Are social media companies going to make people to fully identify themselves.

[astr0144]

Are social media companies going to make people to fully identify themselves to Join or use their service.

I was partly watching a TV program earlier that was discussing about Social Media Companies are aiming to
make people who use them to have to fully identify themselves when they sign up...rather than allow them to
remain anonymous in order to try to prevent Trolls or online abusers.

OR that was what I thought that it had suggested...but on trying to find an article that may confirm if its correct.
So far I cannot find anything that fully confirms it..

BUT I have came across this article that seems to suggest that it may still remain optional.

IF they do manage to bring in a FULL Identification system to use their service ... I am sure many people will still not be happy to have to this and would see it as a data privacy issue.

I wonder if anyone else knows of any other info on this to confirm if its likely to be becoming Compulsary or to remain optional.?


Online Safety Bill: Allow social media users to block anonymous users and opt out of harmful content, say MPs

Social media users will be given the power to block others who have failed to verify their identity and to opt out of seeing harmful content under new changes to online safety legislation.

MPs hope the new measures added to the Online Safety Bill will combat anonymous abuse on platforms including Facebook, Twitter and Instagram and give users greater control over the types of content they're exposed to.

While the vast majority of mainstream social media networks do not currently require their users to provide evidence of a legal identity when setting up an account, forcing them to verify users' identities will tackle the issue of anonymous abuse "at its root", the Government claimed.

While it would be down to the platforms to decide their method of linking user accounts to an identity, such as a Government-issued passport, through two-factor authentication or to confirm their profile picture is a true likeness, users must be given a choice of whether to verify their identity or not.

While ID verification has long been touted as a solution to online abuse, including by the Chartered Institute for IT, others point out that many activists, marginalised groups and journalists rely on online anonymity to highlight abuses of power.

Neil Brown, internet, telecoms and tech lawyer at law firm decoded.legal, said that requiring users to hand over their ID details to maximise their social visibility and reach online risked relegating those unwilling to verify their identities to second-class users.

"If you don't identify yourself, you could be grouped with millions of others, and with one click your comments will no longer be seen," he told i.

"Those who are already willing to harass or spread misinformation under their own names are unlikely to be affected," he added.

"The additional step of showing ID is unlikely to be a barrier to them."

The new policy could also curtail the freedom of people with perfectly legitimate reasons to remain anonymous online from interacting with others, said Imran Ahmed, chief executive of the Centre for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH).

"This policy is a vital tool in the battle to socialise social media, but there are hazards involved," he said.

"As a measure, it puts the onus on the user to protect themselves from harm – whereas user safety should be the starting point for everyone as soon as you open an account on a Big Tech platform. And some users will still want or need to engage with the mass of unverified accounts."

Companies defined as "category one" organisations, with the largest number of users and most significant reach, will also be forced to make tools available to users to filter out legal but harmful content under the bill changes, including anti-vaccination, eating disorder and racist abuse.

This could come in the form of "sensitivity screens", which Instagram already deploys to blur graphic self-harm material, or settings to prevent algorithmic recommendations about certain topics, the Government suggested.

"Tech firms have a responsibility to stop anonymous trolls polluting their platforms," said Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, Nadine Dorries.

"We have listened to calls for us to strengthen our new online safety laws and are announcing new measures to put greater power in the hands of social media users themselves.

"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."

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/technology/online-safety-bill-allow-social-media-users-to-block-anonymous-users-and-opt-out-of-harmful-content-say-mps/ar-AAUhkxa?ocid=uxbndlbing

[Ellirium113]

Are social media companies going to make people to fully identify themselves to Join or use their service.

I was partly watching a TV program earlier that was discussing about Social Media Companies are aiming to
make people who use them to have to fully identify themselves when they sign up...rather than allow them to
remain anonymous in order to try to prevent Trolls or online abusers.

OR that was what I thought that it had suggested...but on trying to find an article that may confirm if its correct.
So far I cannot find anything that fully confirms it..

BUT I have came across this article that seems to suggest that it may still remain optional.

IF they do manage to bring in a FULL Identification system to use their service ... I am sure many people will still not be happy to have to this and would see it as a data privacy issue.

I wonder if anyone else knows of any other info on this to confirm if its likely to be becoming Compulsary or to remain optional.?


Online Safety Bill: Allow social media users to block anonymous users and opt out of harmful content, say MPs

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/technology/online-safety-bill-allow-social-media-users-to-block-anonymous-users-and-opt-out-of-harmful-content-say-mps/ar-AAUhkxa?ocid=uxbndlbing

What could go wrong? Already in META with the degenerates virtual gang raping and reports of kids being able to go into rooms to watch virtual deviant sexual activities, posting such information would allow for some of these deviant acts to spread faster from META to Reality.

[astr0144]

What you say may still occur no matter if such people  were to identify themselves or not on any sort of social media or any sort of forum..

And it may well still be such people who may try to abuse others , may well still not be challenged by the Law or Police if they were to be reported...

Although I am aware of some people who were doing online abuse and got reported.. that have eventually been tracked down.. but in one eg it took a year for the police to track them down.

THE ISSUE that I Think many of us could have... or for people who do not abuse online (at least not intentionaly)
but maybe in some cases... that they may think that they would want to say certain things that could get them reported...for more minor things like swearing..or challenging something you may disagree with..

Is that them having identify themselves and be therefore vulnerable to being traced if they were reported for
what maybe seen by some as minor type offences..

is that THEY WOULD RATHER NOT have to give their personal details to have to join some social media or forum..
as takes their privacy away...or could also be seen as a data protection issue..

I would NOT like to have to scan my passport of some form of ID for every forum that I wanted to join.
So that ones personel information is or maybe given to someone..or some company...

or there could be risk if you did say the wrong thing say in some discussion... that could risk being tracked or traced.

What could go wrong? Already in META with the degenerates virtual gang raping and reports of kids being able to go into rooms to watch virtual deviant sexual activities, posting such information would allow for some of these deviant acts to spread faster from META to Reality.
« Last Edit: Today at 07:01:07 AM by Ellirium113 »

[ArMaP]

That's a very slippery slope.

While not allowing anonymous users may help reduce the amount of abuse, it will also be a huge concern for privacy.

Imagine a hacker getting access to real life information of all the people on even a smallish forum, that would be a huge problem for all those people.

Storing usernames, email addresses and passwords is one thing, storing real names and proof of identity would allow a hacker to become anyone of those people.

[astr0144]

I think that You make a better explanation than myself ArMaP in defining things ..

No doubt , there is a lot to consider and be concerned about.

I also could NOT see the authorities themselves who may want to join a Social media or forum website and
them having to give their Personnal details...

That alone MAY prevent them from enforcing such a thing for all Types of Social media / forums etc.

IF they do attempt to do so. depending how the public react maybe also be in question..

as I think a certain % of  the public can often be quite easily led or accept things that get suggested to them.

Especially if they are not fully aware  or educated of the consequences.

That's a very slippery slope.

While not allowing anonymous users may help reduce the amount of abuse, it will also be a huge concern for privacy.

Imagine a hacker getting access to real life information of all the people on even a smallish forum, that would be a huge problem for all those people.

Storing usernames, email addresses and passwords is one thing, storing real names and proof of identity would allow a hacker to become anyone of those people.