I think there should always be the opportunity for social media accounts to be anonymous. There is a risk, of course, of harmful comments being made via anonymous accounts; but that risk should be weighed against the many benefits of being able to post with anonymity.
What benefit is their to authorities being able to trace illegal posts back to their author?
My post is in support of anonymity. But, there is benefit in "authorities" being able to trace unlawful posts back to their authors: the obvious one being the ability to bring such authors to justice.
31 months inside for writing a tweet is the biggest load of horseshit graced on God's green earth.
She didn't actually do anything. Lucy Connelly is not a cult leader and is not much of an influence over anyone.
Yet, the awful disgusting BBC news presenter didn't get any time inside.
Actions speak louder than words
This is why freedom of speech is so important. It gives you the right to post utter nonsense like this, whenever you want. And, of course, it gives the right to others to call it out.
She did do something. The thing she did broke the law. She then admitted it. And then she was given a sentence that was shorter than the starting point for that offence in sentencing guidelines, despite the aggravating factors.
On a more important note. How much hassle is it to get a Chinese tourist visa? I've only used the transit visas before which you can pick up at the airport.
I can't make it any clearer than this. I think the only way the world can truly operate without controversy, is a lawless world, or a completely controlled society, otherwise there will always be an imbalance.
I think you've lost the plot completely.
I genuinely don't understand why you quote me. You have 0 interest in actually talking with me, we clearly don't get along, you have made this clear on multiple ocassions.
I could understand if you were actually trying to have a conversation, but it is constant throwaway comments with not much substance behind them.
You will never find me quote you unprompted just to have a dig. You are of course free to do so, as it is an open platform etc, but I just can't get my head around it.
You can't have a one sided sensible conversation, so there's no point in engaging, sorry.
Why would anyone have a one sided conversation? Unless you didn't meant to type that.
Sorry I don't understand your point. If your engagements are just throwaway comments then I agree there is no point.
On a more important note. How much hassle is it to get a Chinese tourist visa? I've only used the transit visas before which you can pick up at the airport.
Quite simple now, there’s a big push to get tourists here atm. (Check out all the shills on YouTube)
I can't make it any clearer than this. I think the only way the world can truly operate without controversy, is a lawless world, or a completely controlled society, otherwise there will always be an imbalance.
I think you've lost the plot completely.
I genuinely don't understand why you quote me. You have 0 interest in actually talking with me, we clearly don't get along, you have made this clear on multiple ocassions.
I could understand if you were actually trying to have a conversation, but it is constant throwaway comments with not much substance behind them.
You will never find me quote you unprompted just to have a dig. You are of course free to do so, as it is an open platform etc, but I just can't get my head around it.
You can't have a one sided sensible conversation, so there's no point in engaging, sorry.
Why would anyone have a one sided conversation? Unless you didn't meant to type that.
Sorry I don't understand your point. If your engagements are just throwaway comments then I agree there is no point.
You missed out the word sensible. "You can't have a sensible one sided conversation."
Plus whatever is said you generally reply endlessly and I have no inclination to be involved in an all day conversation. I'm off out in a while.
I can't make it any clearer than this. I think the only way the world can truly operate without controversy, is a lawless world, or a completely controlled society, otherwise there will always be an imbalance.
I don't really care what happens to racists, but I do believe in a pecking order in crimes committed. A person who is racist can be rehibilated, or can more likely become a functioning member of society, more so than the more heinous criminals like sex offenders, abusers, arsonists, terrorists, murderers etc.
Here is the harsh reality of the UK justice system, in the same week I was aware of someone being in prison for a long time for piracy, I saw a woman in McDonalds sitting near kids who I know for a fact was involved in co-ordinating the rape of a young teenage girl in an exchange for drugs, but was released from custody while under investigation.
Priorities. That is my point here. If prisons are full, and prisoners were being released early due to overcrowding, where is the sense in putting people in who could potentially be rehibilated.
