Should anonymity be removed from social media or will it erode personal freedom and possibly erode democracy?

I like my small measure of anonymity. Having suffered a stalker in the past I’d hate to be so vulnerable again, and believe that a certain level of anonymity is protecting against identity theft and being vulnerable to stalkers. That said of course I could live without social media if it comes to it and of course I try to be kind in all I post.

Neen.

I think the problem is that we don't know what other people are going to be offended by. So if I write something that most of us think is absolutely fine, there could still be somebody who think it's unacceptable, and then decide to do something about it.

So if others know my real name, I could be traced and targeted.

One option, of course, is no online activity at all, but that's not possible any more.

Alegrias1 oh I didn't realise this was social media. I'm not too knowledgeable on technology.
Ok . It would seem I am social media then. I would hope I'd never offend anyon, so I don't think I personally would mind my name attached to comments but to be honest, I'd probably comment less and altho I always hope to try to think about the bigger picture of where the other person's beliefs are, I'd think even more cautiously about not offending if that makes sense. So in that way, if people are like me it would be a good thing, but I'm not sure about safeguarding, especially the vulnerable and those with mental health related challenges.

I think removing anonymity would impact on the most vulnerable groups, I think it would be a disaster for women in abusive relationships.

I'm frightened by the way that social media is destroying our way of life as we know it. I'm on FaceBook and Gransnet, but that's all, and have never had any abuse thank goodness. My daughter is on a lot more, and some of the hatred and abuse she has seen is very worrying.
I would have no problem in having anonymity removing.

Neen

I personally don't have face book or social media. Only watsapp. That said, I would have no problem with my name attached to anything I said for publication.
Would it perhaps lessen the bullying if you had to attach your real name.
I'm not sure I know enough about it as does that then pose a safeguarding risk.

You are literally on social media right now....

I personally don't have face book or social media. Only watsapp. That said, I would have no problem with my name attached to anything I said for publication.
Would it perhaps lessen the bullying if you had to attach your real name.
I'm not sure I know enough about it as does that then pose a safeguarding risk.

It is indeed a double-edged sword, to ban anonymity from SM. There’s an article on the BBC today, specifically about online abuse of women. It seems that some SM companies are better than others at policing their one sites. It’s quite scary what people get away with.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58924168

I think they’d have to find a way around VPN to be able to ID people wouldn’t they ?

Yes sometimes they do Chewbacca as it's more than their location they need to hide, and I think depending on the forum that's easier said than done.

Chewbacca

^I think people can hide their location and identity quite easily though?^

They can. And do. But they usually get discovered don't they?

No, if people want to hide they can use things that mask their device ID and their IP address etc, I think it's called a VPN or something. Also there is the dark web where a lot of criminal activity happens and is untraceable.

That's the limit of what I know about it, just read about how they do it somewhere

I think people can hide their location and identity quite easily though?

They can. And do. But they usually get discovered don't they?

These bot farms are highly annoying. Either people paying for likes or paying for bots to steal information. I remember a point where Boris Johnson's Facebook page was littered with 100s of identical comments on every post "wonderful Boris" over and over again, it was bizarre.

I think the genie is out of the bottle, and on balance, I think that anonymity is more valuable than people being prevented from posting dreadful things online. Many people rely on their anonymity online to ask for help, to discuss things with people that don't know them, to spread the word on state sponsored repression, but I do think that there should be a better use of banning by SM operators when vile and threatening messages are reported.

What is also not accounted for in Patel's proposal is the existence of bots. Thousands of twitter accounts (and, for all I know, other social media accounts) aren't real people at all, just automated messages sent out from 'bot farms'. They can equally spread abuse and misinformation far and wide.

www.cloudflare.com/en-gb/learning/bots/what-is-a-social-media-bot/

I think people can hide their location and identity quite easily though?

I had a Facebook profile for a number of years before they did then ask to see ID because I have an unusual name and they had a crackdown

Chewbacca

^Violetsky It does already^

Indeed it does BlueBelle. GNHQ could be forced to hand over a posters contact details if requested, to protect themselves from legal action if necessary. Seems fair enough to me.

What contact details? An IP address is easily hidden with some VPNs I believe.

What other personal details did you give GN?

Nice balanced article in the i about this.

inews.co.uk/news/technology/online-anonymity-priti-patel-social-media-abuse-1253644

Violetsky It does already

Indeed it does BlueBelle. GNHQ could be forced to hand over a posters contact details if requested, to protect themselves from legal action if necessary. Seems fair enough to me.

I hope you’re right and that would be possible. There are thousands of online forums, and Gransnet is probably one of the most securely managed and regulated, but it would still hit lots of others, like small support groups set up for people with medical conditions, mental health issues, baby loss, money issues etc. etc. Something definitely needs to be done though, as it’s completely out of hand with people being abusive online.

It certainly would Avalon.

That's what I was wondering Pamela. I agree Casdon and said the same in my earlier post. How does one protect a vulnerable and genuine poster, without protecting another who only wants to do harm?

I don't think the genie can be put back into the lamp.

The social media companies should remind people that they can be traced and be prosecuted, as with the recent threats to footballers, etc.

Violetsky It does already

MP’s need to lead by example - when you’ve got one of them calling other MP’s ‘scum’ it’s no wonder the internet is full of hate.

Her understanding of the internet and how is works is painfully naive.
How would she achieve this?
Does she think someone actually has control of the internet? That there is a company they will tell what to do and it will be created one The WORLD WIDE web?