OT Should online anonymity be removed?

[MadAmster]

I would say, yes, it should.

That might seem a little weird coming from someone using a pseudonym but I am (always have been) of the opinion that if you have something to say then YOU should say it rather than hide behind some kind of anonymity.

Why do I use one? Blame the BBC. Many moons ago, in fact, very many moons ago, they deleted my account on their 606 football forum. I was one of the top 3 posters by volume of posts. They even gave me a reason. I had used my real name. They eventually agreed to reinstate my account provided I used a pseudonym. MadAmster was born. Since then I have kept the identity on football fora. It provides consistency at least.

Owners and Moderators of fora are liable for the content of a forum. They can, and have been, handed libel writs that have cost them dear.

When I was owner and mod of the now defunct East Midlands Collective football forum I had cause to remove some posts. With others I requested the poster to re-word it or have it deleted. Reworded and no longer libellous posts were accepted. Failure to take me out of danger of a libel suit saw the post deleted.

This danger that a mod is in is something very mant posters are unaware of.

Lately we've had lots of reports of racist Tweets etc aimed at black footballers. Unfortunately, nobody has been tracked down thus far and hit with criminal and civil suits. They should be.

You are responsible for what you post online but not you alone. The owner/Mod of the site is also deemd responsible.

It is my opinion that all online posting should be done under our own names. When you register for a forum/service you should have to use your own name. Your name, address, email should be verified by the service provider prior to your being eligible to post. You should not be allowed to hide behind anonymity. That simple verification process would stop most, if not all, of the unacceptable online outbursts.

The Law does not allow you to say slanderous things. It does not allow you to write libellous things.

Online anonymity means people feel immune to any consequences of the harmful things they post. The cloak of anonymity should go. Even mine, despite the fact that I am very careful not to post anything libellous that might put Andy and/or FootyMad in danger of a libel suit.

I'd be interested to know your thoughts on this subject.

[ramAnag]

Sorry to disagree, MA...but I don’t think it should.
Appreciate your concerns completely and I do think people have got to be more responsible for the things they write...and accept responsibility for them.

Having said that, we all occasionally give away little snippets about ourselves on here that personally I wouldn’t want to be made public under my own name.

My own rule is...don’t write anything on a forum that you wouldn’t be prepared to say to the recipient’s face. I genuinely always stick to that but there are clearly a minority on here who don’t.

As regards the mod’s role. I do sympathise, but no one makes anyone become a moderator...it’s a role they all actively seek (though for the life of me I don’t know why)...and, as we saw yesterday, Andy is more than capable of using his ‘authority’ to rid us of unacceptable or possibly libellous posts.

Specifically on the subject of libellous comments...I firmly believe that the perpetrator, not the moderator/owner, should be held responsible, but I an unsure of the legality surrounding that particular issue.

[MadAmster]

Specifically on the subject of libellous comments...I firmly believe that the perpetrator, not the moderator/owner, should be held responsible, but I an unsure of the legality surrounding that particular issue.

Should being the relevant word here. The perp IS responsible, if they can be found. The owner/mod of a forum is also liable for allowing it to remain on the forum. I know that from a previous life as owner/mod of the now defunct East Midlands Collective, a spin off from the also defunct West Midlands Collective that eventually became incorporated into the EMC.

[MadAmster]

PS - rA, don't be sorry for disagreeing. It's not a crime. The place would be boring if we all agreed on everything. We know each other well enough to respect the other's opinion whether we agree or not.

[ramAnag]

Should being the relevant word here. The perp IS responsible, if they can be found. The owner/mod of a forum is also liable for allowing it to remain on the forum. I know that from a previous life as owner/mod of the now defunct East Midlands Collective, a spin off from the also defunct West Midlands Collective that eventually became incorporated into the EMC.

Didn’t know that. Seems about right...the operative word probably being ‘remain’. I think it’s right that ‘the perp IS responsible’ and also that the owner/mod should only be held responsible if the offending thread ‘remains’ visible.

Only ‘sorry’ from the point of view of disagreeing with an entirely responsible and well intentioned post. Not disagreeing with the sentiment...just the practicalities and I agree...healthy, respectful disagreement is good.

[Andy_Faber]

MA is right about liability although the bar is set reasonably high for mods

One downside of using real names (on screen) is there's always that small risk of someone putting two and two together and ending up at your front door, for reasons good or ill. Its happened to me (even using my Andy Faber name - it is easily linked to my real name), although the guy in question was in the business of enquiring about a car I was selling not weilding a two foot sabre in my direction

[Trickytreesreds]

Sorry Maddy, but it's a no from me.
I told you, I worked at a HMP for years.
Lets just say, some very nasty Mr's with an axe to grind, would love to send a goon or two around for being held to account.
I will say, that records of forum members could be held, but even that has risks to all involved.
In any case, what's to stop anyone in a house hold or collective, using an account? It's proving it that's hard.
You can have an IP address, but that doesn't even narrow it down to one person.

[MadAmster]

So you're quite happy for those racially abusing footballers, pundits, actors, singers, politicians etc should be allowed their anonymity?

If not using your name, surely, there should be some kind of registration so that the poster of such illegal abuse can be traced and dealt with, shouldn't there?

[Trickytreesreds]

So you're quite happy for those racially abusing footballers, pundits, actors, singers, politicians etc should be allowed their anonymity?

If not using your name, surely, there should be some kind of registration so that the poster of such illegal abuse can be traced and dealt with, shouldn't there?

Yes there should. But that is the problem. It has to be secure and only accessable by the law etc.

[Andy_Faber]

Yes there should. But that is the problem. It has to be secure and only accessable by the law etc.

Plus, agreeing with Tricky (Jesus, Swale and I have both agreed with Tricky in the last 24 hours, this is his Nick Clegg moment) but taking it further, technology (in the hands of those wishing to do wrong) regarding new means of hiding identity is moving more quickly than our lawmakers can handle. Plus its a global problem, and getting global agreeemnt on this (within the democratic world) would be IMO impossible