I'll talk to you
Controversy: a discussion marked especially by the expression of opposing views
Why do we need a world without controversy?
How could anyone either want a lawless world where people can do whatever they like, or a completely controlled society where dissent is outlawed? Surely we all want a world where differences can be aired within a framework of respect - and if that respect is absent to the extent that one or more laws are broken then the antagonist should face the consequences. What those consequences are is for debate, I agree - and I also agree that the sentencing quidelines in this country do not always make sense in terms of proportionality.
I am not saying we do, nor is it what I want.
Now this is definitely an in person discussion 😂 but being blunt I just think collectively humans aren't great, and the majority of us don't function very well without full control.
That is why I am saying I think only one of those outcomes would make the world operate in a more 'fair' manner.
There will always be a power, corruption or a level of greed that will ruin any decent life cycle. Look at all that's going on in the world even today when we should have developed as humans by now beyond war.
Thank you for at least agreeing on that, I think if the average people knew how many sex offenders and violent people walk among us in society they would feel sick. Same as how many terror attacks are prevented. The fact we are always on at least a substantial threat level more or less is ridiculous.
Again that's a bit off topic but that ties in with the balance I am talking about. I don't believe humans can really do balance collectively speaking.
I think there should always be the opportunity for social media accounts to be anonymous. There is a risk, of course, of harmful comments being made via anonymous accounts; but that risk should be weighed against the many benefits of being able to post with anonymity.
What benefit is their to authorities being able to trace illegal posts back to their author?
My post is in support of anonymity. But, there is benefit in "authorities" being able to trace unlawful posts back to their authors: the obvious one being the ability to bring such authors to justice.
Think he meant "not being able"
What are the benefits of that?
I think the answer may get to the core of this debate about free speech.
I can't make it any clearer than this. I think the only way the world can truly operate without controversy, is a lawless world, or a completely controlled society, otherwise there will always be an imbalance.
I think you've lost the plot completely.
I genuinely don't understand why you quote me. You have 0 interest in actually talking with me, we clearly don't get along, you have made this clear on multiple ocassions.
I could understand if you were actually trying to have a conversation, but it is constant throwaway comments with not much substance behind them.
You will never find me quote you unprompted just to have a dig. You are of course free to do so, as it is an open platform etc, but I just can't get my head around it.
You can't have a one sided sensible conversation, so there's no point in engaging, sorry.
Why would anyone have a one sided conversation? Unless you didn't meant to type that.
Sorry I don't understand your point. If your engagements are just throwaway comments then I agree there is no point.
You missed out the word sensible. "You can't have a sensible one sided conversation."
Plus whatever is said you generally reply endlessly and I have no inclination to be involved in an all day conversation. I'm off out in a while.
I would like to think I am sensible. Good mediator in person, open minded, listen to what everyone has to say. It's just when people have a dig or try and make a fool it doesn't reciprocate with me.
I do reply to what people say as that is how I am. I see it as a sign of rudeness to not reply and when I know I am wrong I will say so.
Similar to how Chizz responded, I agreed with what he said and liked his post. He made his point clear and there wasn't much I could say to him at that point.
Admittedly I post a lot but I have a lot of downtime atm. When the season gets going I probably won't post as much.
If anyone wants to see how far your freedom extends pop onto X or Facebook.
You can post vile comments that no normal human would say in open conversation.
I’m all for reducing people’s rights and shutting down social media platforms that don’t regulate their members. The world was a nicer place when those who like to spout their thoughts had smaller audiences. Freedom of speech comes with responsibility which adults should have no problem with and know what is acceptable.
That's the way Chinese social media works- everything is traceable and can ultimately have consequences. Works better.
I can't quite decide whether this is satire or not...
Nope. Genuine comment. Less hateful bile and lies due to people actually being accountable and traceable
Yet we do have one poster actually living in the country you speak of and praise regularly, that is so scared that they asked for all their posts to be deleted.
