General
22 Jun 22
@divegeester saidOh my Good Lord in Heaven!
Facebook has introduced “anonymous posting” in groups.
In the wake of the “anonymous thumbs” conversations here at RHP, I wondered if people here thought this was a good idea?
@divegeester saidFacebook as such is a bad idea from a great many perpectives.
Facebook has introduced “anonymous posting” in groups.
In the wake of the “anonymous thumbs” conversations here at RHP, I wondered if people here thought this was a good idea?
I expect you to lieave FB (if you are there at all) directly after that step.
@ponderable saidYou expect me to leave Facebook because of anonymous posting in groups?
Facebook as such is a bad idea from a great many perpectives.
I expect you to lieave FB (if you are there at all) directly after that step.
@the-gravedigger saidBehind every bog-standard social-media-averse man, there is a Great Woman.
Occasionally I will get my wife to log into hers so I can look at these.
@Ponderable
TU from me, Pondy. Furthermore, Zuck is a scoundrel who shirks responsibility and monetarizes children. I despise him and boycott his products.
RE anonymous posting; Zuck doesn’t care who posts what; he never takes responsibility for content. The only thing he cares about is the number of connections, which translates into money in his pocket. If he thinks he can attract more people by offering anonymous posting, he’ll offer anonymous posting. If he thought cats could operate the UI, he’d monetarize cats with a feline FB.
@moonbus saidIrrespective of your vehement dislike and disapproval of Zuckerberg, what are you thoughts on anonymous posting generally, and specifically in the light of the recent discussions of anonymous thumbs which you are an ardent supporter of?
@Ponderable
TU from me, Pondy. Furthermore, Zuck is a scoundrel who shirks responsibility and monetarizes children. I despise him and boycott his products.
RE anonymous posting; Zuck doesn’t care who posts what; he never takes responsibility for content. The only thing he cares about is the number of connections, which translates into money in his pocket. If he thinks h ...[text shortened]... r anonymous posting. If he thought cats could operate the UI, he’d monetarize cats with a feline FB.
@divegeester saidAnonymous thumbs lack content, but refer to a non-anonymous post which has content. Anonymous posts have content. That’s a significant difference. If someone anonymously posts incitement to violence, for example, the post should not only be deleted, but the poster banned. This will be possible only if, behind the UI, site admin can still identify the user.
Irrespective of your vehement dislike and disapproval of Zuckerberg, what are you thoughts on anonymous posting generally, and specifically in the light of the recent discussions of anonymous thumbs which you are an ardent supporter of?
@moonbus saidBut anonymity here is only “anonymous” to the public interface… posters could still alert the posts and the site administration would be able to see who the poster was and still ban them, so your point is moot.
Anonymous thumbs lack content, but refer to a non-anonymous post which has content. Anonymous posts have content. That’s a significant difference. If someone anonymously posts incitement to violence, for example, the post should not only be deleted, but the poster banned. This will be possible only if, behind the UI, site admin can still identify the user.
Anonymity is only for the public face of the forum, surely with your allegiance to anonymous thumbs, you would support anonymous posting?
@divegeester saidI support taking responsibility for content. And don't call me Shirley.
But anonymity here is only “anonymous” to the public interface… posters could still alert the posts and the site administration would be able to see who the poster was and still ban them, so your point is moot.
Anonymity is only for the public face of the forum, surely with your allegiance to anonymous thumbs, you would support anonymous posting?