if you cant post what you are with your real name you shouldnt be posting t anyways.

>>19049165
i see what you did ther

also who is ghandi

>huffington post

nice try OP

>predicting that governments will eventually “demand” that people use their names for all online activity

On which day I'll make my own internet. With blackjack, and hookers...

So how does this Jew explain real life bullying?

>>19049165
government can't enforce morality
it's a direct assault on the first amendment in america

Facebook confirmed for the enemy of your freedom.

Suck my dick you fat nigger jew

>Posts "if you cant post what you are with your real name" as anonymous.
I can only imagine how sentence structure like that could affect your value as an employee.

>>19049232
>government can't enforce morality

Keep believing that

>I TINK ANIMONINITY HAZ TO GO BECUZ INTERNET IS BIG HAPPY VILLAGE.
>HURR DURR
Get a fucking clue, she-dog. Anonymity wont ever go away.

>Facebook requires all members to use their real names and email addresses

That's weird. My facebook moniker is Josiah Superstructure.

ITT: POST YOUR FAKE FACEBOOK ACCOUNT NAMES

>>19049110

Randi zuckerberg? is it his sister? wtf

>>19049231
>Implying rich Jew kids go to public schools.

this is why google plus is better

>>19049293

Implying rich Jew parents aren't cheap Jew parents

>>19049274
Tripping Flipper

>>19049293
>implying there's no "bullying" in private schools

The real problem is people's lack of source criticism. If someone, say a highschool community, picks up on something posted anonymously, it's like bullying someone with something yelled randomly on the street.

>>19049283
ya, you know its a girl because she spells randi with an 'i'.

>>19049318
>implying jew parents don't want their children to grow up as perfect jews
>thus a jewish college is required

>>19049302
>this is why google plus is better
HAHAHAHAHA

>>Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt has also made this suggestion, calling online anonymity “dangerous” and predicting that governments will eventually “demand” that people use their names for all online activity.

>>19049337
like James Randi?

>implying you're anonymous now
>implying you're not broadcasting a trace-able IP right now
>implying your ISP wouldn't sell you out in a heartbeat if the feds asked and just claimed you had CP then planted it on you.

I don't know if you people realize or not that Google is owned by Jews as well.

>>19049325

Fucking this.  People will believe anything, especially if there are enough other people to believe it to.  Critical thinking skills are fucking nonexistent today.

How are they planning on making that happen? Force you to send them a copy of your passport before allowing you to activate an account or something? Or some sort of incredibly inefficient legislation forcing ISPs to work with every single website that needs an account? That's getting a bit creepy.

you know, we all may smack talk him all the time, but I seriously appreciate moot for sticking by the anonymous idea

>>19049412
both of them jews?

>>19049322
Frosted Butts
Butts Frosted
Frosted Frosted Butts
Butts Butts Frosted IV

All of them have the location set to Sodom, Israel.

>>19049454

Yes

>>19049435
letter being sent to your home. requires nothing but a lot of paperwork on their side.

>>19049404
> implying you're not broadcasting a trace-able IP right now

You should probably go to www.meatspin.com and download their security suit to avoid having your IP hacked by lulzec.

So we can make our own internet protocol stuff if this happens, right?

>>19049264
well... it does, but they shouldn't. they don't have a right to.

>>19049404
>Implying my IP is any indication of where I am.
>Implying my ISP can trace me with only my IP.

>>19049502

Then why don't you go stop them?

>>19049502

Law was designed around morality.  Why is it illegal to kill someone?  Because it's immoral.

>>19049527
Nobody is getting murdered on the internet.

>>19049524
>stop
>the feds
Good luck with that.

>>19049527
a kills b's family member
b kills a as revenge
b goes to prison for exacting justice

How is b immoral? are you implying imprisoning someone with living quarters where he can barely live is moral?

>>19049527

>implying morals are more than relative popular opinions

>>19049527
Prove morality exists then.

>>19049527
not because it's immoral, because it causes problems for other people. same with stealing, and driving laws. we don't drive on the right side of the road because of morality, we do it because without driving laws, people could get hurt easily.

the reason we are currently "enforcing morality", as in abortion laws, gay marriage laws, etc, is because our mostly christian nation has good dominance in government.

>>19049546

Yes, but it follows the same principle.  You can't claim that government should not enforce morality as a reason for online anonymity when you agree with them enforcing morality in other cases.  You need a better argument.

So where is this magical site that grants bullies anonymity yet forces 13 year old school children to use their real names? And when did children stop bullying each other at school due to lack of anonymity?

I think it's more likely that children bully each other because they're unsupervised children. Call me fuckin' crazy, but that's my take on the issue.

>>19049590

Impossible.  I'm just going with cultural relativism, here.

>>19049601
theocracies govern morality.
morality is relative.
it's impossible to do without bias.

there's your argument

Laws are sometimes based on morality, but not always. Laws and morality are completely separate.

