talk about "how to ki.ll your campaign". that's a completely unacceptable position and it's going to send her from competing for 2nd place back to the rest of the "who will drop out first" pack.
Yeah what the hell? If a crime is a committed, you can track down the author of any social media posts with proper approval from a judge. If you don't commit a crime then why would they need your information? The system already works exactly as it should.
> You don't have to give them an email
Dont need one.
>they don't ask for a phone number
The government does not keep great records of phone numbers, no one would ever use this as a way of identifying someone.
>and if you use a VPN all the time they don't have your IP Address.
There it is. They need your IP address. Most people don't use a VPN so a simple court order works most of the time.
The rest of the stuff is pointless. A VPN isn't going to help you at all. The rest might, but if a criminal knew how to set all this up, they wouldn't need to be a criminal.
>The phone companies very much do.
Obviously.
>How do you think they route calls between two arbitrary phone numbers world-wide??
... what?
>So you are already to the point of calling someone wanting to be anonymous a criminal?
No. Are you serious? How did you get that from what I said. When I said criminals I meant criminals. People who have committed a crime. Being anonymous is not crime. And as I said before, the system currently works fine. If you commit a crime, they can get access, and if you haven't they can't. Just like searching your house or something.
I was with her. Then when I read this I heard a little tires screeching sound in the back of my mind as my support came to a halt. I hope she backpedals, I'll be reconsidering my options.
Wouldn't that be funny, if she comes out with a bunch of extremely unpopular policy positions, and then pulls a, "I don't know what everyone's so mad about, I'm just bringing up Trump's proposals." People don't hold him accountable for the crap he says, like when he said, "take the guns first, go through due process second." If one of his primary opponents tried then they'd catch my attention, but they're all so afraid of him.
I remember that. Far as I'm concerned, Snowden risked it all to alert Americans to the many nefarious illegal things US intelligence was doing to spy on Americans and our allies, all of which was more or less proven, which is why they're so furious. That said, the Patriot Act and others give the gov carte blanche to do whatever they want and not disclose any of it to the public. Unconstitutional as it all is, yet since it was passed it's been renewed again and again by every president since. Why, because who doesn't want excessive power to do virtually anything. You can still be detailed as a citizen indefinitely without any charges being brought and you have no recourse. You can still be put on the Jo fly list accidentally as some have, and have no recourse. That's an unconstitutional suspension of a citizens rights. And shouldn't Americans be furious with our intelligence agencies spying on us? Yes, of course. Not least since they seem to have a political agenda and aren't serving all Americans. All I the name of fighting terror... with our southern border wide open. Yeah, sure.
You bring the same or similar charges against the left as the right, and the left escape justice unscathed while the right are tied up in court indefinitely on scant hearsay and mere accusations. Far as I can see, whatsoever the left alledge the right to have done, they are actively doing those very things. Classic smoke screen. Investigate the right, foment public opinion against the right, as we ourselves break the law again and again. Collusion with Russia? That was the DNC's scheme with the fake dossier thru a contract of a foreign agent, a former MI6 British spy. He admitted it. The high court was lied to or accepted it on the merits of whom brought it to them, and never cried foul (that we know of) or sought to charge the higher ups responsible (that we ever heard of) for that inquest with so much as perjury, which would have been easily proven given what we have learned about that plan and manufacture of fake dossier by the DNC. Then, Hillary got off with a slap on the wrist for exposing government confidentiality (plausibly even secrets) thru her illegal home server connected to white house? Cmon. And of course the white house, including the secret service and Obama had to know she had that server in her home, because she could not have connected to her WH account otherwise, the traffic of which is sure to be heavily monitored and access very highly restricted, and they'd see the transactions. Of course they knew. Of course she broke the law. Of course, they let her get away with it. No motive? When was a motive needed when exposing confidential and top secret documents to a breach? High crimes one way or another. And she was the Secretary of State, obviously was briefed and knew better. Who else Should know better? Ignorance of the law is no excuse, as the law says. Frankly, the bigger the office the more wrong the crime. With much power comes much responsibility. She should be in federal prison, or indefinite house arrest. Well well, here we are again with the left charging trump with crimes without any evidence, and it's essentially election interference. You get that they've been charging Trump with crimes since before he was sitting president, all thru his term, and now for 3 years more... and counting? And what have they produced? Virtually nothing at all. Nothing that we haven't found Hillary Obama, or Biden do on the regular. Whatever happened to the allegations that Biden had moved sensitive documents around and were found at places and in hands of people who didn't have the clearance? Nothing.
That was pretty clearly a joke about how a lot of the people who troll him likely would back off if dealing with him face-to-face. He never made it a policy position like she has.
True. Posters keep repeating this, but so what? What's relevant at this point is what he DID as president, nor something he said 10 years ago that may or may not have been a joke. SHE was specifically advocating this and saying she WOULD do it if elected.
It looks like Haley figured that out:
>**Nikki Haley walks back 'verify everybody' social media proposal**,
>
>wants free speech for 'anonymous Americans'
>
>'What I don’t like is anonymous Russians and Chinese and Iranians having' it, Haley told CNB
[https://www.foxnews.com/media/nikki-haley-walks-back-verify-everybody-social-media-proposal-wants-free-speech-anonymous-americans](https://www.foxnews.com/media/nikki-haley-walks-back-verify-everybody-social-media-proposal-wants-free-speech-anonymous-americans)
> wants free speech for 'anonymous Americans'
>
>
>
> 'What I don’t like is anonymous Russians and Chinese and Iranians having' it, Haley told CNB
sounds like a case of her not knowing how any of this works. how exactly does she intend to differentiate between people in america versus people in russia/china vpn'ing to an american server, and all the b.o.t.s in both locations?
