Should people be required to use their real identities when writing comments on the Web?

Question

There seems to be a tide rising toward making people declare their real identities online in a bid to tone down the nastiness that seems to flare up when people wrap themselves in a cloak of anonymity. Read more: http://ca.blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-NwuWaPQoeKdM_fkq7QX_VJZjjCc-?cq=1&p=376

Answer 1

Yes!Yes!Yes! I am tired of people hiding behind the anonymity of the web. If you have something to say, we would love to hear it, but have the decency to stand up for your convictions by letting us know who you are. If you are a racist, a bigot, or even an otherwise decent person, let us know who you are. Stand up and be counted!. If you feel that you have the right to spew garbage, then spew it openly. Don't hide. Hiding who you are when you spew garbage only shows that you are a coward who knows what he/she is doing or saying is WRONG.

Answer 2

Hmm... Let's see... Should we allow psychotic stalker people to visit you in your home?

I don't know about you, but my answer is HELL NO!

Sometimes the nastiness is more real than the "real" identities people have. They should be allowed to vent, but get reported and booted off if they hurt others. What I really hate is people that like to kid in a fun and non-hurtful way that then get booted off by PC trolls that insist that this be a "serious question only" site. That's really lousy.

And who are these supposed saints that are running their true identities? Celebrities? I'm not seeing your evidence of this so-called movement.

What you are really referring to is Facebook. It isn't mentioned in your news link, but it seems to me that he created a group there - where you are NOT anonymous - and got caught because someone else reported it. Then the report goes on to rant about people being anonymous when the writer failed to establish whether the kid was even anonymous in the first place!

Advice: don't jump at shadows. People are anonymous in some places on the web for good reason and public in others (like Facebook) for good reason.

The real issue with Facebook is that they are allowing stalker creeps onto the site without requiring the old school associations! That is seriously screwed up.

Answer 3

Keep in mind two principles entrenched in the Constitution. One is the freedom of speech in First Amendment the other is the Ninth Amendment, where it is made implicit that the government has no right to tell people what to do to, they are only in their capacity to act in accordance with the enumerated powers of the Constitution. There are no current Internet laws that can immediately apply to this situation, there are however strict policies regarding proper conduct and rules for behaviour. The only suggestion I could possibly make without pursuing a legal course is to either establish a watchdog for these sites or tighten the rules of conduct. If you insult your professor or your fellow MD it will result in removal of your comment as well as a complete ban, the problem is defining the line between constructive criticism and direct attack. I don't believe forcing people to use their real identities will result in anything, I'm not even sure how you can guarantee a person will provide their real identity at all, in hindsight a person can claim to be someone else and we can just imagine what would happen given that situation.

Answer 4

While anonymity can make a jerk out of just about anybody, the Internet is a bit of a different case. People are still accountable for what they say. Yes, a psuedo-identity can seem easy to hide behind, but if you say something stupid you're still going to be reprimanded somehow - banned, suspended, ignored, so on and so forth. To say that one must use their real name on the Internet so they can be "held accountable" just has a more...threatening context, as if it puts one's freedom of speech in jeopardy.

Also, this is the Internet. Remember that. People who remain adamant about using their online alias can still be tracked down by someone if they can still get the right information. And people who have used their real names may simply become targets far more easily. What would happen if people were somehow forced to use their real name? Aliases don't always protect users - what could possibly be put in place to protect someone on the Internet if they HAD to use their real name? Firewalls? New security programming? If there's a security program in existence, someone, somewhere, can crack it. Quite frankly I find the idea of making people use their real names ridiculous. It would be like opening the doors to every Internet stalker who lurks and waits to find a person's real name.

Answer 5

People who publish or post defamatory, unsubstantiated comments about an indentifiable person, whether in print or on the web, must be held equally accountable. The reasons are obvious, since the masses tend to believe what they see in writing from whatever source, and damage to one's reputation, business or career is criminal, if the posting is untrue or simply an allegation. Along with the already available avenue to ask a Judge to demand a person's/account holders identity, a separate law enforcement agency, without any business or government influence or meddling, should be provided with the tools to stop defamation, identify the accuser to the accused so that they can deal with it directly, in order that justice may take it's true course. Only when it happens to you will you understand. ISP's must also, like any publisher, take pains to strictly monitor complaints, or like any publisher, be held liable for permitting false statements. It's called being "civil", and if someone wants to belong to society, they have a clear responsibility to print, post or otherwise publish only things that have a basis of proof, backed up by solid evidence. The web does not give anyone a licence to harm others. For example, if someone accuses you of being a child molester, great harm is done regardless, since there is always the association of that comment, and a suspicion.