>>19049601
If being an asshole is immoral, then why are there tons of assholes in the world?

>eliminate anonymity
>use cyber-bullying as a cover story
>stop or severely deter whistle blowing on corruption
Gee, I wonder who this benefits.

>>19049591

>not because it's immoral, because it causes problems for other people. same with stealing, and driving laws. we don't drive on the right side of the road because of morality, we do it because without driving laws, people could get hurt easily.

Those are all examples of morality.  It is immoral to harm other people, therefore we create laws to attempt to prevent it.

>>19049640

Why are you assuming that people are moral or even try to be?

>>19049324
just from my personal experience. I went to public and private (boarding and commuter) schools, there wasnt much bullying, and when there was it was dealt with harshly and promptly. In a situation where teachers live on campus with students and dont easily get tenure. Students with behavioral problems are given counseling, and if they dont get with the program are quickly encouraged/pushed to withdraw.

>>19049646
but we don't base our laws off of morality.

>>19049664
I'm not. I'm implying the opposite.

>anonymity must go away

>"free" nation
>govern morality

pick one

>>19049681

So what's the problem?  People don't have to be moral.

I can't be the only one who feels somewhat uncomfortable when people I don't know (online) calls me by my real name.

>>19049689
>tor
>not full of government operated nodes

>>19049679

They generally are based on morality, but morality is highly suggestive.  Some people consider it ethical to kill someone else for their own benefit, while others consider that unethical. 

>>19049711
I never said they had to be. Where do you get that notion?

>>19049715
*call

>>19049689
tor is very broken. But there are a number of privately operated VPN's that have been popping up that you can buy into for cash moneies..

What prevents one teenager from throwing the typical schoolyard insults around on /b/ prevents me from discussing my interests without losing social standing among my friends.

>Oh you posted on /s/, you sick fuck. Porno fapping pervert.
>It's okay bro I still like yWOAH YOU SAID WHAT ABOUT MY FAVORITE COMIC
>YOU CALLED MY OPERATING SYSTEM GAY? FUCKING HELL IT'S WINDOWS.
>BITCH THIS DEAL IS OVER GO BE FRIENDS WITH ANOTHER NECKBEARD
>foreveralone

>>19049727
>tor
>not configuring your exit nodes to be in countries that don't give a fuck.

>>19049727
If everyone ran their own node, it wouldn't be an issue. Plus, Tor has improved in recent years, it doesn't just keep randomly picking 3 nodes so you eventually get a bad guy guard and a bad guy exit. It picks 3 guards and sticks with them, makes the chances of them snooping on you lower. Even if a rouge exit has, let's say a CA cert, what are they going to do? Look at your packets? What if you aren't doing anything that would identify you personally? If your implementation is strong they can't do much to attack you from the exit node (no injecting iframes with exploits in every http page for example)

>>19049773
That's what you get for having friends that browse the same websites as you.

Hey guys.

Remember back in the day when everybody told you never to use your real name online, for various reasons including stalkers and/or pedophiles?

Those were good times.

>>19049822
Yeah

I got banned from a forum for acting 12 (I was 12) and saying that I was 26.

>has a fix for cyberbullying

GODDAMN IT LINDSEY

>>19049818
I have no idea what the fuck you just typed.

Law us based on moral, let's take Kant's moral for the sake of argument. If the maxim of your action can't be used as a general rule, it's immoral. You can't be violent, since using violence as a rule of action would lead to chaos and this is paradoxical with me initial idea of me achieving something with my action.

Now, enforcing this is paradoxical as well, since enforcing a law against for instance violence requires violence or the threat hereof. But not allowing law enforcement to use violence is paradoxical to the idea of actually enforcing the law.

Law as the implementation of moral is paradoxical per definition, since the government is part of what it governs. Much like Bohr and very small objects. Lovely, innit?

>>19049844
They're counterpoints to the usual drivel about Tor being broken and vulnerable, coming from people who probably don't even understand how it works.

Alright guys time to start posting with your real names.

fuck it why not, if everyone did it it wouldn't be THAT bad

>>19049916
You got it

The end of truly free expression.
Anonymity along with discussion is the avant garde, of the internet.

>>19049916
Alright.

>>19049949
dude

>>19049495
>2011
>meatspin
>implying the rest of us haven't seen this and grown out of it years ago.

>>19049450
Doesn't he do talks about it?

>>19049916
hI guise!

Its gonna be like south korea.
You have sign up with a unique ID and it'll be linked to everything you do or say.
Recently a bunch of guys were sued for trolling a female Starcraft II pro gamer.

>>19049975
Dumping example

>>19049916
Artious McCourey Rammsterstien Finch Dusseldorf the Fifth is too long to type.

>>19050003

>>19049916
If you say so

>>19049590
It exists in our heads and affects the way we think.