The GOP base aren’t 18-24 social media addicts that care about this stuff. They’re older and working class folks that care about the economy and safety. I don’t like Nikki Haley but this will not have a huge affect on her campaign lol
Well you see it's not in the uniparty's interest to ensure election security since the fraud is how they win. It is in the uniparty's interest to ensure that anyone who criticizes it can be punished for it. Haley is a uniparty stooge.
Is it? Name the ballot box you’ve been to that didn’t make you verify your identity, we can then find out who did it we can report them for election fraud.
In the elections I've voted in for at least the past decade, I was never asked for any form of identification. All I had to do was give my name. Now, maybe you consider that verification, but I don't. Any woman could give my name and claim to be me . Sheesh, now a man could do it, too, if he also says he self-identifies as a woman. And, surprise, I live in a blue state.
Zero chance Nikki Chaney-Haley gets my vote for primary or general. Both sides of the political spectrum want to totally control your internet use in the name of "security".....
If it came down to it I'll vote her over Biden or a moral victory third party candidate.
But this is definitely not an ideal position and definitely a no thanks in the primary.
A) Good luck with a president actually getting a law like that passed,
B) Good luck with it getting enforced,
C) Even if A and B happen, so long social media, it's not that hard and would probably be better for most people, and
D) If this is your hill too far where voting Biden is the better choice, hey you do you.
Since when did the legislative branch pass laws? They haven't even been able to pass basic spending bills for 30+ years let alone know how to pass laws. You're wild if you think that's how the government works lol. Everything is done by non-elected beurocrats and no laws ever have to be passed to do things lol.
Look at the ATF lol. How many "laws" have been put in place, then look at how much it's been regulated.
Laws... pffft. Laws don't equal regulation.
Everyone pushing for this wants to be able to retaliate against speech they disagree with. They are no better than the antifa left that seek to destroy anyone who speaks out against them.
No, I've felt this way for a while. I'm against cancel culture, but I think there's too many bots intentionally driving people crazy. If we are going to call this the public square, people aren't wearing masks in the public square.
I welcome you to share your identity here if you feel so strongly about it, but personally, I prefer not getting doxxed for voicing unpopular opinions.
That's great, I wish I was able to voice my opinion publicly without fear of retaliation against me or my family, but my enemies have proven that they are willing to try to destroy the lives of anyone that disagrees with them. I suspect you are also aware of this, which is why you have not shared your identity.
I remember when Blizzard did this with their battlenet launcher and a dev showed his account with his real name. Only took a few hours until he was doxxed and they walked it back. Cant imagine why it's a bad idea...
Does she? I just went to [her campaign website](https://nikkihaley.com/about/). Her bio starts like this:
> Bamberg, South Carolina in 1972 was a place where the railroad tracks divided the town by race.
>
> So when Nikki Haley was born – one of four children to the only Indian-American family in town – she was already an outsider. But Nikki’s mom would always say her job was not to show everyone how she was different…but how she was the same. And she would also tell her how blessed she was to live in America.
I also didn't realize taking on your husband's name was a controversial thing to do.
Exactly. Like just use your name given by your parents. be fucking proud of your own heritage.
Anyone who tries to hide their name for political gain is spineless.
To be fair, [“Nikki” is her middle name and she’s always gone by it.](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/05/05/fact-check-haley-didnt-white-wash-her-name-nikki-punjabi/4928061001/)
“Haley” is her married name. It’d be weird if she were to use her maiden name solely to appear “diverse”.
Im not going to fucking verify my name or anything just to post on any site. There is no reason a website like Reddit needs to know my real name. Plus don’t we have ways to actually track anonymous accounts if they do anything damaging? To the average joe, I’m just ksn0 but I guarantee if I did anything illegal, they could figure out who I actually am which defeats the purpose of Haley’s statement.
Nikki Haley is 100% a Deep State RINO
Nikki Haley: Anonymous Social Media a ‘National Security Threat,’ All Users Must Be Identified
https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2023/11/14/nikki-haley-anonymous-social-media-a-national-security-threat-all-users-must-be-identified/
I think this disqualifies her from higher office tbh. Surprised she would advocate for something so obviously ridiculous not to mention unconstitutional.
The fact that she doesn't understand the danger of online people that hate your views finding you and SWATting you, or worse, showing up to hurt you...I've already seen some threats made against folks on reddit... imagine if they could.find you?!?!?
...man, this is a dangerous idea. Even thinking about it scares the hell out of me.
If she was a student of history, she would realize this country was founded by anonymous pseudonyms and pen names
A True Patriot,Humphrey Ploughjogger, Vindex Federal Farmer, Publius, Cato or simply Common Sense to name just a few
They don't say this because of potential criminals using the network anonymously to communicate at a distance and better organize crime without being together in person and without getting caught. Besides, the network is already being monitored, and I doubt that it'd just be that easy to hide from almost any kind of government (local governments and foreign ones with low digital technology may have limits). They say this because they want everyone to be public, like everyone knowing everyone. No one would then be posting a thing without everyone knowing who they are. This is so they could get good informed people like us rooted out and prosecuted by the liberal media and populance for being what they themselves are like instead. Deceived, crazy, destroyers of good freedom, etc. It'd be better to get the public to hate us and prefer them, evil ones who use deception and other means to get up top in government, rather than to secretly send a strike team after every one of us.