Answer 6

I believe that it should be for some reasons, and for other reasons no.
For: Protect the person, with identity fraud on the rise. all it takes is to have the real name of a person, and can be used against the person. I personally don't want my name being used for criminal and illegal circumstances. or even have access to my personal information like my credit cards, finacal status, bank information. You can find almost anything on the net, or underground to find someones information. Also, there are young people that are using the net, espically minors, they don't need some 50 year old pediphile knowing where they live. Using handles like what we use, protects all of us.
Against: There is only one thing that i am against handles, that is for ciminals, that ones that are pediphiles, child porn advocators, anything that has to deal with the well being of our children. If our society broadcasts their names in the newspapers, on the news, on the radio, or any other means of media; it should be the same when it come to selecting handles on certain websites. Our ISP's have the authorization to limit uses of our internet to their clients (wheither it's download limits to the amount of e-mail address allowed on any account), they should also be able to be given the ability to bring up criminal records for those who have a history of child-porn and pediphile and have their internet access limited to general sites. For instance, eliminate access to downloading messenger programs (wheither it's Yahoo!, MSN, ICQ, etc.). I would stop most of the crime rings that involves those people.
I have heard cases in the past that there has been kidknappings of children, simply because they gave out too much information, or if they're using their real name. It could have been prevented if the people that actually committed the crime was blocked to accessing those programs.
Maybe as an extra step that the messenger services that should provide is the persons Social Security Number or Social Insurance Number (depends wheither you live in Canada or the US), or the other security numbers that other counrties have. It might be a breach of confidice to most people. Set it up so no one access those numbers other than the messenger services mainframe to bring up only their criminal history, so when anyone tries to access the account all they will see is "xxxxxxxxx" any nothing else.

Answer 7

I agree that the cloak of anonymity can make people feel free to be a jerk more so than usual, however I think fake names or not, they would still be that way...after all how many people are going to know it is Harry from down the street calling someone bad names.

The creative names people come up with seems to be another facet of the Internet and can sometimes be very revealing about who they are as a person.

Revealing what your name is, isn't going to make a jerk not be a jerk...but it might make people feel less safe, I know that when I first talk to someone on-line, I like that they can't find me by my name...there are a lot of crazy people out there.

Answer 8

This is clearly the most idiotic "serious" question ever, considering the rampant identity crime and cyber stalking prevelant today.

If anything, people should be forced NOT to use real information when posting, sending e-mail etc...

I would also point out that there is an obsession with how things are said, rather then what is said. As a result, truthful wisdom presented abbrasively is often overlooked in favor of the cheerfully presented idiocy.

You all get dumber as a result.

Answer 9

The question is absurd. Should people be "allowed" to use fake identities on-line? The Internet falls within no individual jurisdiction and is therefore impossible to regulate. Furthermore, the thing that makes the Internet great and lousy at the same time, is the freedom to do and say anything you might like. I would rather be left to judge people's opinions on their own merit than allow the argument to become personal and petty as it so often does. People who are losing an argument all too often attempt to indict their adversaries character instead of addressing the issue at hand. Perhaps the ability to be anonymous gives us better opportunity to have discussions on purely ideological grounds, instead of devolving into childish name calling.

Answer 10

A name is merely something to call yourself or others by. Even if we were to use our real names it wouldn't change anything. The rude people out there will still be rude because, even if you have their real name they still exist and you don't know who they are. What difference does it make knowing that someone is called Sally vs. Moon-shadow? A name doesn't help anyone to stay away from hurtful or rude comments. The Internet may make things faster but it still takes time to get to know others, having their name won't change anything, except, perhaps to give you a false sense of security. So, really, the only thing that would be accomplished by forcing people to use their real names would be to either make the good people out there who just want to remain anonymous fade into the background or give power to those that abuse others via the Internet by giving them a false sense of friendship and goodness merely because you have their name. Names don't make the people, so what difference does anonymity make int he long run?

Answer 11

When guarantees can be put in place that no one will face reprisals of any kind for freely expressing an honest opinion online or elsewhere, then it will be appropriate to remove the cloak of web anonymity. Until then such anonymity is vital in order that ideas people would otherwise fear to voice can be heard and debated. Freedom is not free; we may have to put up with a few abusers and some gratuitous if foolish nastiness in order to give voice to all those who want to speak.