I find this similar to the completely unenforced laws against wearing a facemask during a public demonstration. While the Federalist Papers had to be written anonymously, they established a government that removed the need for secrecy when conducting public affairs. The good guys are always going to be doxed, it's the naughty miscreants that profit from secrecy on public networks. I use a pseudonym because I work for a government employer and don't want to bring my politics to work, but if I were promoting Hamas or divulging secrets or organizing a flash mob I'd want there to be a way to make me accountable for my actions.
I agree that Haley was wrong on this point -- but she is right on so many other issues that the others have stumbled over that it doesn't put me anywhere close to supporting another candidate. Who among us has never been wrong? GO, NIKKI!
Erick - I believe it’s illegal to send anonymous hate mail through USPS. Why is it ok then to post anonymous hate speech toward anyone on social media? If we don’t legally allow it through the US Mail, why would we allow it in social media posts?? I’m totally with Nikki Haley on this, we need to do anything we can to eliminate the domestic and foreign bots on social media who anonymously threaten the security of any persons.
She kinda sounded a bit like Trump this morning with that nonsense. It’s amazing to watch, as a recovering Republican, the tone, across the board, of all these candidates. Trump has definitely changed the party but at least he didn’t want to go to war with everyone. Might be the first election I sit at home.
Not a fan of Haley before and now this reinforces it. Desantis in my mind is the only alternative to Trump in the Republican party and despite the polls he can beat Biden - not Trump. Competition in social media companies will help what is going on. Some can say we verify users, and some can say they can remain anonymous. Let the consumer decide not the government. Moreover, despite the seeming power of social media I see it as reaching its peak and then it will decline if it hasn't begun already.
Well, I have always been lukewarm about Haley. Too establishment for me. Nothing yet has changed my opinion that DeSantis is the best choice. Though I am still pretty sure a republican cannot win.
I'm reminded of when the Feds forced Standard Oil to break itself apart. John D. said that the distribution of oil and oil products would become more inefficient, prices would rise, and that he would become richer. He was right, and he did.
The same thing happened in telecom when companies could own the means of transmission (phone lines and cell towers) but not also deliver the service to the consumer, or the delivery of programming...everyone got to use the phone lines and cell towers without restriction.
We need to separate the delivery platform of social media from the content management (break up Meta, X, and Amazon, for example), so that consumers have a choice of "what to consume" while we don't have to build a series of parallel networks to deliver it...and keep the government out of it.
You're suggesting a single pipe for all information flow? What happens when it is seized by regulators "to protect the common good"? More transmission channels = freedom of choice and opinion.
No, I'm not suggesting a single pipe. I'm suggesting the businesses carrying the product not be the businesses producing the product.
Think of how gas is transmitted from well head to end users...one company builds and maintains the pipeline, other companies market the product. It's a very simple model compared to Social Media, but it's the same basic principle.
What if the government seizes the pipeline the gas comes through...yeah, that's a problem. What if it refuses the licences to build the pipeline...yeah, that's a problem too. One thing at a time...
Right now Google, for instance, and Meta, for instance not only supply the distribution platform, but also control what does or doesn't get distributed to end users. We've seen how that plays out for politics that the employees and owners don't approve of...
I have posed/commented with my real name in the past. However, I went anonymous when I realized (National Review, not here) how deranged and angry some people are. Mostly on the Left, but a few on the Right. I travel often leaving my wife at home. Last thing I want is for some dirt-ball to be looking for me, but finding her home alone.
Otherwise, looking in the mirror, while I do try to be polite even when vehmently dissagreeing with someone, it's much easier to let yourself get carried away, thorw off the gloves and rip into someone anonymously than with your real name on the comment. A conumdrum, indeed.
I don't think you can consitutionally force this unless you first declare the social media platforms to be something like public utilities and the new digital public square. Unless you do that, you have no jurisdiction. Should they be open about it? Yes. However, that also reveals a lot of trade secrets that shouldn't be forced out for a private company. We can't go down this road of one day it's a bastion of free speech because it's a private company but the next want to rally the torches and pitchforks because they won't tell us why or how they did what they did. I'm all for declaring them a public utility though and exposing the bias.
She should push for all public protesters good or bad can’t wear a mask so when they start tearing up property and being unlawful we can deport or prosecute those responsible
Problem is not with what Haley said but with Social media. While I don't think it should be regulated it has become a tool for the left to hunt down, expose and often arrest conservative voices.
Haley isn't wrong in her point. China, Russia and more use FB and other mediums to compromise us and poison our youth.
I just don't think her proposal is correct. But on another note, anyone that uses FB can't be expected to have any level of privacy.
I am a part of social media app that actually does force you to verify your information and you have to use your real name. AKA you are not anonymous. So there are SM apps out there that require that. I agree it shouldn't be a requirement.
