It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Randi Zuckerberg wants to stop online anonymity

page: 1
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 02:13 PM
link   
Randy Zuckerberg - Facebook Marketing Director and sister of Mark Zuckerberg

"People behave a lot better when they have their real names down... I think people hide behind anonymity and they feel like they can say whatever they want behind closed doors."

So basically what she's suggesting is that we should do this simply to prevent cyber-bullying. Wow.

I think we already know where this one's going.



Huffington Post
is.gd...
edit on 7/30/2011 by BeyondPerception because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 02:23 PM
link   
So what if she said that. Its not like she can make that happen.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 02:24 PM
link   
Propaganda! It's called the war on the internet.. or cyber-ism as i refer to it.. Been going on for some time now.. I guess some are just more aware of it then others.

Not to long ago, There was a proposal for a Internet ID..



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by BeyondPerception
 

is this why?
www.youtube.com...



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frankenchrist
So what if she said that. Its not like she can make that happen.


It's the weight she pulls, and the message she is spreading.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by BobbyShaftoe
 


Well, it's likely there are gov insiders pushing/funding corporations to spread this message so that further attempts to regulate will receive less of a fight.

This whole thing sounds reminiscent of the 2nd Amendment debates. "That guy shot that guy. Guns are bad. Take away everyone's guns." As they keep pushing that message, more and more people become fearful, and put of less of a fight.

It's this whole ideology of using isolated incidents to punish everyone else.
edit on 7/30/2011 by BeyondPerception because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 02:42 PM
link   
It will not work. ID cards can be forged to produce False ID. Passports can be forged to produce False I.D.
Driving Licence's can be forged to produce False I.D. The same thing will happen on the Internet.
You CANNOT eliminate Anonymity on the internet. You can only make it harder. The problem will still be there and millions of people will be under the false sense of security, as they are now.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 02:46 PM
link   
useful idiot: n. A person who acts in such a way as to help another individual or group while not realizing that their actions are helpful in some way.

Ban anonymity because someone somewhere might get cyber bullied (no punches or kicks thrown, no lunch money stolen, just words). In the process, help the police create a surveillance grid from the public's own compliance.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 02:55 PM
link   
Lets face the facts. Many people wouldnt say the things they say on here to their colleagues or boss. Suppose you are American and a truther. Would you want your boss to know, or your colleagues? No. You would be worried about repercussions to your career, repercussions that might or might not happen. Of course if you are a celebrity and come out as a 911 truther the repercussions will be different, than for somone flipping burgers.

But still you feel uneasy to voice your thoughts out of fear to be singled out. Its different on the internet. Internet ID would change that. People would feel watched and would have to watch what they say online as well. In a society were there are repercussions for speaking your mind I really see no need for an internet ID.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by BeyondPerception
 


I like anonymity. It allows a persons true character to shine through without pretense.

Nobody here knows me, and I dont know anybody here. I sure as hell am not going to be putting on a show for you all; what you see is what you get, without deception, without reserve, as it should be


If I was using a "real" name, Id be concerned about keeping a specific image.
edit on 30-7-2011 by CaticusMaximus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 03:01 PM
link   
Oh I can see it taking shape now..."think of teh childrenz"...the poor cyber-bullying victims. Not to make light of bullying, it can be a serious problem and we all know the Internet is forever. But here's the thing: Every time they want to restrict freedom in some way, it's always couched like this. "You heartless monster, how could you deny the needs of victim XYZ? Obviously we need to do something about it." First they find somebody who has been victimized in some way or who otherwise arouses genuine compassion, and then they twist it in like a corkscrew, going for the legal changes.

The other tactic is fear, of couse, as with "terror" in all its manifestations. Fear and pity, the two-one punch.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 03:02 PM
link   
Well think this way.

If you are using a Facebook then you have no privacy.
edit on 30-7-2011 by Nikola014 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nikola014
Well think this way.

If you are using Facebook then you have no privacy.


I think we already know that. Well, we on ATS at least.


People put their real names, real location, real date of birth, email, phone numbers, where they work, their school, who their friends are, their colleagues, their family, their favorite things, the groups they associate with, what they say, where they are, etc. etc. etc....