I won’t be naming that person and ask that no one else does either thank you.
I find it surprising that people leave countries that they appear to prefer to live in and move to the UK which they appear to think is not as good a fit to what they think is best.
Why does everything have to be so black and white? Is it not possible to see the benefits of both places? The negatives too? I’d chop my dick off before moving back to England, obviously Siv doesn’t agree with me on that point, does that mean I think everything here is perfect and everything in England awful? Obviously not
If you’re going to chop your dick off before moving back to England might I suggest a stopover in Turkey? They’ll be able to add a couple of inches and give it a real smile.
If anyone wants to see how far your freedom extends pop onto X or Facebook.
You can post vile comments that no normal human would say in open conversation.
I’m all for reducing people’s rights and shutting down social media platforms that don’t regulate their members. The world was a nicer place when those who like to spout their thoughts had smaller audiences. Freedom of speech comes with responsibility which adults should have no problem with and know what is acceptable.
That's the way Chinese social media works- everything is traceable and can ultimately have consequences. Works better.
I can't quite decide whether this is satire or not...
Nope. Genuine comment. Less hateful bile and lies due to people actually being accountable and traceable
Yet we do have one poster actually living in the country you speak of and praise regularly, that is so scared that they asked for all their posts to be deleted.
I won’t be naming that person and ask that no one else does either thank you.
I find it surprising that people leave countries that they appear to prefer to live in and move to the UK which they appear to think is not as good a fit to what they think is best.
Why does everything have to be so black and white? Is it not possible to see the benefits of both places? The negatives too? I’d chop my dick off before moving back to England, obviously Siv doesn’t agree with me on that point, does that mean I think everything here is perfect and everything in England awful? Obviously not
If you’re going to chop your dick off before moving back to England might I suggest a stopover in Turkey? They’ll be able to add a couple of inches and give it a real smile.
You just can’t get that in the NHS…
I hear I’ll get a good deal on getting my crooked teeth fixed too.
If anyone wants to see how far your freedom extends pop onto X or Facebook.
You can post vile comments that no normal human would say in open conversation.
I’m all for reducing people’s rights and shutting down social media platforms that don’t regulate their members. The world was a nicer place when those who like to spout their thoughts had smaller audiences. Freedom of speech comes with responsibility which adults should have no problem with and know what is acceptable.
That's the way Chinese social media works- everything is traceable and can ultimately have consequences. Works better.
I can't quite decide whether this is satire or not...
Nope. Genuine comment. Less hateful bile and lies due to people actually being accountable and traceable
Yet we do have one poster actually living in the country you speak of and praise regularly, that is so scared that they asked for all their posts to be deleted.
I won’t be naming that person and ask that no one else does either thank you.
I find it surprising that people leave countries that they appear to prefer to live in and move to the UK which they appear to think is not as good a fit to what they think is best.
Why does everything have to be so black and white? Is it not possible to see the benefits of both places? The negatives too? I’d chop my dick off before moving back to England, obviously Siv doesn’t agree with me on that point, does that mean I think everything here is perfect and everything in England awful? Obviously not
If you’re going to chop your dick off before moving back to England might I suggest a stopover in Turkey? They’ll be able to add a couple of inches and give it a real smile.
I think there should always be the opportunity for social media accounts to be anonymous. There is a risk, of course, of harmful comments being made via anonymous accounts; but that risk should be weighed against the many benefits of being able to post with anonymity.
What benefit is their to authorities being able to trace illegal posts back to their author?
My post is in support of anonymity. But, there is benefit in "authorities" being able to trace unlawful posts back to their authors: the obvious one being the ability to bring such authors to justice.
Think he meant "not being able"
What are the benefits of that?
I think the answer may get to the core of this debate about free speech.
Thanks - I should have worked that out!
The main, and most obvious benefit of anonymous posting is whistle-blowing. Anonymity protects them from retaliation, including arrest, job loss, violence, or even death. Accounts like WikiLeaks and Bellingcat on Twitter/X and r/Whistleblowers on Reddit.