This is disqualifying and she's done NOTHING to walk it back. It's time Erick. #DeSantis2024
I find this similar to the completely unenforced laws against wearing a facemask during a public demonstration. While the Federalist Papers had to be written anonymously, they established a government that removed the need for secrecy when conducting public affairs. The good guys are always going to be doxed, it's the naughty miscreants that profit from secrecy on public networks. I use a pseudonym because I work for a government employer and don't want to bring my politics to work, but if I were promoting Hamas or divulging secrets or organizing a flash mob I'd want there to be a way to make me accountable for my actions.
I agree that Haley was wrong on this point -- but she is right on so many other issues that the others have stumbled over that it doesn't put me anywhere close to supporting another candidate. Who among us has never been wrong? GO, NIKKI!
Erick - I believe it’s illegal to send anonymous hate mail through USPS. Why is it ok then to post anonymous hate speech toward anyone on social media? If we don’t legally allow it through the US Mail, why would we allow it in social media posts?? I’m totally with Nikki Haley on this, we need to do anything we can to eliminate the domestic and foreign bots on social media who anonymously threaten the security of any persons.
She kinda sounded a bit like Trump this morning with that nonsense. It’s amazing to watch, as a recovering Republican, the tone, across the board, of all these candidates. Trump has definitely changed the party but at least he didn’t want to go to war with everyone. Might be the first election I sit at home.
Not a fan of Haley before and now this reinforces it. Desantis in my mind is the only alternative to Trump in the Republican party and despite the polls he can beat Biden - not Trump. Competition in social media companies will help what is going on. Some can say we verify users, and some can say they can remain anonymous. Let the consumer decide not the government. Moreover, despite the seeming power of social media I see it as reaching its peak and then it will decline if it hasn't begun already.
Haley apparently is a WEF accolyte.
Well, I have always been lukewarm about Haley. Too establishment for me. Nothing yet has changed my opinion that DeSantis is the best choice. Though I am still pretty sure a republican cannot win.
I'm reminded of when the Feds forced Standard Oil to break itself apart. John D. said that the distribution of oil and oil products would become more inefficient, prices would rise, and that he would become richer. He was right, and he did.
The same thing happened in telecom when companies could own the means of transmission (phone lines and cell towers) but not also deliver the service to the consumer, or the delivery of programming...everyone got to use the phone lines and cell towers without restriction.
We need to separate the delivery platform of social media from the content management (break up Meta, X, and Amazon, for example), so that consumers have a choice of "what to consume" while we don't have to build a series of parallel networks to deliver it...and keep the government out of it.
You're suggesting a single pipe for all information flow? What happens when it is seized by regulators "to protect the common good"? More transmission channels = freedom of choice and opinion.
No, I'm not suggesting a single pipe. I'm suggesting the businesses carrying the product not be the businesses producing the product.
Think of how gas is transmitted from well head to end users...one company builds and maintains the pipeline, other companies market the product. It's a very simple model compared to Social Media, but it's the same basic principle.
What if the government seizes the pipeline the gas comes through...yeah, that's a problem. What if it refuses the licences to build the pipeline...yeah, that's a problem too. One thing at a time...
Right now Google, for instance, and Meta, for instance not only supply the distribution platform, but also control what does or doesn't get distributed to end users. We've seen how that plays out for politics that the employees and owners don't approve of...
I have posed/commented with my real name in the past. However, I went anonymous when I realized (National Review, not here) how deranged and angry some people are. Mostly on the Left, but a few on the Right. I travel often leaving my wife at home. Last thing I want is for some dirt-ball to be looking for me, but finding her home alone.
Otherwise, looking in the mirror, while I do try to be polite even when vehmently dissagreeing with someone, it's much easier to let yourself get carried away, thorw off the gloves and rip into someone anonymously than with your real name on the comment. A conumdrum, indeed.
I don't think you can consitutionally force this unless you first declare the social media platforms to be something like public utilities and the new digital public square. Unless you do that, you have no jurisdiction. Should they be open about it? Yes. However, that also reveals a lot of trade secrets that shouldn't be forced out for a private company. We can't go down this road of one day it's a bastion of free speech because it's a private company but the next want to rally the torches and pitchforks because they won't tell us why or how they did what they did. I'm all for declaring them a public utility though and exposing the bias.
Correct… Dear God I hope she doesn’t squash the momentum she’s building. A great answer on abortion but bad answer on government overreach…geez
She should push for all public protesters good or bad can’t wear a mask so when they start tearing up property and being unlawful we can deport or prosecute those responsible
I prefer your idea to hers.
I have seen very few good ideas out of her campaign.
Neocon Nimrata showing her true colors. Just another Cheney disciple.
What was wrong with Cheney? (Veep, not the dopey daughter). I have found him to be a smart, patriotic conservative.
Problem is not with what Haley said but with Social media. While I don't think it should be regulated it has become a tool for the left to hunt down, expose and often arrest conservative voices.
Haley isn't wrong in her point. China, Russia and more use FB and other mediums to compromise us and poison our youth.
I just don't think her proposal is correct. But on another note, anyone that uses FB can't be expected to have any level of privacy.
I am a part of social media app that actually does force you to verify your information and you have to use your real name. AKA you are not anonymous. So there are SM apps out there that require that. I agree it shouldn't be a requirement.