Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Social Networks United Kingdom

UK Social Media Users Could Get Power To Block Anonymous Accounts (theguardian.com) 43

Posted by msmash from the tussle-continues dept.
Social media users could be cut off from other accounts on platforms such as Twitter if they do not sign up for ID verification, under government proposals to tackle anonymous trolls. From a report: Popular services including Twitter, Facebook and Instagram will be required to give users the option to opt in or opt out from receiving messages, replies and content from unverified or anonymous accounts. Verified users could also block unverified or anonymous accounts from seeing their content under the opt in/opt out proposals. This means people or organisations without verified accounts -- symbolised by a blue tick on Twitter and Instagram -- would be blocked from communicating with, or being seen by, accounts that have opted out from interactions with unverified sources.

The Department for Culture, Media and Sport said platforms had a number of options for verifying users, including using government-issued ID such as a passport to open an account or using two-factor authentication, where a platform sends a prompt to a user's mobile phone. The new system will be introduced under the online safety bill, which requires tech firms to protect users from harmful content or face the threat of substantial fines imposed by Ofcom, the communications regulator. The culture secretary, Nadine Dorries, said: "Tech firms have a responsibility to stop anonymous trolls polluting their platforms." She added: "People will now have more control over who can contact them and be able to stop the tidal wave of hate served up to them by rogue algorithms."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

UK Social Media Users Could Get Power To Block Anonymous Accounts More

UK Social Media Users Could Get Power To Block Anonymous Accounts

Comments Filter:

  • Hmmm... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by TractorBarry ( 788340 )

    Well we've got the UK government... and social media...

    I'm not quite sure which of the two is more worthless ?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mjwx ( 966435 )

      Well we've got the UK government... and social media...

      I'm not quite sure which of the two is more worthless ?

      I can speak as a UK resident, if Boris and the current Tory government were merely useless it would be a massive improvement.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by nagora ( 177841 )

        Well we've got the UK government... and social media...

        I'm not quite sure which of the two is more worthless ?

        I can speak as a UK resident, if Boris and the current Tory government were merely useless it would be a massive improvement.

        It would be a bloody miracle.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Their proposal is to allow verification via 2FA text message. You can buy a disposable SIM card on eBay, pre-activated to receive SMS for 1 pound.

      • This problem is solved if ID (like driver's licenses) carries a smartcard that can do PKI and sign/encrypt messages. (Sign as the person listed on the card.) This does not solve sophisticated smartcard attacks or forcing someone to sign under duress, but at least it's a step in the right direction. Get rid of paper signatures.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          You would also need a way to interface it to a computer or phone/tablet. To be universal that would mean USB and NFC... If Apple lets them use the NFC on iPhones for that purpose. They said no when the UK government wanted to use it with passports.

        • You're missing the point. The "problem" they're trying to solve is the ability to regulate speech, and to identify and monitor people's activities and affiliations. "Online trolling" is just the facade they're using to justify it.

          • Speech to allow: ALL
            Speech to block: illegal (as defined expressly in law)

            The problem is control, government should NEVER be in charge of what can and cannot be said. It is a bad idea

            • The problem is control, government should NEVER be in charge of what can and cannot be said. It is a bad idea

              Because as the left has discovered, censorship is so much easier to implement and so much more efficient when the power of private enterprise is harnessed to make it work.

      • This is exactly what my Twitter account is linked to, a burner phone, and not because I post sh... in there, but because I don't need another social platform to know my real identity just to have pretty much read-only news feed.

        • If you're using Twitter read-only, why have an account?
          I use the Fritter [f-droid.org] app for just this purpose.

          • I didn't know about Fritter, thanks :-)

          • Twitter because it's popular and I can easily subscribe just to the topics and people I want to hear from.

            Re, Fritter, I don't have any social media / news apps on my phone. I don't need distracting notifications all day long.

            • I can easily subscribe just to the topics and people I want to hear from.

              Fritter does that for Twitter without any account.