In authoritarian regimes criticising the government, protesting for democracy and organising (non-violent) civil resistance can only be achieved when authors' anonymity can be assured.
Investigative journalism often relies on anonymous sources in the first instance - this is starved when anonymity is prevented.
The benefit of untraceability is not in protecting crime - it's in protecting truth-tellers, dissidents, and reformers when the system itself is unjust or oppressive. In free societies, it helps maintain checks and balances. In unfree ones, it enables survival and resistance. If you live in an unfree society, you can expect anonymity to be prevented. So, those of us who live in a free society really need to ensure the possibility of anonymity is retained; because depriving anonymity in a free society is a sure way to confirm that society is becoming authoritarian.
I think there should always be the opportunity for social media accounts to be anonymous. There is a risk, of course, of harmful comments being made via anonymous accounts; but that risk should be weighed against the many benefits of being able to post with anonymity.
What benefit is their to authorities being able to trace illegal posts back to their author?
My post is in support of anonymity. But, there is benefit in "authorities" being able to trace unlawful posts back to their authors: the obvious one being the ability to bring such authors to justice.
Think he meant "not being able"
What are the benefits of that?
I think the answer may get to the core of this debate about free speech.
Thanks - I should have worked that out!
The main, and most obvious benefit of anonymous posting is whistle-blowing. Anonymity protects them from retaliation, including arrest, job loss, violence, or even death. Accounts like WikiLeaks and Bellingcat on Twitter/X and r/Whistleblowers on Reddit.
In authoritarian regimes criticising the government, protesting for democracy and organising (non-violent) civil resistance can only be achieved when authors' anonymity can be assured.
Investigative journalism often relies on anonymous sources in the first instance - this is starved when anonymity is prevented.
The benefit of untraceability is not in protecting crime - it's in protecting truth-tellers, dissidents, and reformers when the system itself is unjust or oppressive. In free societies, it helps maintain checks and balances. In unfree ones, it enables survival and resistance. If you live in an unfree society, you can expect anonymity to be prevented. So, those of us who live in a free society really need to ensure the possibility of anonymity is retained; because depriving anonymity in a free society is a sure way to confirm that society is becoming authoritarian.
Yeah I completely agree and you've said it much better than I could have. Ultimately for a site like Twitter you'd put a lot of people in danger if you had to register with your ID or whatever. I'd also say that while in the UK in 2025, you're not going to get in any trouble for criticising the Government, but who knows how that will change in the future?
I believe I should be able to say what the fuck I want up to the point where I'm just being a cnut then I should shut the fuck up. Some on the match thread are not so keen on Golfie's right to free speech
Some people go to a country, live there for a few years and think they know better about it than its own people and think they have the right to ridicule its people's actions. The level of arrogance/ignorance is astonishing.
But we did have whistleblowers before social media.
Of course, we had whistleblowers before the internet in general and before the telephone and on local levels before the printing press. The inventions created enable whistleblowers to speak with more ease and make it harder for those in the wrong to get away with it. Making people use ID would make it much trickier to do so.
That's before you even get into separate practical things like whose ID is used for professional accounts? How big does an account have to be to be classed as professional? What about the CL X account, which mod would have to provide their ID and what happens if a different mod suddenly decides to go on a tirade using that account?
But we did have whistleblowers before social media.
Yes. Because we had freedom of speech before social media.
I just mean to question whether anonymous social media accounts are enabling whistleblowers. They lack credibility due to the very nature of being anonymous, and also not requiring any verification or fact-checking. I think much more often, anonymity enables misinformation, online abuse, polarisation, foreign interference, etc.
I completely support social media accounts requiring identification in the UK for the above reasons.
But we did have whistleblowers before social media.
Yes. Because we had freedom of speech before social media.
