Would Social Media interaction change if all users were required to register with ID

[Agent Smith]

I was having a discussion with someone and he proposed a "FIX" (for lack of better words) on negative interactions on social media. People calling each other the "N" word and general harassment, death threats etc.

He said this could be fixed if social media accounts were required to have a name, address and real photo attached to it. We would have to register in person and provide proof of address. Everyone online would be able to see you and where you're located.

Without the obvious "what if they used a fake I.D. or circumvented the system in some way" issue, would this actually work? Could it work?

Maybe people would think twice about what they say online, maybe they would think twice about how they behaved in general.

Thoughts?

[Galactis]

Absolutely would not change the experience. Sorry but, why should anyone be required to show proof of identity to display their freedoms?

So to answer your questions I will first start by stating:

1. Threatening people is a serious offense by most social media/ forum guidelines. Which is different than using specific words/ phrases, and language in general. The use of language is allowed; however, at the social media's platform choice to allow it.

2. It would not fix anything requiring people to, "Register" a second time. This creates loopholes exposing people to possible, crimes, dangerous situations in real world applications. Also, what if a person does not have ID, or wishes not to provide ID or Proof of anything of their location and details? This creates a situation where the internet is not open and free and available to everyone.

3. Of course people will use a fake i.d. They use it to get in bars, buy cigs, buy alcohol. If fact it would probably be easier to just Snapshot, Paintshop to create an ID to begin with. I will just say it will not work at all.

4. It won't deter anyone from using any language that they can use freely. It won't change peoples, behavior, or IRL applications. It would only deter them from being allowed access to online media. (Which is mostly wrong, to deny access to an open and free internet).

I'll finish by saying, what's the difference between requiring someone to provide any sort of ID for anything else in the real world. You need ID for buying groceries, you need ID for buying Gasoline. I find it really segregating and divisive to resort to these sorts of policies.

[Agent Smith]

Absolutely would not change the experience. Sorry but, why should anyone be required to show proof of identity to display their freedoms?

So to answer your questions I will first start by stating:

1. Threatening people is a serious offense by most social media/ forum guidelines. Which is different than using specific words/ phrases, and language in general. The use of language is allowed; however, at the social media's platform choice to allow it.

2. It would not fix anything requiring people to, "Register" a second time. This creates loopholes exposing people to possible, crimes, dangerous situations in real world applications. Also, what if a person does not have ID, or wishes not to provide ID or Proof of anything of their location and details? This creates a situation where the internet is not open and free and available to everyone.

3. Of course people will use a fake i.d. They use it to get in bars, buy cigs, buy alcohol. If fact it would probably be easier to just Snapshot, Paintshop to create an ID to begin with. I will just say it will not work at all.

4. It won't deter anyone from using any language that they can use freely. It won't change peoples, behavior, or IRL applications. It would only deter them from being allowed access to online media. (Which is mostly wrong, to deny access to an open and free internet).

I'll finish by saying, what's the difference between requiring someone to provide any sort of ID for anything else in the real world. You need ID for buying groceries, you need ID for buying Gasoline. I find it really segregating and divisive to resort to these sorts of policies.

From the very top: Why should anyone be required to show proof of identity to display their freedom? Because freedom of speech isn't freedom of consequences.

1) Registering with an actual name would hold people accountable. If said user threated to murder someone, the police could show up and arrest them for their crime.

2) If no ID, show proof of residence. EVERYONE has a bill. Phone bill, light bill etc. It would create a loophole for crimes, yes. That I concede.

3) As I said in my post when I mentioned that, you would have to show up in person and register. Even an idiot can tell the difference between an actual ID and a botch job. Especially how creative state agencies are now with their ID's.\

4) It would, again as I said in my post, hold people accountable for the words they chose to use when they decided to express their freedoms. If you say the "N" word online and your employer catches you using said language, that employer has an opportunity to get rid of toxic behavior being masked behind PEPE avatars.

[Galactis]

From the very top: Why should anyone be required to show proof of identity to display their freedom? Because freedom of speech isn't freedom of consequences.

1) Registering with an actual name would hold people accountable. If said user threated to murder someone, the police could show up and arrest them for their crime.

2) If no ID, show proof of residence. EVERYONE has a bill. Phone bill, light bill etc. It would create a loophole for crimes, yes. That I concede.

