21–30 of 57 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The difference is in who is requiring this. The site operator/company (such as blog,newspaper,social network) or the central govt. It makes a big difference.
As US custom (e.g. the Federalist Papers) and jurisprudence has anonymity so strongly established, it's hard for me to see such a thing here without a simultaneous hot civil war. It would tread on a very important part of our Constitutionally enshrined core political free speech.
What really bugs me is that this is the same direction a lot of policy makers and even tech companies seem to want to go, all the while decrying the Chinese for the same actions. I hope we don't allow it to progress that far in the US, but we really need to step up to the debate when people start droning on about cybersecurity, trolling, libel, and defamation on the Internet. Perhaps I'm just in the minority that thi…
It is funny how american media is eager to depict China as a North-Korea, and how americans opinions end being formed by their partial media in the same way it happens under dictatorships. Have spent a decade in China, I have yet to see a cop carrying a gun. Cops in China are way more friendly than in US, and for me, way more trustable. people think they keep the chinese people under fear and draconian control, but i…
Pretty easy way to never look at yourself critically and fix problems. The west is bad sure, but why does that mean China can't be better? The self-maintained status quo by the citizens in China is incredibly strong. This is by design.
It is funny how american media is eager to depict China as a North-Korea, and how americans opinions end being formed by their partial media in the same way it happens under dictatorships. Have spent a decade in China, I have yet to see a cop carrying a gun. Cops in China are way more friendly than in US, and for me, way more trustable. people think they keep the chinese people under fear and draconian control, but i…
"Chief of state" and "dictator" are orthogonal descriptions. "Chief of state" describes the ceremonial head of any state, whether or not they are actually the head of government, and whether or not they are elected, and whether or not they exercise dictatorial power.
"Dictator" refers to anyone exercising dictatorial power, whether or not they are also the chief of state (its possible, particularly, for a dictator to be head of government in a system with a separate head of government and chief of state, as might happen in a military junta in a state with a ceremonial monarch.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think one can think both that the Chinese government is exceptionally repressive and be scared how many people in the West might be willing to follow their lead. Thankfully, I don't think a real names policy has much chance in the US for the time being.
Most Norwegian newspapers enforce a full-name policy in their comments sections. Which is frankly ridiculous; anyone who seriously wants to troll just comes up with a fake name. But it's very worrying that this is taken seriously by people in our own society.
But I guess I'm posting this as someone using their legal name so there's that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The difference is in who is requiring this. The site operator/company (such as blog,newspaper,social network) or the central govt. It makes a big difference.
As US custom (e.g. the Federalist Papers) and jurisprudence has anonymity so strongly established, it's hard for me to see such a thing here without a simultaneous hot civil war. It would tread on a very important part of our Constitutionally enshrined core political free speech.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As US custom (e.g. the Federalist Papers) and jurisprudence has anonymity so strongly established, it's hard for me to see such a thing here without a simultaneous hot civil war. It would tread on a very important part of our Constitutionally enshrined core political free speech.
Percentage of Americans who know what the Federalist Papers are: <20%
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The difference is in who is requiring this. The site operator/company (such as blog,newspaper,social network) or the central govt. It makes a big difference.
As US custom (e.g. the Federalist Papers) and jurisprudence has anonymity so strongly established, it's hard for me to see such a thing here without a simultaneous hot civil war. It would tread on a very important part of our Constitutionally enshrined core political free speech.