>>19050017

>>19050000
quadruple zero get

>>19050032

>>19050033
Fucking constructivists

>>19050051

>>19049730
>>19049679
You are both right to a point. The government (the people) do base laws on some common, generally overwhelmingly common, sense of morality. Such as, im sure most of us can agree that murder is wrong, but does that mean that EVERYONE agrees with the fed's definition of murder, ofc not.

The point is that although the government can attempt to legislate morality, enforcing an unpopular moral standard is not really possible. Strict muslims are going to stone people for adultery and hippies are going to smoke pot, regardless of what the law decrees is moral.

The real philisophical question here is, is it moral to try to enforce a law (supposedly based in morality) that is so unpopular as something like marijuana prohibition. How much of the population must disagree with the law before it is seen as tyranny instead of a moralistic commonality of society.

tl;dr - classical liberalism, read up on it. One of my favorites is [§ 222 - http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/locke/loc-219.htm]

>>19049361
>Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt
>Former Google CEO
>Former CEO
>Former

Why...Why....WHY ARE PEOPLE SO FUCKING STUPID!? Why should they take personally what a random, anonymous coward on the INTERNET says about them? If it's someone you know then I completely understand, but seriously, TAKING AWAY ANONIMITY TO FIX CYBERBULLYING? It's like banning cars because car crashes kill people! Or banning sex because there are STDs!
Goddammit, I think I'll finally take on George Carlin's worldview.

>>19050067
Well, I'd rather law be looked at as a way to maximize freedom (as much freedom as you can get without infringing on the freedoms of others, i.e. murder or theft) rather than to enforce morality.

>>19049293
i lol'd.

>>19050051
>Candleja-
RAGED SO FUCKING HARD.
YOU HAVE TO SAY THE ENTIRE NAME, CANDLEJACK THATS THE MEME THE OTHER WAS OF DOING IT IS

>>19050000
How do they enforce that!?

>>19050156
Your site is taken down and youn are fined if it allows to participate without registering with your KSSN first.

hahaha.

you guys realize that when WWIII comes (in a few years) that the government is going to love the fact they forced anonymity out of the internet.


but oh wait, i thought only pedophiles were interested in privacy!

dumb fucks.

right, because bullying was never a problem until it could happen anonymously

people are just butthurt that the playing field has been leveled and now wimpy kids can be bullies too

>>19050188
>>19050000
This seems to be very secure!

On an completely unrelated note, I have a 182MB .doc file with thousands of stolen Korean SSNs to register for betas and stuff.

>overnments will eventually “demand” that people use their names for all online activity.

>>19050065
>>19050051
>>19050033
>>19050003
That's...actually a pretty well-written and informed article about this site!
Sauce please?

>>19050337
>Sauce please?
Look at the bottom left/right corner.

>>19050136
Okay, now Im sure that philisophically I agree with you. I just dont think that philisophically you understand what a right or a freedom is at its very core. so just stick with me for a minute.

Liberty means, the right/ability to govern oneself. There is some uper-progressive tool reading this right now that just read that and is saying to themself, "well that is just fucking absurd, if everyone just did whatever they want it would be anarchy and nothing would get done ever, and everyone would die in the Apocalypse".

And actually if everyone were truely free that would be a possibility, but not the necessary outcome. And this is where a moral code comes in, what if everyone was totally free, but also made a conscious decision to be a better person day after day, simply because Liberty & Hard Work > Anarchy & Poverty?
And really, thats all the law is, is an enumeration of those values by which a functional society adheres to as a whole.

Facebook and other government fronts just want people to post real info so they can more efficiently figure out who to monitor. They aren't after cyberbullies. They're after whoever has an opinion that is anti-establishment. Monitoring IP's isn't enough. You can share IP's in a house, a library, free Wifi, etc. Forcing everybody to login with their real name or Internet ID makes it clear who is who way more than an IP ever could.

Imagine if everything you posted online could be traced back to your internet ID

-If you're a conservative who criticizes the Federal Reserve, you're fucked.

-If you say you don't like homosexuals, you're fucked.

-If you question the holocaust figures, you're fucked.

-If you criticize big agriculture companies for ruining food

-If you post about how to get your children away from vaccines and public schools designed to make them the idiots that the establishments wants to grow into servile workers, you're fucked.

All these people will get a knock on their door from CPS, or audited by the IRS, or blacklisted from getting a job when a background check is done on your REAL opinions, etc etc etc.

This police state garbage is for everybody who isn't taken in by government and corporate propaganda, not just pedos and cyberbullies.

>>19050595
>If you question the holocaust figures, you're fucked.
My god, so they only approve of retards that think you can kill more jews than were in Europe at the time?

>>19050003
>>19050033
>>19050051
>>19050065
I was expecting a TL:DR
But I sat my ass down and read every work.
Thank you for posting.