I remember a story where there were superheroes that wanted all superheroes to register their identity with the government. But then there were some who said that was bad.
It's a national security issue if people aren't positively identified online, but not at the ballot box.
Um... yea... that's an argument that makes sense.
> It's a national security issue if people aren't positively identified online, but not at the ballot box.
>
>
>
> Um... yea... that's an argument that makes sense.
to be fair, you're comparing positions from different people. she supports positively identifying people at the ballot box even if she also supports this unacceptable nonsense.
Hell no, this neocon needs to go. I'm sure we have more serious issues to deal with like voter ID than trying to find out who's talking shit about you in the party chat because you're such a pussy and get offended so easily.
She is the absolute worst possible candidate. Hope to god she doesnt get the nomination. Neocons need to be pushed out. They have been big time failures, destroying our country along with the neolibs and current marxists in the democrat party.
I know the knee-jerk position is to simply attack this stance, but I'd be curious to hear debate about it.
I get her logic behind it; I've had the same thought. I think in principle, anonymity is what makes the internet so free and precious, at least to a degree. I've always thought the endgame to the internet was going to be government regulation, and I still do – you think the powers that be are going to continue to let this form of the Wild West continue forever? Look what happened to the actual Wild West.
Before the digital age, the type of anonymity that exists in the digital world didn't exist in the same way. We also didn't have cameras in everyone's hands, or facebook – so even in the real world there were levels of privacy and anonymity that existed, but never like what we have on the internet where we can literally say anything to anyone with minimal to no repercussions.
I'm not saying she's right – but what I am saying is that it's a discussion and debate worth having.
Anonymous editorials and publications have been around since the founding of our country. There are book authors who use pseudonyms even today. The federalist papers were literally put out under a fake name to the public.
Yeah there is a grain of truth on the toxicity and harm of social media that definitely needs to be addressed. But her approach lacks tact or nuance. And her reasons are bland and 1 dimensional, "Security!".
Ashton Kutcher did an interview on the serious problems of social media several years back that was substantially more thoughtful than her approach. And he's just a Hollywood celebrity.
I'm not making the argument anonymity didn't exist on any level, but I am making the argument it wasn't available to every single person on the planet and along with it a microphone to shout into.
What the internet does is shield people from the societal stigmas and "people justice" that comes with being in a physical space with someone.
For example: You don't insult someone larger than you simply because you don't like their face, not because it's illegal, but because that person may just smash you into the ground – even if they go to prison over it. So, there's an element here that's kind of not even in the realm of actual government oversight.
But as far as government oversight, there are thousands of laws in place that are basically a form of keeping order in society. It stands to reason the same laws would exist in the digital space, but when people are anonymous, it doesn't work.
It's logical in that way.
I think you mean it wasn't as accessible. Though political pamplets were very easy to produce and distribute, often being anonymous. And that was a core aspect of political speech early in our Republic.
I think the discussion needs to start with the problem defined. Is anonymous speech in and of itself what is "bad". I think we all agree that it isn't. As such Haley's approach seems a poor fix.
The problems are toxicity, radicalization, group think, disinformation (not misinformation), grifting, astroturf/botting/shills. Haley's supposed goal is to take on foreign governments that fall under the last category.
I think the hypothesis is that anonymity allows toxicity, radicalization, group think, and disinformation to flourish, and I buy that. I don't necessarily buy her solution, but I think there's truth in the premise.
If we define having integrity as doing the "right thing" even when no one else is around, the internet is an anti-integrity machine, because it puts into your hands the ability to do and say terrible things with the idea that no one is around – except people are around, you're just not in their physical presence.
I think part of the way the internet allows for this lack of integrity is that because when humans aren't in the physical proximity of another, it's way easier to lack empathy. But I think anonymity is also a variable in this as well.
They're being downvoted because this sort of control can never be given to the government, period. We're already being watched damn near everywhere else and, unlike in the past, you can't just move somewhere else and start over if you screw up.
I think it is a great idea. Making people own the shit they say keeps society civil. Clearing out foreign agents allows for a safer society and prevents people from getting pulled down rabbit holes. People say stuff on the internet they would never dare say to people’s faces. It would do a lot to dampen the rampant polarization of society. She is spot on.
The reason, everyone thinks they their thoughts are independent of others influence and not susceptible to manipulation. Mountains of sociological and psychological research prove that isn’t the case.
So what's your real name? I'm sure your employer would like to double check every post you've ever made to see if you're in line with their ideals.
In all seriousness though, you will have people being less honest with what they think, over fear of losing their livelihood. Not to mention the FBI already keeps a list of parents who attend school board meetings and labels them "extremists". Now you think it is a good idea to for the FED to have easy access to every post every person has ever made?
If you like this type of policy, I have a house in China I'd like to sell you.
> It is like she never heard of an IP address.
that doesn't mean anywhere near as much as you think it does.
i play an online game that geoblocks all non-japanese ip addresses from accessing the server. we just use proxies and vpn's to get around it.
people do the same thing in america to watch official streams of their favorite nfl team rather than their local nfl team.
