Reading through the timeline it is very interesting. Very good comments from Rio about social media 'normalising' abuse so it spills over into stadiums. Can't disagree with anything he's said there.
The comments from the LGBT person go somewhat against the other 'witnesses' in that while the others are advocating for users having to use their real names, they want online anonymity to stay stating that real names could put users in danger. Story of a person in Africa using their real name and being arrested for coming out as gay. I don't think it's wise coming out about anything online whether that's your sexuality or, as the term suggests, anything that people don't already know about you. If there's a risk, don't do it. Join an online group of like minded people behind some kind of wall, invitation only kind of thing if you feel you need to be online at all.
Racism is completely different. People of colour don't have the luxury of hiding their colour and why should they. You could say that gay people shouldn't have to hide their sexuality either and I agree but if you know there is a risk then you can choose to hide it, black people can't. If a first step is to do away with anonymity then an impasse has already been reached.
Hmmm, I don't think I'd put it like that.
Before I start I just want to say that the following is just my opinion, and I know others may differ.
Racism and other prejudices are far less acceptable now than they were when I was young. I'd say that social media are the last bastion of prejudices due to their anonymity, rather than a normalising influence. Racist and homophobic language has been at large in stadia for as long as I can remember.
Rather than making people abusive, I just think social media illustrates the extent to which that mind-set still exists.
On that timeline:
Imran Ahmed from the Centre for Countering Digital Hate said social media companies are "failing to act on anti-vaccine lies", failed to act on racism directed at sportspeople and failed to act on "misinformation" about US elections.
He's right, of course - but the problem with policing these things is twofold, imo. Firstly, you risk coming into conflict with the principles of free speech - obviously racism and homophobia come under the umbrella of hate-speech and can be prosecuted on that, but other forms of dangerous or subversive activities aren't so easy to define.
Secondly, conspiracy theorists only use restrictions on their ravings as "evidence" that they're right and that the evil and ubiquitous "They" are just trying to shut them down.
Imo, banning things just sends them underground, and education is the only route out of this. It's a slow route, however, and I don't really think there's a quick fix solution.
As to removing anonymity, it's obvious why social media companies are reluctant to do that - it will devastate their income. How many on here would just abandon the place if we had to reveal our true identities? And we're for the most part civil and respectful of one another.
You don't have to be involved in anything nefarious to be reluctant to having your identity exposed. I'm no expert on this but I'd have thought it just makes data-mining and possible identity theft that bit easier.