I just mean to question whether anonymous social media accounts are enabling whistleblowers. They lack credibility due to the very nature of being anonymous, and also not requiring any verification or fact-checking. I think much more often, anonymity enables misinformation, online abuse, polarisation, foreign interference, etc.
I completely support social media accounts requiring identification in the UK for the above reasons.
Yeah, this is/these are the point/s I was making about the benefits of the Chinese system.
Chizz makes some good counter points overall and ot shows the double edged sword at work here.
But we did have whistleblowers before social media.
Yes. Because we had freedom of speech before social media.
I just mean to question whether anonymous social media accounts are enabling whistleblowers. They lack credibility due to the very nature of being anonymous, and also not requiring any verification or fact-checking. I think much more often, anonymity enables misinformation, online abuse, polarisation, foreign interference, etc.
I completely support social media accounts requiring identification in the UK for the above reasons.
For me, the Arab Spring movement, #MeToo, Chinese COVID-19 Whistleblowing, the Ferguson Protests and Russia-Ukraine Conflict OSINT (Open Source Intelligence) are sufficient reason and proof that anonymous social media accounts are crucial and the ability to use them should be robustly protected.
I completely support the permanent opportunity for citizens in the UK to be able to post anonymously. That should be an inalienable right of democratic societies.
31 months inside for writing a tweet is the biggest load of horseshit graced on God's green earth.
She didn't actually do anything. Lucy Connelly is not a cult leader and is not much of an influence over anyone.
Yet, the awful disgusting BBC news presenter didn't get any time inside.
Actions speak louder than words
This is why freedom of speech is so important. It gives you the right to post utter nonsense like this, whenever you want. And, of course, it gives the right to others to call it out.
She did do something. The thing she did broke the law. She then admitted it. And then she was given a sentence that was shorter than the starting point for that offence in sentencing guidelines, despite the aggravating factors.
I agree with your agree to disagree opening paragraph.
31 months inside for a tweet is absolutely mad.
1. Her tweet was really stupid - she deleted it
2. It was spur of the moment.l
3. She doesn't have a relatable previous conviction. It was a one off.
She wasn't the one going out starting fires and rioting.
She should have been fined and given a warning, but not put inside.
31 months inside for writing a tweet is the biggest load of horseshit graced on God's green earth.
She didn't actually do anything. Lucy Connelly is not a cult leader and is not much of an influence over anyone.
Yet, the awful disgusting BBC news presenter didn't get any time inside.
Actions speak louder than words
This is why freedom of speech is so important. It gives you the right to post utter nonsense like this, whenever you want. And, of course, it gives the right to others to call it out.
She did do something. The thing she did broke the law. She then admitted it. And then she was given a sentence that was shorter than the starting point for that offence in sentencing guidelines, despite the aggravating factors.
I agree with your agree to disagree opening paragraph.
31 months inside for a tweet is absolutely mad.
1. Her tweet was really stupid - she deleted it
2. It was spur of the moment.l
3. She doesn't have a relatable previous conviction. It was a one off.
She wasn't the one going out starting fires and rioting.
She should have been fined and given a warning, but not put inside.
1 Stipidity plays a part in many crimes 2. many crimes are spur of the moment, including very serious crimes 3. she was actually given a sentence less than the starting point from r the tarif relating to the crime she pleaded guilty to - no previous relatable record would therefore have been taken into account.
The fact that she did not actually take part in the riots is irrelevant - she wasn’t charged and convicted of rioting or arson. But if one of the rioters acted on her call them mea culpa.
Comments
31 months inside for writing a tweet is the biggest load of horseshit graced on God's green earth.
She didn't actually do anything. Lucy Connelly is not a cult leader and is not much of an influence over anyone.
Yet, the awful disgusting BBC news presenter didn't get any time inside.
Actions speak louder than words
She did do something. The thing she did broke the law. She then admitted it. And then she was given a sentence that was shorter than the starting point for that offence in sentencing guidelines, despite the aggravating factors.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/cps/news/updated-sentence-childminder-admits-inciting-racial-hatred-over-social-media-post
Sorry I don't understand your point. If your engagements are just throwaway comments then I agree there is no point.