              I don't have any social media / news apps on my phone.

              There used to be desktop apps for this, but I don't know of one that currently works.

              I don't need distracting notifications all day long.

              I don't know if Fritter allows those. If so, I've never used them.

              • I use the web browser on my desktop. I sit once or twice a day to read the news and that's it. Allocated time, time-bound, and the rest of the day I can do productive stuff.

      • "You can buy a disposable SIM card on eBay, pre-activated to receive SMS for 1 pound."

        You were ripped off, I got a dozen for 1€.
        Any empty prepaid card will do.

  • OK, forgetting the fact it'll never happen because the current govt is both delusional and worse than useless (meaning that the social media companies will just ignore them).

    Is this really wrong? We're not saying you cant have an anonymous account, we're saying that people should be permitted to block you by default. I cant see this as any worse than putting parental controls on TV's, app stores and what not.

    • OK, forgetting the fact it'll never happen because the current govt is both delusional and worse than useless (meaning that the social media companies will just ignore them).

      Is this really wrong? We're not saying you cant have an anonymous account, we're saying that people should be permitted to block you by default. I cant see this as any worse than putting parental controls on TV's, app stores and what not.

      It depends. Since social media has all but replaced the public square, it creates difficult issues.

      Anonymous leafleting, etc. has always been considered part of freedom. If someone owns all the sidewalks and all the paper, does that make stamping it out ok? It's not as easy a question as it may first appear.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by lsllll ( 830002 )

        It depends. Since social media has all but replaced the public square, it creates difficult issues.

        Anonymous leafleting, etc. has always been considered part of freedom. If someone owns all the sidewalks and all the paper, does that make stamping it out ok? It's not as easy a question as it may first appear.

        I wholeheartedly agree with you, but how do you fend off the morons who keep saying "It's their company and they can dictate how they want it used"?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by nagora ( 177841 )

        It depends. Since social media has all but replaced the public square,

        What public square? Who, before social media, was hanging around public squares shouting out their opinions on the latest headlines other than drunks?

        • It depends. Since social media has all but replaced the public square,

          What public square? Who, before social media, was hanging around public squares shouting out their opinions on the latest headlines other than drunks?

          BLM?

          Hippies?

        • A lot of people. The issue of government controlling free speech by proxy is not new either. Look at how publishing companies, newspapers, radio, and TV have all been used through history. The Internet is the first time in History that an individual without money and power could easily speak freely to a wide audience. Now that social media has grown large enough, it provides an opportunity to suppress ideas under the guise of "free enterprise."

          Private companies should be able to restrict content on their p

      • social media has all but replaced the public square...

        False Premise. The public square still exists. You are still free to spout off there, if you wish.

        This is about other people not caring about what you have to say.

        You have the right to speak, but everyone has the right to not listen. That would be a "freedom of association" -i.e. choosing who not to associate with.

        Note: I am speaking from an american perspective. The UK may recognize rights differently, and this article is about the UK...

    • I came to say the same thing. The only thing that makes me suspicious is that this does seem a like a good compromise and is therefore too intelligent to have come from our government.

      Its obviously not perfect (burner sims, etc, etc) but perfect is the enemy of progress, as they say.

    • Is this really wrong? We're not saying you cant have an anonymous account, we're saying that people should be permitted to block you by default.

      I agree this seems perfectly fine to me, and kind of a good idea to insulate a lot of people from other people's opinion of them, or thoughts they don't want to hear... the ultimate safe bubble by default.

      However I question how many people would actually leave this setting on. You would be missing out on a lot of potentially interesting stuff, by people that had s

  • Get the fuck off Twatter, Instagram, Faceboot, Tick Tcock, etc.
    Go outside, take a walk, talk face to face with another human.

  • So why aren't we doing that with jury members also, then? Ah! Now the tone changes about "anonymity refused", when it suddenly doesn't fit your agenda/end goal.