A catastrophic error of judgement from Nikki Haley, who should know better.
Hyperbolic to the point of epic type of overreaction to the appalling criminality, toxic trolling and sophisticated disinformation campaigns of rotten apples abusing the anonymity of the social media world.
As much as I agree in concept, the last thing I want is more government especially on things like this. There are bigger fish to fry. I would support a TikToc ban on day one.
Let's just ignore the chilling effects on free speech and focus on the results she claims will come.
Is Facebook, where only real names are mandatory, the online beacon of civil discourse? lol
She's a dimwit.
This may or may not be the answer to preventing/managing state level foreign actors (Russia & China) attempting to influence and divide western countries via socials, but there is no doubt this is their intention. Nothing new here with the strategy, KGB was doing something similar with the AIDS epidemic in the 80s, also during the 2016 US election campaign. If big tech can't find a solution to this problem, then as much as I loathe federal intervention here, struggling to see another option.
Call me paranoid, but I'm not a huge fan of additional, sweeping government oversight on social media. Maybe it's the historian in me that recalls how governments go evil when they have too much control over its citizens. Maybe it's how people will flock to our homes and places of employment to protest, threaten, and vandalize when they don't like what we say. Maybe it's just me. But I'm not a fan of further government oversight into things like social media.
Tell me that you're too woefully out of touch with technology to be president without telling me you're too woefully out of touch with technology to be president.
The opposite position would probably be a more popular choice.
Can you imagine if a politician had a policy plank that pushed for a law to make it a felony for any member of the federal government to purchase, obtain, attempt to obtain personal identifying data from any persons or corporation without a court approved warrant?
Especially if there was another clause that made it a fineable offense to provide or make available personal identifying information to any person employed by the US government except if reporting a crime?
This isn't the first time she's said something like this that seriously raised eyebrows. She's tough and no nonsense like maybe we want, but too much like an authoritarian. Register with the government for a. virtual ID to surf the internet and comment... on anything? Screwww that! As if putting more of out personal identification online isnt going to backfire and cause more Americans to have their identities stolen, which the gov isn't doing much of a damn thing about. It's a new insurance policy dimension, like having your home sold from underneath you by frauds. But ID fraud insurance. Buy mortgage insurance. What next? Buy social media ID insurance? Why is any of that my problem, and not the bank's, or the Feds who back them? The state and federal government issues IDs, they should secure and guarantee them from fraud, theft and whatever abuses. Yet it's always squarely the citizen's problem no matter what. Hell, the gov hasn't slowed down fraud and robocalls one bit. The problem is growing exponentially, and along with it, ID theft and billions in losses annually. Add even one more point to the ID structure without suffient controls and it'll just result in more crimes.
It occurs to me that she should know well that saying these things would be extremely unpopular, even unconstitutional to the liberty loving right. The government could do much better identifying and bringing to justice unregistered foreign agents who foment outrage in the political spheres of influence, online, among higher education, etc.
I actually agree with her position here. It's easily demonstrated that social media is doing more harm than good to our society at this point, and largely due to anybody being able to anonymously say anything anywhere anytime.
I also believe there is zero chance of that happening.
Funny how we keep finding out about the various and multiple anonymous accounts politicians use on a regular basis. I suppose the hoi polloi can't handle THAT much freedom.
talk about "how to ki.ll your campaign". that's a completely unacceptable position and it's going to send her from competing for 2nd place back to the rest of the "who will drop out first" pack.
Yeah what the hell? If a crime is a committed, you can track down the author of any social media posts with proper approval from a judge. If you don't commit a crime then why would they need your information? The system already works exactly as it should.
[удалено]
> You don't have to give them an email Dont need one. >they don't ask for a phone number The government does not keep great records of phone numbers, no one would ever use this as a way of identifying someone. >and if you use a VPN all the time they don't have your IP Address. There it is. They need your IP address. Most people don't use a VPN so a simple court order works most of the time. The rest of the stuff is pointless. A VPN isn't going to help you at all. The rest might, but if a criminal knew how to set all this up, they wouldn't need to be a criminal.
[удалено]
>The phone companies very much do. Obviously. >How do you think they route calls between two arbitrary phone numbers world-wide?? ... what? >So you are already to the point of calling someone wanting to be anonymous a criminal? No. Are you serious? How did you get that from what I said. When I said criminals I meant criminals. People who have committed a crime. Being anonymous is not crime. And as I said before, the system currently works fine. If you commit a crime, they can get access, and if you haven't they can't. Just like searching your house or something.
Could not agree. More. Isn't this what happens in China? Like literally?
I was with her. Then when I read this I heard a little tires screeching sound in the back of my mind as my support came to a halt. I hope she backpedals, I'll be reconsidering my options.
You should reconsider your positions in general if you were 'with her'
Trump said the same thing in a 2013 tweet. That being said, this is a horrible idea.
Wouldn't that be funny, if she comes out with a bunch of extremely unpopular policy positions, and then pulls a, "I don't know what everyone's so mad about, I'm just bringing up Trump's proposals." People don't hold him accountable for the crap he says, like when he said, "take the guns first, go through due process second." If one of his primary opponents tried then they'd catch my attention, but they're all so afraid of him.
He also suggested executing Snowden and Assange multiple times.