3) As I said in my post when I mentioned that, you would have to show up in person and register. Even an idiot can tell the difference between an actual ID and a botch job. Especially how creative state agencies are now with their ID's.\

4) It would, again as I said in my post, hold people accountable for the words they chose to use when they decided to express their freedoms. If you say the "N" word online and your employer catches you using said language, that employer has an opportunity to get rid of toxic behavior being masked behind PEPE avatars.

1. No, people would still use fake information, or screengrab information from someone else. We're not talking about threats, social media usually does a good job of tracking as it is. (Possibly except for forums).

2. No, People will refuse to show i.d. There are laws protecting people in the US from unlawful searches. Requiring I.D. goes against certain constitutional freedoms, and would outright never upheld. A bill for talking to each other on the internet... Yeah, No. We pay to use the internet, why should we pay again for more access. No!

3. Non issue. No id required, unlawful requirement.

4. People do not need to be held accountable for their words, unless those words are threats to life, damage, or violence. Absolutely not! Also, an employer has no need to be involved, unless the in question behavior took place on company time and property. Also, Depending on what "Do Not" clause the company requires a person sign. That person would be subject to company policy if it hurts the companies, image, trade secrets, theft, so on. I'm assuming none of this applies.

[crewskater]

Won't change or hardly at all. That won't change the fact that a lot people are irrational and closed minded.

[Jonnusthegreat]

It would change interaction for some people, but most people act well anyway. At least in my experience. I think using ID for social media is a good thing. Real names would be good.

[Galactis]

How about you shove your authoritarianism up your ass. Go live in Europe if you hate freedom so much.

lol.

Yeah, it's really different requiring Automobile Drivers to have ID and insurance and so on because, of the near limitless potential of disaster. Social media still has some sort of disaster scope but, slightly less serious. I don't really think requiring an ID helps anything at all. In fact requiring ID immediately takes out a huge swath of people who can't get ID's or even afford one.

This kind is a shoe in about the whole: People that want to own or purchase a gun should be required to hold an ID. I disagree with that as well, AND i'm LIBERAL. (whatever that means). What if a person wants a gun for protection, they're trying to protect themselves, family. They cannot afford an ID or cannot get one?. What if it's a "Mountain Men" man type of person which segregates himself from most government laws and rules. Those types of people do not and flat out REFUSE to be documented; however, they're completely legal citizens. If a person like that wants a gun, why should they present an id?

[Beazy]

No. . . because my ID would say my name is Guadmajor Padma from Bangladesh India.

There is no way any social media company is going to be allowed access to a directory of US citizen names and addresses to verify said IDs. It would be one of the most illegal data tranfers to happen since Experian got hacked and all of our SSNs were leaked. .

[Galactis]

No. . . because my ID would say my name is Guadmajor Padma from Bangladesh India.

There is no way any social media company is going to be allowed access to a directory of US citizen names and addresses to verify said IDs. It would be one of the most illegal data tranfers to happen since Experian got hacked and all of our SSNs were leaked. .

Hell, Social Media probably doesn't even need our id's anyway. They know where we live, they know our credit card numbers, ssi, all of it. We just have to authorize them to do whatever.

[Masark]

Given the shit on facebook where this rule already exists, I'm going to go with "no".

[shadowmouse]

Maybe people would think twice about what they say online, maybe they would think twice about how they behaved in general.

Thoughts?

As I've said before when someone brought up a similar problem, what is really needed is social accountability. All digital activity needs to be traceable back to your SSN, since that amounts to our national ID number with a cross reference to your state ID or driver's license. Let people use handles for various websites but the services all need to have those links on file for law enforcement and social systems. After that, of course, your social standing should be awarded or deducted points to indicate how reliable you are.

For those with impaired sarcasm detectors, I'll flag it this time.

[Ghostpanther]

As I've said before when someone brought up a similar problem, what is really needed is social accountability. All digital activity needs to be traceable back to your SSN, since that amounts to our national ID number with a cross reference to your state ID or driver's license. Let people use handles for various websites but the services all need to have those links on file for law enforcement and social systems. After that, of course, your social standing should be awarded or deducted points to indicate how reliable you are.

For those with impaired sarcasm detectors, I'll flag it this time.

Lol! There for a moment I thought you was serous.

But it is not as serous a issue as some seem to make it out to be. On here for example and even Twitfaces uses, there is a way to block or ignore people. Use it.

[shadowmouse]

Lol! There for a moment I thought you was serous.

The way people seem to be pushing for increasingly authoritarian measures, I keep waiting for someone in one of these threads to think it is a great idea. /sigh

[Queen of Hamsters]

100% that it would change.

