restrict bullying. The large companies could do the same, but it would eat into their profit margins, so let's give the government a tool to monitor dissent under the guise of a fake concern for bullying.
ReplyDeletewhich is what the author of the piece places at the heart of her case - she makes it very clear that she is not opposed to anonymity but is opposed to the anonymous bully.
DeleteI have often thought about prohibiting anonymity altogether but have retained it for those who wish to share ideas rather than silence the ideas of others.
You are missing the point, she says that but the government app we would have to register with in order to access our social media accounts removes anonymity for all, in all circumstances. She supports this. The state will always know who you are, at all times.
ReplyDeleteThis what she says:
Delete"That is why I welcome the pilot project being advanced by Communications Minister Patrick O’Donovan to link online age verification to government ID.''
That does not preclude anonymous commentary. The commenter can post and remain anonymous and take no more risk than you or me who comment under our own name if we/they decide to bully.
From what I can gather the only people the proposed legislation will affect are those who wish to remain anonymous for whatever reason. It does not affect the rest of us who don't use anonymity.
We can debate the merits or demerits of government having the power that the proposal will give it but that should be addressed separately from the very real threat to free inquiry and free speech posed by anonymous online bullying. The legislation might clash with civil liberties sentiment but not with free inquiry sentiment. Bullying should be discouraged online as much as it should be in schools, the internet, anywhere.
Even without the legislation there is always a trace left by those who use anonymity. The type of anonymity you wish to protect does not exist online.
Yes, that argument is similar to the one about cops searching you, stopping you, going through your stuff. If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about. Bullying is already an offence and yet they do nothing about it when it happens, even when it is offline and the perpetrator is known. This is typical scaremongering by people who don't actually care about the issue to gain even greater repressive powers. It does clash with free inquiry. If the state can always know who you are they can block you etc. What if some Zionist successfully makes the claim you are anti-semitic and both you and I are exactly that in the eyes of more than one state in Europe, then your access can be blocked. This is where this goes. If it was really about bullying they would be doing something about it offline as well, they are not. They do not care, but they do want to know who you are and have power over what you can say and do. As for anonymity, yes there is often a trace, though the use of VPNs and TOR reduces that and even eliminates in some circumstances. Dissidents around the world manage to remain anonymous, though not the average citizen.
ReplyDeleteI had already thought about the cop search type argument and didn't consider it amounting to much in terms of useful comparison. It is not about having nothing to hide but is about having something to hide and using anonymity for that purpose so that you bully someone out of their right to a free opinion.
DeleteMost bullying is not illegal - it is not even considered a rights based case when in front of the WRC. The finding against the bully is not even enforceable. Which is why trade union reps are advised to find something other than bullying to take the case and which falls outside the realm of industrial relations issues.
Bullying when it amounts to discrimination is illegal (which means even in the WRC reps are advised to go with equality legislation).
The proposal can protect free inquiry from the bullying that threatens it. There is no online anonymity. It is a fiction. The Zionist can still make the claim that you are an antisemite anyway and have your anonymous account banned.
From a Left perspective the state should be compelled at every opportunity to stand up for the weak not the bully. This is why the Left want greater state intervention and the right oppose it unless it is in the area of Repressive State Apparatuses.
You seem to think that the State does not actually know who you are if you are anonymous, that you cannot be traced. That is misplaced. The dissidents who think they cannot be traced are living on borrowed time.
If you don't want the legislation to pass then come up with a way to prevent the threat to free speech posed by online bullying. Show how your proposal will protect children, the vulnerable, the average citizen who just wants to express an opinion in their own name, from bullying more effectively than what Grace Boland proposes, and you stand a better chance of winning people over.
In a laissez faire world the powerful always win.
So we are going to be forced to register our thoughts to combat bullying, which is not a crime. Well, lets start with putting cart behind and not in front of the horse. If bullying is not a crime, then any banning of people on social media will be overturned.
ReplyDeleteWe are not being asked to register our thoughts.
DeleteWe do that anyway, named or anonymous.
Bullying is an egregious activity which should be outlawed.
People can be banned at the discretion of the owner. They cannot be discriminated against at the discretion of the owner. People are banned for bullying from lots of places. Even in the WRC they can be found against and compensation is recommended. It is just not enforceable. The respondent can go to the Labour Court which rarely overturns WRC decisions. After that the respondent runs out of options.
If you can come up with a way to stop the anti-free speech bullying then the proposal you are opposed to might not pass.