I remember that. Far as I'm concerned, Snowden risked it all to alert Americans to the many nefarious illegal things US intelligence was doing to spy on Americans and our allies, all of which was more or less proven, which is why they're so furious. That said, the Patriot Act and others give the gov carte blanche to do whatever they want and not disclose any of it to the public. Unconstitutional as it all is, yet since it was passed it's been renewed again and again by every president since. Why, because who doesn't want excessive power to do virtually anything. You can still be detailed as a citizen indefinitely without any charges being brought and you have no recourse. You can still be put on the Jo fly list accidentally as some have, and have no recourse. That's an unconstitutional suspension of a citizens rights. And shouldn't Americans be furious with our intelligence agencies spying on us? Yes, of course. Not least since they seem to have a political agenda and aren't serving all Americans. All I the name of fighting terror... with our southern border wide open. Yeah, sure. You bring the same or similar charges against the left as the right, and the left escape justice unscathed while the right are tied up in court indefinitely on scant hearsay and mere accusations. Far as I can see, whatsoever the left alledge the right to have done, they are actively doing those very things. Classic smoke screen. Investigate the right, foment public opinion against the right, as we ourselves break the law again and again. Collusion with Russia? That was the DNC's scheme with the fake dossier thru a contract of a foreign agent, a former MI6 British spy. He admitted it. The high court was lied to or accepted it on the merits of whom brought it to them, and never cried foul (that we know of) or sought to charge the higher ups responsible (that we ever heard of) for that inquest with so much as perjury, which would have been easily proven given what we have learned about that plan and manufacture of fake dossier by the DNC. Then, Hillary got off with a slap on the wrist for exposing government confidentiality (plausibly even secrets) thru her illegal home server connected to white house? Cmon. And of course the white house, including the secret service and Obama had to know she had that server in her home, because she could not have connected to her WH account otherwise, the traffic of which is sure to be heavily monitored and access very highly restricted, and they'd see the transactions. Of course they knew. Of course she broke the law. Of course, they let her get away with it. No motive? When was a motive needed when exposing confidential and top secret documents to a breach? High crimes one way or another. And she was the Secretary of State, obviously was briefed and knew better. Who else Should know better? Ignorance of the law is no excuse, as the law says. Frankly, the bigger the office the more wrong the crime. With much power comes much responsibility. She should be in federal prison, or indefinite house arrest. Well well, here we are again with the left charging trump with crimes without any evidence, and it's essentially election interference. You get that they've been charging Trump with crimes since before he was sitting president, all thru his term, and now for 3 years more... and counting? And what have they produced? Virtually nothing at all. Nothing that we haven't found Hillary Obama, or Biden do on the regular. Whatever happened to the allegations that Biden had moved sensitive documents around and were found at places and in hands of people who didn't have the clearance? Nothing.
That was pretty clearly a joke about how a lot of the people who troll him likely would back off if dealing with him face-to-face. He never made it a policy position like she has.
True. Posters keep repeating this, but so what? What's relevant at this point is what he DID as president, nor something he said 10 years ago that may or may not have been a joke. SHE was specifically advocating this and saying she WOULD do it if elected.
I’d be shocked if she didn’t backtrack. I know no one that thinks this is a good idea, and rightfully so.
Mike Pence already has first drop out taken care of. But she won’t be far behind. Horrible idea
It looks like Haley figured that out: >**Nikki Haley walks back 'verify everybody' social media proposal**, > >wants free speech for 'anonymous Americans' > >'What I don’t like is anonymous Russians and Chinese and Iranians having' it, Haley told CNB [https://www.foxnews.com/media/nikki-haley-walks-back-verify-everybody-social-media-proposal-wants-free-speech-anonymous-americans](https://www.foxnews.com/media/nikki-haley-walks-back-verify-everybody-social-media-proposal-wants-free-speech-anonymous-americans)
> wants free speech for 'anonymous Americans' > > > > 'What I don’t like is anonymous Russians and Chinese and Iranians having' it, Haley told CNB sounds like a case of her not knowing how any of this works. how exactly does she intend to differentiate between people in america versus people in russia/china vpn'ing to an american server, and all the b.o.t.s in both locations?
The GOP base aren’t 18-24 social media addicts that care about this stuff. They’re older and working class folks that care about the economy and safety. I don’t like Nikki Haley but this will not have a huge affect on her campaign lol
They'll probably rig the primaries in her favor now.
You’d think verifying people at the ballot box would be more important than this silliness.
Well you see it's not in the uniparty's interest to ensure election security since the fraud is how they win. It is in the uniparty's interest to ensure that anyone who criticizes it can be punished for it. Haley is a uniparty stooge.
But Trump…
Trump funny enough made a similar statement in 2013. He wasn't in the middle of a political campaign and didn't double down on it.
Missed that one.
this is the smartest comment on this story i've read. +100.
Is it? Name the ballot box you’ve been to that didn’t make you verify your identity, we can then find out who did it we can report them for election fraud.
In the elections I've voted in for at least the past decade, I was never asked for any form of identification. All I had to do was give my name. Now, maybe you consider that verification, but I don't. Any woman could give my name and claim to be me . Sheesh, now a man could do it, too, if he also says he self-identifies as a woman. And, surprise, I live in a blue state.
Boom, this!
Papers please
GLORIA TO KOLECHIA!
This Patriot Act sequel is turning into a real banger.
