Sounds like ones demands have changed, or atleast they got a hold of themselves. whatever lead to them walking back on this, it’s the end of another battle for internet privacy, but not the end of the war. As apps continue to track you in new mysterious ways behind their closed sourced software, and the governments continue to crack down on encryption. Anonymous names are important for privacy too.
I thought this was extra rich coming from the woman who won’t even use her real first name (Nimarata) because she fears backlash among her racist, shitbag supporters.
deleted by creator
Just like Rafael, I mean Ted Cruz. Who’s actually Canadian. Can you take him back Canada? Please?
Canada: “No.”
“Wait, you want me to reveal my real identity, even on my alt accounts? As a Black man, I can’t tolerate that” -white GOPers on social media
Edit: forgot the “gay” part
“Shit, if everyone knows that I play girl characters online, they’ll think I’m a trans.”
They already do man, just need to come out we accept you for who you are…. Also I need to have a few words about my past online trolling behavior
Look at this dude staring at a girls ass for 8 hours. Kinda gay.
I don’t mind anonymous American people having free speech; what I don’t like is anonymous Russians and Chinese and Iranians having free speech,
Wait that’s even dumber, why would she think her law would impact everyone except Americans?
I interpreted it more as a “I’m willing to sacrifice all Ameircan’s right for anonymous free speech, which I do value, to take away that of foreigners too.” which is a typical braindead racist take.
Especially since it’d cause the complete opposite. They have no authority or power over citizens of other countries.
whatever lead to them walking back on this
I feel pretty confident that the reason is that most anonymous bigots online are Cons, never mind the troll farms they employ to help keep themselves in power…
(E: to be clear, fuck these privacy destroying laws, just pointing out why there would be backlash specifically from the GOP)
And all those Nazi identities would be known, we know how they love covering their “proud” faces
Oh look, a republican being spineless. Must be a day ending in Y.
deleted by creator
Excerpt from the article:
By Wednesday, Haley had somewhat amended her stance. Asked on CNBC if she was advocating a ban on all anonymous social media posts, Haley said that, while she believed “life would be more civil if we were able to do that,” she was focused on foreign-based actors, not U.S. citizens.
“I don’t mind anonymous American people having free speech; what I don’t like is anonymous Russians and Chinese and Iranians having free speech,” Haley said, not explaining how she would recommend that social media companies parse those users.
Saying DeSantis “wants to let Chinese propaganda machines run wild on social media without any restrictions,” Haley campaign spokesperson Olivia Perez-Cubas on Wednesday added that the onus should be on social media companies to better police anonymous, foreign-based accounts.
“What Nikki doesn’t support is letting the Chinese and Iranians create anonymous accounts to spread chaos and anti-American filth among our people,” she said. “Social media companies have to do a way better job policing that.”
I wonder how she justifies the " Life would be more civil if we weren’t anonymous" with her Republican senator counterparts threatening to fight that union lead.
She picked foreign threat actors who have been boogiemen to the American people for like 2-3 decades at least in order to not seem racist/xenophobic in this. But if the American government doesn’t have the right to impinge on the free speech of their citizens, they don’t have the right to do so to foreigners either regardless of whether their governments are an active threat.
Making them use their real names doesn’t stop them from stirring the pot. Doesn’t make Americans less susceptible to propaganda or influence from foreign threat actors.
I’m not a constitutional scholar, but is that true? Extremely skeptical of this:
But if the American government doesn’t have the right to impinge on the free speech of their citizens, they don’t have the right to do so to foreigners either regardless of whether their governments are an active threat.
It’s not like non-citizens enjoy all the rights of citizens. Why would non-citizens living in a foreign country enjoy the free speech rights of US citizens?
Technically anyone entering the country is awarded the same rights and freedoms (such as given in the bill of rights ) regardless of whether they enter legally or illegally. But anyone outside the borders of the US is not subject to the laws or government oversight of the US Government (with the exception of citizens traveling or living in other countries). So yes. Technically yes. True.
I’ll try to find a source.
Edit:
"In decisions spanning more than a century, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution’s guarantees apply to every person within U.S. borders, including “aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful.”
" But once here, even undocumented immigrants have the right to freedom of speech and religion, the right to be treated fairly, the right to privacy, and the other fundamental rights U.S. citizens enjoy."
deleted