And thanks to Facebook Connect spreading throughout the world, this information is being linked to most comments and accounts that people have online.

Yet we think Google is the only privacy concern.
edit on 7/30/2011 by BeyondPerception because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by silent thunder
Oh I can see it taking shape now..."think of teh childrenz"...the poor cyber-bullying victims.


Precisely.. Who watches the main stream media? Mostly adults. Most of them brainwashed. Most of them with no skills on the internet, hence why they get their news from the MSM.

If the MSM can convince people to vote for these puppets we have in office, I'd say it'd be pretty easy convincing people to vote for something they think would be in their children's best interest (not even considering how it screws it up for everyone else).
edit on 7/30/2011 by BeyondPerception because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by TechVampyre
Propaganda! It's called the war on the internet.. or cyber-ism as i refer to it.. Been going on for some time now.. I guess some are just more aware of it then others.

Not to long ago, There was a proposal for a Internet ID..


Common knowledge amongst many of us, yes. But we need to consider the market in which this message is being sent, the method in which it's being delivered, and the timing. I'm going to keep an eye out and see if corps+msm continue to push this on a more regular basis - wouldn't surprise me.

Saying 'there was a proposal' doesn't mean it could never happen. Though I'm sure you know this.

And I don't expect it to come in form of an Internet ID. They will get creative, somehow.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 07:09 PM
link   
Ridiculous and appalling, although not surprising. Facebook is probably in bed with the government, and if they aren't they soon will be. From the government's perspective, they cannot stand to have anything that they cannot control. I mean to me it seems like the government behaves like an insecure child. Cyber-bullying? OMG!

It's not like you can't click the little X in the top right corner, right? It's not like there is no way out of the situation, so I do not see it as bullying in any way. It's the same old thing...the guise of "we want to protect people," so give up some more freedom. Someone needs to...*SLAP* somebody.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 07:34 PM
link   
It all boils down to whose making the biggest buck off of people. Having your name in full, your face scanned into the system, more, will not only benefit the companies marketing to you but more so the thieves and to possibly perpetuate the bully mentality and comes with bigger risk of stalking, identity theft, monitoring, and more. Are not most(not all) of the bullies on Facebook known school bullies to the victim anyway? Surely, they know each other and probably by names of both parties on the network. So, they have an issue with bullying, yet they "say" FB is a great tool for younger children with learning, are planning to promote it for kids under 12. I see that as a risk having younger children, not only name and info asked to provide as well as them being socially accepted-in turn less monitored by parents esp. if they market it as "kid friendly"-more to add pictures all over their page.

Facebook and company are using the bully ploy as a cop out for control in the name of money.

edit on 30-7-2011 by dreamingawake because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 05:06 PM
link   
We're all screwed
Thank them internet punks, anonymous. They "swat" the biggest advocate for internet bullying, as they steal all the adult's child ID's.
Anyone who thinks Anonymous are not being steered by TPTB better take the blinders off, a mack truck is on collision course right in your face.



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 05:51 PM
link   
Bullying? Isn't that done by children? Paying an internet subscription, isn't that done by adults? Why do I have to give up my anonymity because children are saying mean things to each other on the internet? Shouldn't the issue here be that parents aren't monitoring their childrens' internet use?

And apparently this Zuckerberg character isn't very thoughtful. She is disagreeing with a 1995 Supreme Court statement:


Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.


But if we 'feel like we can say whatever we want' without retaliation from an intolerant society, that is bad in her book. What a complete idiot!
edit on 1-8-2011 by againuntodust because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by againuntodust

And apparently this Zuckerberg character isn't very thoughtful. She is disagreeing with a 1995 Supreme Court statement:



I would go out on a limb, and say that its possible they had this in the back of
the plan all along. Suck folks into putting thier whole life on line, storybook style,
pictures, family tree, etc. The whole kit and caboodle.

Then, slowly boil them in a pot like a frog. Strip away one thing at at time,
and then slam them at the end. Yep, loooks like a plan if you ask me.

And in the mean time, Goldman Sachs laughed all the way to the bank.

I have to hand it to Facebook, they found another new way to make billions off the
people while screwing them at the same time.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join