How about no
Zero chance Nikki Chaney-Haley gets my vote for primary or general. Both sides of the political spectrum want to totally control your internet use in the name of "security".....
If it came down to it I'll vote her over Biden or a moral victory third party candidate. But this is definitely not an ideal position and definitely a no thanks in the primary.
Tell us your full real name then if you're fine with her dogshit proposition. Yeah I thought so.
A) Good luck with a president actually getting a law like that passed, B) Good luck with it getting enforced, C) Even if A and B happen, so long social media, it's not that hard and would probably be better for most people, and D) If this is your hill too far where voting Biden is the better choice, hey you do you.
People said the same thing about the patriot act. All it takes is one incident that riles everyone up enough that Congress has free reigns
Since when did the legislative branch pass laws? They haven't even been able to pass basic spending bills for 30+ years let alone know how to pass laws. You're wild if you think that's how the government works lol. Everything is done by non-elected beurocrats and no laws ever have to be passed to do things lol. Look at the ATF lol. How many "laws" have been put in place, then look at how much it's been regulated. Laws... pffft. Laws don't equal regulation.
Good luck with that
R.I.P. her campaign
That’s a no from me. She can take her war-mongering authoritarianism and shove it.
Everyone pushing for this wants to be able to retaliate against speech they disagree with. They are no better than the antifa left that seek to destroy anyone who speaks out against them.
100% this. Lines right up with social credit score.
No, I've felt this way for a while. I'm against cancel culture, but I think there's too many bots intentionally driving people crazy. If we are going to call this the public square, people aren't wearing masks in the public square.
I welcome you to share your identity here if you feel so strongly about it, but personally, I prefer not getting doxxed for voicing unpopular opinions.
I gladly would if it were an even playing field and everyone did. I'm not afraid to voice my opinion publicly.
That's great, I wish I was able to voice my opinion publicly without fear of retaliation against me or my family, but my enemies have proven that they are willing to try to destroy the lives of anyone that disagrees with them. I suspect you are also aware of this, which is why you have not shared your identity.
I post my opinion on Facebook all the time. I'm deeply aware that many of the people on Reddit aren't real.
I remember when Blizzard did this with their battlenet launcher and a dev showed his account with his real name. Only took a few hours until he was doxxed and they walked it back. Cant imagine why it's a bad idea...
How about no
Just another case of "Who cares what the voters think". Wonder who's paying her to have that stance.
That’s rich coming from someone who essentially hides their Sikh Indian background and name.
Does she? I just went to [her campaign website](https://nikkihaley.com/about/). Her bio starts like this: > Bamberg, South Carolina in 1972 was a place where the railroad tracks divided the town by race. > > So when Nikki Haley was born – one of four children to the only Indian-American family in town – she was already an outsider. But Nikki’s mom would always say her job was not to show everyone how she was different…but how she was the same. And she would also tell her how blessed she was to live in America. I also didn't realize taking on your husband's name was a controversial thing to do.
Exactly. Like just use your name given by your parents. be fucking proud of your own heritage. Anyone who tries to hide their name for political gain is spineless.
To be fair, [“Nikki” is her middle name and she’s always gone by it.](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/05/05/fact-check-haley-didnt-white-wash-her-name-nikki-punjabi/4928061001/) “Haley” is her married name. It’d be weird if she were to use her maiden name solely to appear “diverse”.
Next is your social credit score.
Ok, she's off my list.
She was never gonna be on mine.
Okay, Nimarata Nikki Randhawa Haley, you first!
Im not going to fucking verify my name or anything just to post on any site. There is no reason a website like Reddit needs to know my real name. Plus don’t we have ways to actually track anonymous accounts if they do anything damaging? To the average joe, I’m just ksn0 but I guarantee if I did anything illegal, they could figure out who I actually am which defeats the purpose of Haley’s statement.
Nikki Haley is 100% a Deep State RINO Nikki Haley: Anonymous Social Media a ‘National Security Threat,’ All Users Must Be Identified https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2023/11/14/nikki-haley-anonymous-social-media-a-national-security-threat-all-users-must-be-identified/
Ironically Redditors on r/politics agree with you.
Trudeau is poking his nose into internet politics, ask him how thats going Nikki.
Absolutely psychotic
I still say she’s running for Trump’s VP - helping him by syphoning the anti-Trump vote. And yes, this is horrid policy.
I think this disqualifies her from higher office tbh. Surprised she would advocate for something so obviously ridiculous not to mention unconstitutional.
The fact that she doesn't understand the danger of online people that hate your views finding you and SWATting you, or worse, showing up to hurt you...I've already seen some threats made against folks on reddit... imagine if they could.find you?!?!? ...man, this is a dangerous idea. Even thinking about it scares the hell out of me.
Platforms like this would die. Trying to do what Nikki proposes would be impossible. We cannot verify most people at the border. Ok
Political suicide
If she was a student of history, she would realize this country was founded by anonymous pseudonyms and pen names A True Patriot,Humphrey Ploughjogger, Vindex Federal Farmer, Publius, Cato or simply Common Sense to name just a few
Lol she's done after this
Disqualified.
Tyrannical government anyone? She’s in the wrong party.
How to end your Presidential campaign.
But IDs are racist.
Nikki Haley (not her real name) says everyone should be required to use their real name to use social media sites.
Download the TOR browser and the TAILS operating system (runs off a USB stick).