    It'll be interesting to see how something like a verified account want to retweet an Anonymous (big 'A') account's tweets - I'm sure it'll never get verified, so what does this mean for how the retweet gets propagated?

    • Wow, that is the worst argument I have seen all day. You are confusing the legal right to speak with a non-existent right to be heard. You have the right to spout garbage like this all day, but I have the right to quit Slashdot and never hear your crap.

      People of the internet have NO LEGAL RIGHT to make people hear them, bu they do have the right not to say whatever they want. Therefore it is totally legal to have people block anyone and everyone they desire, including those that are anonymous.

      With a crim

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by nagora ( 177841 )

      So why aren't we doing that with jury members also, then?

      Jury members are not anonymous so I don't see the relevance.

  • Two more "rules" the government needs to impose (Score:3)

    by Sebby ( 238625 ) on Friday February 25, 2022 @10:48AM (#62302933)

    1. Everyone that attends any protest (peaceful or otherwise) needs to register with valid ID prior to attending.

    2. All police officers need to wear sports-type jerseys with their name and badge number clearly visible from a distance, at all times.

    Let's see how that goes.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by nagora ( 177841 )

      All police officers need to wear sports-type jerseys with their name and badge number clearly visible from a distance, at all times.

      Let's see how that goes.

      UK Police officers are required to display their number in uniform, and to give it if not in uniform and wish to take any action as a police officer (e.g., arrest you) or if asked.

    • No more 'A spokesperson said' for the govt. Name the individual. No more 'A police informant' - name the informant. How about people grow up, and repeat 'words can never hurt me'.
  • Good.

    https://www.penny-arcade.com/c... [penny-arcade.com]

  • Some form of minimum level de-anonymization is coming to jurisdictions near you, I think between increasing support for the idea and technology that makes it possible, it's inevitable. Ideally it will balance the competing interests - consequence for serious abuse vs freedom to express yourself. That balance will never be perfect and will probably evolve (or devolve) over time. But the current status quo is untenable due to the lack of consistent and enforceable accountability for anonymous bad faith people

    • "De-anonymization" has always existed on the Internet.
      If the government alleges that a crime has been committed, or a plaintiff files an actual lawsuit, the platform can be compelled to give up IP address and other info, and the ISP can be compelled to give up the person's identity. This has happened many many times.
      The Wikimedia Foundation once emailed me a copy of a subpoena in a lawsuit and notified me that they had given the court my IP address and email address (along with those of everyone who had edi

  • Have we not learnt enough? (Score:3)

    by devslash0 ( 4203435 ) on Friday February 25, 2022 @11:00AM (#62302993)

    Was handing over your most valuable identity documents to a commercial-interest 3rd party ever a good idea? Have we learnt nothing from all the big data leaks in the past years? Those platforms would most likely need to store the ID documents indefinitely so that they could prove to the government at any point that they have verified the ID of a particular person which is another terrible idea.

  • Of course the devil is in the details. However this isn't forcing people to make authenticated id in the system, but giving the user the Freedom to block these people, as Freedom of speech, doesn't mean that people have to listen to you.

  • They've got it wrong (Score:3)

    by VeryFluffyBunny ( 5037285 ) on Friday February 25, 2022 @12:30PM (#62303371)
    Rather than social media users blocking each other, which users can do for themselves anyway, they should be automatically blocking unverified advertisers, i.e. advertisers must register their companies in the target users' countries & identify their executive board (those legally responsible for the messages they send to users) in order to show them adverts. Most of the heavy lifting for the anti-democratic campaigns have been done via advertising, e.g. the pro Brexit & Trump campaigns, where a as little as $10,000's can have a significant influence on voters' opinions. Allowing effectively anonymous advertisers, which could easily be hostile governments, to secretly show messages, without oversight, to a country's electorate should be considered a national security threat. Simply, put an end to clandestine, unregulated advertising. It's not good for anyone except the bad people who do it.

Slashdot Top Deals

Avoid strange women and temporary variables.

Close