But would it change things for the better? Doubt it. Just look at Facebook, plenty of people use their real image and name out there, and freely behave like asocial monkeys all the same.

I'm sure there are ways to hold people accountable when they commit criminal acts online without forcing registration on everyone.

[Celista]

A lot of people already do use their real names/faces/etc on social media, and those who remain anonymous already use fake profiles to protect their anonymity. I doubt this would change much at all, especially considering that it would be impossible to enforce.

[Ghostpanther]

A lot of people already do use their real names/faces/etc on social media, and those who remain anonymous already use fake profiles to protect their anonymity. I doubt this would change much at all, especially considering that it would be impossible to enforce.

Exactly. How could it be enforced? Reminds me of when the FBI was giving serous thoughts of making every gun owner register them. Then they finally came to their common sense and realized it was not something which could be realistically enforced in the US.

[Mister Cheese]

It wouldn't change a goddamn thing because there would be no way to track anything.

[Mistame]

I was having a discussion with someone and he proposed a "FIX" (for lack of better words) on negative interactions on social media. People calling each other the "N" word and general harassment, death threats etc.

Most of this stuff is already illegal and if law enforcement wanted to push the issue, they could. Also, terms like "death threat" get thrown around too easily. If someone says, "I'm going to kill you", that's a death threat. If they say, "I hope someone kills you", that isn't.

He said this could be fixed if social media accounts were required to have a name, address and real photo attached to it. We would have to register in person and provide proof of address. Everyone online would be able to see you and where you're located.

Aside from the fact that there's no such thing as "good" authoritarianism, this would be a huge violation of privacy.

Without the obvious "what if they used a fake I.D. or circumvented the system in some way" issue, would this actually work? Could it work?

Maybe people would think twice about what they say online, maybe they would think twice about how they behaved in general.

Some people might act differently out of fear of retribution. Others wouldn't. Some people are assholes and most people are stupid.

From the very top: Why should anyone be required to show proof of identity to display their freedom? Because freedom of speech isn't freedom of consequences.

There seems to be a bit of conflation here. "Freedoms" is just a colloquial catch-all for general free expression. "Freedom of speech" is protection from government, only, and isn't relevant.

4) It would, again as I said in my post, hold people accountable for the words they chose to use when they decided to express their freedoms. If you say the "N" word online and your employer catches you using said language, that employer has an opportunity to get rid of toxic behavior being masked behind PEPE avatars.

And who decides what words are eligible for "consequences"? Society? Yeah, no. As I already pointed out, most people are stupid. People who actively seek out people to "rat out" to employers, etc, are just as bad as those spewing their tripe. People need to mind their own business and grow the fuck up. If you ignore idiots, they'll eventually go away.

[cubby]

Absolutely would not change the experience. Sorry but, why should anyone be required to show proof of identity to display their freedoms?

So to answer your questions I will first start by stating:

1. Threatening people is a serious offense by most social media/ forum guidelines. Which is different than using specific words/ phrases, and language in general. The use of language is allowed; however, at the social media's platform choice to allow it.

2. It would not fix anything requiring people to, "Register" a second time. This creates loopholes exposing people to possible, crimes, dangerous situations in real world applications. Also, what if a person does not have ID, or wishes not to provide ID or Proof of anything of their location and details? This creates a situation where the internet is not open and free and available to everyone.

3. Of course people will use a fake i.d. They use it to get in bars, buy cigs, buy alcohol. If fact it would probably be easier to just Snapshot, Paintshop to create an ID to begin with. I will just say it will not work at all.

4. It won't deter anyone from using any language that they can use freely. It won't change peoples, behavior, or IRL applications. It would only deter them from being allowed access to online media. (Which is mostly wrong, to deny access to an open and free internet).

I'll finish by saying, what's the difference between requiring someone to provide any sort of ID for anything else in the real world. You need ID for buying groceries, you need ID for buying Gasoline. I find it really segregating and divisive to resort to these sorts of policies.

You're not answering the question. You're just saying that the OP's posit would never happen. The question isn't if it's possible. The question is what would change about social media interaction IF everyone was required to prove who they were before they could post in all the things - kind of like that book The Circle.

And the answer is that yes, it would most certainly change. Perhaps not a lot, but we already see where FB posts are certainly more tame than anonymous posts like Reddit.

[Has lost its way]

No it wouldn't besides making then worse for everyone.