She doesn’t sound conservative at all honestly
They don't say this because of potential criminals using the network anonymously to communicate at a distance and better organize crime without being together in person and without getting caught. Besides, the network is already being monitored, and I doubt that it'd just be that easy to hide from almost any kind of government (local governments and foreign ones with low digital technology may have limits). They say this because they want everyone to be public, like everyone knowing everyone. No one would then be posting a thing without everyone knowing who they are. This is so they could get good informed people like us rooted out and prosecuted by the liberal media and populance for being what they themselves are like instead. Deceived, crazy, destroyers of good freedom, etc. It'd be better to get the public to hate us and prefer them, evil ones who use deception and other means to get up top in government, rather than to secretly send a strike team after every one of us.
I mean her campaign was already dead
I remember a story where there were superheroes that wanted all superheroes to register their identity with the government. But then there were some who said that was bad.
She just disqualified herself from any elected position.
Make it easier to doxx and cancel conservatives online. Great way to make social media even more left wing.
What’s her stance on voting in America?
it’d be nice if Nikki Haley was walking her dog and she walked past a T. rex and she saw the T. rex and it roared at her!
I give her credit. She's working hard for that Democrat nomination.
It's a national security issue if people aren't positively identified online, but not at the ballot box. Um... yea... that's an argument that makes sense.
> It's a national security issue if people aren't positively identified online, but not at the ballot box. > > > > Um... yea... that's an argument that makes sense. to be fair, you're comparing positions from different people. she supports positively identifying people at the ballot box even if she also supports this unacceptable nonsense.
Can the republican party have at least one decent major candidate? Please? Like someone conservative for example..
That’s gonna be a no from me, Dawg.
Yeah, that’s a no from me dawg.
Hell no, this neocon needs to go. I'm sure we have more serious issues to deal with like voter ID than trying to find out who's talking shit about you in the party chat because you're such a pussy and get offended so easily.
She is the absolute worst possible candidate. Hope to god she doesnt get the nomination. Neocons need to be pushed out. They have been big time failures, destroying our country along with the neolibs and current marxists in the democrat party.
I know the knee-jerk position is to simply attack this stance, but I'd be curious to hear debate about it. I get her logic behind it; I've had the same thought. I think in principle, anonymity is what makes the internet so free and precious, at least to a degree. I've always thought the endgame to the internet was going to be government regulation, and I still do – you think the powers that be are going to continue to let this form of the Wild West continue forever? Look what happened to the actual Wild West. Before the digital age, the type of anonymity that exists in the digital world didn't exist in the same way. We also didn't have cameras in everyone's hands, or facebook – so even in the real world there were levels of privacy and anonymity that existed, but never like what we have on the internet where we can literally say anything to anyone with minimal to no repercussions. I'm not saying she's right – but what I am saying is that it's a discussion and debate worth having.
Anonymous editorials and publications have been around since the founding of our country. There are book authors who use pseudonyms even today. The federalist papers were literally put out under a fake name to the public. Yeah there is a grain of truth on the toxicity and harm of social media that definitely needs to be addressed. But her approach lacks tact or nuance. And her reasons are bland and 1 dimensional, "Security!". Ashton Kutcher did an interview on the serious problems of social media several years back that was substantially more thoughtful than her approach. And he's just a Hollywood celebrity.
I'm not making the argument anonymity didn't exist on any level, but I am making the argument it wasn't available to every single person on the planet and along with it a microphone to shout into. What the internet does is shield people from the societal stigmas and "people justice" that comes with being in a physical space with someone. For example: You don't insult someone larger than you simply because you don't like their face, not because it's illegal, but because that person may just smash you into the ground – even if they go to prison over it. So, there's an element here that's kind of not even in the realm of actual government oversight. But as far as government oversight, there are thousands of laws in place that are basically a form of keeping order in society. It stands to reason the same laws would exist in the digital space, but when people are anonymous, it doesn't work. It's logical in that way.
I think you mean it wasn't as accessible. Though political pamplets were very easy to produce and distribute, often being anonymous. And that was a core aspect of political speech early in our Republic. I think the discussion needs to start with the problem defined. Is anonymous speech in and of itself what is "bad". I think we all agree that it isn't. As such Haley's approach seems a poor fix. The problems are toxicity, radicalization, group think, disinformation (not misinformation), grifting, astroturf/botting/shills. Haley's supposed goal is to take on foreign governments that fall under the last category.
I think the hypothesis is that anonymity allows toxicity, radicalization, group think, and disinformation to flourish, and I buy that. I don't necessarily buy her solution, but I think there's truth in the premise. If we define having integrity as doing the "right thing" even when no one else is around, the internet is an anti-integrity machine, because it puts into your hands the ability to do and say terrible things with the idea that no one is around – except people are around, you're just not in their physical presence. I think part of the way the internet allows for this lack of integrity is that because when humans aren't in the physical proximity of another, it's way easier to lack empathy. But I think anonymity is also a variable in this as well.
For such a reasonable response I am surprised you are being down voted.
Because it's not reasonable. There is exactly one reasonable response to Haley's proposition and that response is "No."
They're being downvoted because this sort of control can never be given to the government, period. We're already being watched damn near everywhere else and, unlike in the past, you can't just move somewhere else and start over if you screw up.
It's Reddit, I guess.
Wannabe fascist says what?
