Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Social Media Accounts

Given the abuse from last night, and online in general, I feel we need something done. Just to gauge opinion would you sign up for a social media account if an “anonymous token” was needed from a reputable source that could be linked to the account? Thinking along the lines of a GUID provided by Experian/Equifax or similar. Under 18 would need a GUID linked to a parent/guardian.

The token would never be shown on the account and the anonymous names, Carrickblue etc, we often choose could still exist. However, if an account is then shown to be abusive beyond society’s norms then it would be traceable to an individual by the appropriate authorities and suitable action taken.

  1. Would you use social media if an account was traceable to you as an individual?22 votes
    1. Yes
      90.91%
    2. No
        9.09%

Comments

  • Aren't accounts already pretty traceable? It's just that currently if you get banned, there's nothing to stop you making a new account as they don't ask for ID.

  • GUID by the way is globally unique identifier and UUID universally unique identifier look like

    123e4567-e89b-12d3-a456-426614174000

    So not anything that can be easily traced back to an individual without access to the original source. Equifax/Experian are pretty secure on this.

  • The tech companies have all the fixes and workarounds they need. At this stage it's almost impossible to suggest they are doing anything other than profiting from the abuse. In some cases it's very clear that this is what is going on.

  • They won't do it unless they're made to by law - and that law could take years to get written, passed etc.

  • @ReturnToSenda said:
    Aren't accounts already pretty traceable? It's just that currently if you get banned, there's nothing to stop you making a new account as they don't ask for ID.

    Don’t think they are easily traceable. As you say they don’t ask for ID. The idea above is like providing ID, which is anonymous to the social media company. And if your ID is flagged as having been abusive then new account creation would not be possible as the GUID is linked to a person, and so several usernames/accounts. They could all be withdrawn/suspended through comments on one of them

  • edited July 12

    Could they put in an instant block/account deletion for the use of certain phrases and words?
    Possibly, but as language is about context that wouldn't work for a lot of stuff.

    They can't rely on simple "report" functions as that takes ages, and relies on human review etc.
    If anyone has ever tried to report something on FB for instance, it's slightly alarming how long it takes, and more alarmingly, what they come back and say "is fine".

    Could they link it to national insurance number? Possibly, but something underground would pop up to take its place and lead to even more disturbing stuff.

  • I'm not sure I trust this government to write legislation that controls what people can post online.

    It's a tough one, because it must be awful to be on the receiving end of some of the abuse.

  • Politicians and governments use multiple accounts for lobbying, misleading, etc etc...big tech have billions to pressurise/bribe politicians and governments and possess no soul or conscience so I would be surprised to see any sort of fully enforceable control outside of Russia, Korea and China...and most of the time they arent that good at it!

  • I think Instagram have an 'Are you sure you want to post this?' thing if you're writing something abusive. Twitter have added the same, but somehow I doubt it works.

  • @Chris said:
    I'm not sure I trust this government to write legislation that controls what people can post online.

    It's a tough one, because it must be awful to be on the receiving end of some of the abuse.

    Agree with you to a degree on that, especially with trusting this or any government. But we do already have laws/norms that define racism/homophobia/libel etc.

    If individuals knew that authorities with power to assess and potentially prosecute a more easily identified individual under existing laws it might, just might, make the keyboard warriors less aggressive in their vitriol.

  • Key government officials and advisers used Facebook and Twitter to play on racial fears in the Brexit campaign, it may be unpopular to state this but it will massively inform what legislation is brought in.

  • No thank you.

    I work for a small digital publisher, dealing with ad tech.

    The huge platforms like Google, Twitter, Facebook, and third party companies who monetise websites, are completely obsessed and reckless with data collection.

    The last thing I'd want to do is give any of them a centralised database of identities.

  • what I'm struggling to get my head around is are these people posting this cr*p of an age where they haven't changed or are we breeding a new age of ignorant, racist idiots?

  • Both. We live in a very racist society - empowered by those at the very top of it.

    👍 👎 ( 0 )
  • @ReturnToSenda said:
    Both. We live in a very racist society - empowered by those at the very top of it.

    Interesting listen as football gets its regular hammering from those who never liked it anyway

  • @carrickblue said:
    So not anything that can be easily traced back to an individual without access to the original source. Equifax/Experian are pretty secure on this.

    This Experian?

  • Farage, Galloway, Tommy Robinson, lawrence fox, Johnson, Trump thrive on unleashing one note ill-informed thuggery

  • @Wendoverman said:
    Farage, Galloway, Tommy Robinson, lawrence fox, Johnson, Trump thrive on unleashing one note ill-informed thuggery

    I'm not trying to play scum bag Top Trumps here but division is the new norm. A referendum happened 5 years ago and yet both sides still refer to themselves as 'BREXITEERS' and 'REMAINERS'. Both sides playing the righteous angle to cause further division. If people continue to want to use tribalism to extol their own virtues then division is the result. And I include sports pundits in that.

    👍 👎 ( -1 )
  • @drcongo said:

    @carrickblue said:
    So not anything that can be easily traced back to an individual without access to the original source. Equifax/Experian are pretty secure on this.

    This Experian?

    That’s the one. Unfortunately almost everything is monetised on the net these days.

    A **lot of work ** would need to be done to agree a framework to allow a GUID/ user account link. If the GUID provider knew the GUID and individual but not the social media account, and the SM provider knew the GUID and account then perhaps there is a way forward. It would only be at the time of investigation for serious transgression of what is acceptable that the two are combined outside of each other’s domains.

    I’m definitely not saying this is the solution, but feel something more needs to be done and individuals not able to hide their hatred behind pop up accounts.

    I know you have decent views on information security and the workings of the web, so would sincerely appreciate your views on how to address this issue.

  • Not the solution I know but how much money do the players receive from social media platforms and could they miss that income if they left them? Might stimulate a lot of work

Sign In or Register to comment.