ST Alpha - "I feel *exactly* the same of your position here. I deem it indefensible. -- nm" (Reading a Post)

SlickerTalk
Search Archives
The Leaderboard
The FAQ

Login
Create Account

Search Dr. S. Talk
TT/ST Wiki
How Well Do You Know ...

RSS Feed

Hosting by DigitalOcean

Support ST on Ko-Fi

Down to Post

Backboards:

Posts: 153

In response to "I'm extremely frustrated by work and twitpocalypse right now, so I am going to bow out of this. But, David, you are fundamentally wrong here. -- nm" by Beryllium

I feel exactly the same of your position here. I deem it indefensible. -- nm

Posted by David (aka David) Oct 26 '22, 12:48

(No message)

Responses:

Out of curiosity, what would be the basis of requiring ID to social but allowing secrecy in voting, jury deliberations etc? -- nm - Max Oct 26, 13:01 5
- ID is needed to vote or sit on a jury. So, I don't understand your point. - David Oct 26, 13:11 4
  - Clarifying: are you saying every social post shows the true name of the poster? or do they only need ID to use the service and can use nicknames? - Max Oct 26, 13:14 3
    - If you say anything in public today, someone can record it on a smartphone, right? Why should social media offer more protection than real life? - David Oct 26, 13:30 2
      - To Bery's point, there are plenty of murderous people who would are proud to identify online. It's content, not the name. - Max Oct 26, 13:42 1
        
        You can't write rules for the criminals. That's the whole point. They just keep breaking the laws in more brazen ways. - David Oct 26, 13:44

Post a message top

Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.