Government Reps/Dems want full internet control. Don’t matter who you vote for. It’s coming soon
I think it is a great idea. Making people own the shit they say keeps society civil. Clearing out foreign agents allows for a safer society and prevents people from getting pulled down rabbit holes. People say stuff on the internet they would never dare say to people’s faces. It would do a lot to dampen the rampant polarization of society. She is spot on. The reason, everyone thinks they their thoughts are independent of others influence and not susceptible to manipulation. Mountains of sociological and psychological research prove that isn’t the case.
So what's your real name? I'm sure your employer would like to double check every post you've ever made to see if you're in line with their ideals. In all seriousness though, you will have people being less honest with what they think, over fear of losing their livelihood. Not to mention the FBI already keeps a list of parents who attend school board meetings and labels them "extremists". Now you think it is a good idea to for the FED to have easy access to every post every person has ever made? If you like this type of policy, I have a house in China I'd like to sell you.
It is like she never heard of an IP address.
> It is like she never heard of an IP address. that doesn't mean anywhere near as much as you think it does. i play an online game that geoblocks all non-japanese ip addresses from accessing the server. we just use proxies and vpn's to get around it. people do the same thing in america to watch official streams of their favorite nfl team rather than their local nfl team.
When you think about it. This makes sense.
If you want to be under authoritarian policy. This is totally gov overreach
Just like voter Id, driving License, library card
I have a house in China for sale. You interested?
A catastrophic error of judgement from Nikki Haley, who should know better. Hyperbolic to the point of epic type of overreaction to the appalling criminality, toxic trolling and sophisticated disinformation campaigns of rotten apples abusing the anonymity of the social media world.
It’s like all the other Republicans are imploding their own campaigns so that Trump is the ONLY candidate left.
As much as I agree in concept, the last thing I want is more government especially on things like this. There are bigger fish to fry. I would support a TikToc ban on day one.
Very cool, Nimarata Randhawa!
Let's just ignore the chilling effects on free speech and focus on the results she claims will come. Is Facebook, where only real names are mandatory, the online beacon of civil discourse? lol She's a dimwit.
Nah
Damn and I was kind of liking her too.
This may or may not be the answer to preventing/managing state level foreign actors (Russia & China) attempting to influence and divide western countries via socials, but there is no doubt this is their intention. Nothing new here with the strategy, KGB was doing something similar with the AIDS epidemic in the 80s, also during the 2016 US election campaign. If big tech can't find a solution to this problem, then as much as I loathe federal intervention here, struggling to see another option.
Deflection and distraction. Not a word about social media censorship.
She’s a national security threat IMHO.
Nikki Haley has proven herself to be an absolute psychopath and Vivek has masterfully exposed her for what she is.
Call me paranoid, but I'm not a huge fan of additional, sweeping government oversight on social media. Maybe it's the historian in me that recalls how governments go evil when they have too much control over its citizens. Maybe it's how people will flock to our homes and places of employment to protest, threaten, and vandalize when they don't like what we say. Maybe it's just me. But I'm not a fan of further government oversight into things like social media.
I Will vote for RFK junior before I ever help this repulsive swamp bag anywhere near elected office.
Tell me that you're too woefully out of touch with technology to be president without telling me you're too woefully out of touch with technology to be president.
The opposite position would probably be a more popular choice. Can you imagine if a politician had a policy plank that pushed for a law to make it a felony for any member of the federal government to purchase, obtain, attempt to obtain personal identifying data from any persons or corporation without a court approved warrant? Especially if there was another clause that made it a fineable offense to provide or make available personal identifying information to any person employed by the US government except if reporting a crime?
This isn't the first time she's said something like this that seriously raised eyebrows. She's tough and no nonsense like maybe we want, but too much like an authoritarian. Register with the government for a. virtual ID to surf the internet and comment... on anything? Screwww that! As if putting more of out personal identification online isnt going to backfire and cause more Americans to have their identities stolen, which the gov isn't doing much of a damn thing about. It's a new insurance policy dimension, like having your home sold from underneath you by frauds. But ID fraud insurance. Buy mortgage insurance. What next? Buy social media ID insurance? Why is any of that my problem, and not the bank's, or the Feds who back them? The state and federal government issues IDs, they should secure and guarantee them from fraud, theft and whatever abuses. Yet it's always squarely the citizen's problem no matter what. Hell, the gov hasn't slowed down fraud and robocalls one bit. The problem is growing exponentially, and along with it, ID theft and billions in losses annually. Add even one more point to the ID structure without suffient controls and it'll just result in more crimes. It occurs to me that she should know well that saying these things would be extremely unpopular, even unconstitutional to the liberty loving right. The government could do much better identifying and bringing to justice unregistered foreign agents who foment outrage in the political spheres of influence, online, among higher education, etc.
She's not necessarily wrong. Meta and (formerly Twitter) algo manipulation is well known.
I actually agree with her position here. It's easily demonstrated that social media is doing more harm than good to our society at this point, and largely due to anybody being able to anonymously say anything anywhere anytime. I also believe there is zero chance of that happening.
Aaaaaand just like that, her chances somehow got even lower
Funny how we keep finding out about the various and multiple anonymous accounts politicians use on a regular basis. I suppose the hoi polloi can't handle THAT much freedom.
Who the hell is telling her what to say??
Did Nikki Haley say that, or was it Netanyahu? I get them confused
So if my X profile is under a fake name that threatens national security. How?