The Republican presidential candidate said, if elected, she will force social media companies to 'show America their algorithm.'
Nikki Haley vows to abolish anonymous social media accounts: 'It's a national security threat'::WPDE covers news, sports, weather, and local events in and around the Grand Strand, Pee Dee, and the Border Belt.
Republicans really hate privacy don't they. In 20 years theyre gonna ban bathroom doors so they can make sure the "right" people are in the "right" bathrooms.
Such a move would lead to an increase in “civility,” Haley believes. “When they know their pastor, their family members can see it, it's going to help our kids and it's going to help our country," she said.
That's what everyone said about posting next to your real name on Facebook. How did that turn out?
So she wants reddit and youtube like platforms to be named individuals. Is she going to then go after all the forums that still exist? If so, I guess I'll see you guys next in a Dialup BBS.
So how is she going to make them non-anonymous in a way that businesses can properly verify identity? Does every single social media site need to have its own ID analysis system for every state-ID? I mean that seems like it would be ridiculously hard.
For that to be practical, they'd need something nation-wide, and probably digital.
So, does she want to suggest to her fanbase a national digital ID? How would htat go?
"Every political donation should be verified by their name. It’s a national security threat," she said. "When you do that, all of a sudden people have to stand by what they say and it gets rid of the Russian bots, the Iranian bots and the Chinese bots."
Agree with her views on algorithm transparency, however abolishing anonymous accounts won't improve the situation around misinformation.
Facebook has required your real name for a long time, and it still resorted into people dissecting into echo chambers supporting their views points.
Yes, anonymous accounts allow people to hide behind a mask, but a lot of people spreading misinformation aren't afraid of being humiliated or ridiculed. It even helps spread it faster (celebrities, influencers, etc) in a lot of situations.
This will help me afford a home!
This will help me afford kids!
This will make me feel safe at traffic stops!
This will help my union at work!
This will help our extreme temperature swings!
How are you going to disable anonymous accounts? You can always be anonymous if you want, meaning that this ends, AGAIN, with normies not having anonymous access and nerds and criminals still having anonymous access
@L4s This dumb broad would need to ban the Federalist Papers, too, since they were anonymous.
McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission ~>
"Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority [.....] It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation [.....] at the hand of an intolerant society."
"Every person on social media should be verified by their name. It’s a national security threat," she said. "When you do that, all of a sudden people have to stand by what they say and it gets rid of the Russian bots, the Iranian bots and the Chinese bots."
Her handlers just want to control all narratives. She doesn't care about Russian bots. Nikki Haley is a bot.
As long as it's primary season and we're workshopping far right brain farts ... free guns for all kindergartners? Make dogs wear pants? NBA but for white people? Grammy category for songs about how things used to be better?
I'm gonna be interested how that's supposed to work with false positives, err, collateral damage, err, plausibly deniable canceling of free speech of citizens. Nice try.
This is idiotic but it did make me think, would you end up with like... some sort of MAD policy but for doxxing? If everyone can be doxxed then no one can be doxxed?
The way I feel about this is similar to how I feel about getting rid of all guns. It would definitely make the country safer on the whole, but it would also endanger the vulnerable and violate the bill of rights. It would also be government overreach.