Plus whatever is said you generally reply endlessly and I have no inclination to be involved in an all day conversation. I'm off out in a while.
Now this is definitely an in person discussion 😂 but being blunt I just think collectively humans aren't great, and the majority of us don't function very well without full control.
That is why I am saying I think only one of those outcomes would make the world operate in a more 'fair' manner.
There will always be a power, corruption or a level of greed that will ruin any decent life cycle. Look at all that's going on in the world even today when we should have developed as humans by now beyond war.
Thank you for at least agreeing on that, I think if the average people knew how many sex offenders and violent people walk among us in society they would feel sick. Same as how many terror attacks are prevented. The fact we are always on at least a substantial threat level more or less is ridiculous.
Again that's a bit off topic but that ties in with the balance I am talking about. I don't believe humans can really do balance collectively speaking.
You can:
- divulge secrets
- make promises
- issue warnings
- tip and alert criminals
- engage in insider dealing and manipulate markets
- declare war
- propose laws
Etc, etc.
Both words and actions can speak loudly.
The fact something is a tweet doesn't mean it has no consequences.
What are the benefits of that?
I think the answer may get to the core of this debate about free speech.
I do reply to what people say as that is how I am. I see it as a sign of rudeness to not reply and when I know I am wrong I will say so.
Similar to how Chizz responded, I agreed with what he said and liked his post. He made his point clear and there wasn't much I could say to him at that point.
Admittedly I post a lot but I have a lot of downtime atm. When the season gets going I probably won't post as much.
Asking for a friend.
The main, and most obvious benefit of anonymous posting is whistle-blowing. Anonymity protects them from retaliation, including arrest, job loss, violence, or even death. Accounts like WikiLeaks and Bellingcat on Twitter/X and r/Whistleblowers on Reddit.
In authoritarian regimes criticising the government, protesting for democracy and organising (non-violent) civil resistance can only be achieved when authors' anonymity can be assured.
Investigative journalism often relies on anonymous sources in the first instance - this is starved when anonymity is prevented.
The benefit of untraceability is not in protecting crime - it's in protecting truth-tellers, dissidents, and reformers when the system itself is unjust or oppressive. In free societies, it helps maintain checks and balances. In unfree ones, it enables survival and resistance. If you live in an unfree society, you can expect anonymity to be prevented. So, those of us who live in a free society really need to ensure the possibility of anonymity is retained; because depriving anonymity in a free society is a sure way to confirm that society is becoming authoritarian.
Some on the match thread are not so keen on Golfie's right to free speech
That's before you even get into separate practical things like whose ID is used for professional accounts? How big does an account have to be to be classed as professional? What about the CL X account, which mod would have to provide their ID and what happens if a different mod suddenly decides to go on a tirade using that account?
I completely support social media accounts requiring identification in the UK for the above reasons.
Chizz makes some good counter points overall and ot shows the double edged sword at work here.
Im not entirely sure where I stand on it
I completely support the permanent opportunity for citizens in the UK to be able to post anonymously. That should be an inalienable right of democratic societies.
I agree with your agree to disagree opening paragraph.
31 months inside for a tweet is absolutely mad.
1. Her tweet was really stupid - she deleted it
2. It was spur of the moment.l
3. She doesn't have a relatable previous conviction. It was a one off.
She wasn't the one going out starting fires and rioting.
She should have been fined and given a warning, but not put inside.
2. many crimes are spur of the moment, including very serious crimes
3. she was actually given a sentence less than the starting point from r the tarif relating to the crime she pleaded guilty to - no previous relatable record would therefore have been taken into account.
The fact that she did not actually take part in the riots is irrelevant - she wasn’t charged and convicted of rioting or arson. But if one of the rioters acted on her call them mea culpa.