Facebook director Randi Zuckerberg calls for an end to internet anonymity
July 28, 2011 by admin
Filed under Latest Lingerie News
By
Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 11:24 AM on 28th July 2011
Facebook’s marketing director has called for an end to on-line anonymity, saying internet users would ‘behave a lot better’ if everyone had to use real names when surfing or posting on the internet.
Randi Zuckerberg, Facebook’s marketing director and sister of multi-millionaire founder Mark, made the comments during a round table discussion on cyber bullying.
The ubiquitous social networking site, which has been at the centre of recent controversy over internet privacy and bullying issues, currently requires all its members to use their real names and emails when signing on.
ID: Randi Zuckerberg, marketing director of Facebook has spoken out against internet anonymity in a bid to end cyber bullying
Mrs Zuckerberg argued the end of on-line anonymity could help curb the trend of trolling and harassment on the web.
Speaking at a Marie Claire panel discussion on social media, she said: ‘ I think anonymity on the Internet has to go away.
‘People behave a lot better when they have their real names down. … I think people hide behind anonymity and they feel like they can say whatever they want behind closed doors.’
The comments echo those of former Google CEO Eric Schmidt who has previously labelled internet anonymity a ‘dangerous’ precedent, before predicting government intervention will one day lead to its demise.
Controversial: Mark Zuckerberg has recently hit the headlines for proposing to allow under 13s on Facebook
Concerned: Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt has also said previously internet anonymity would possibly come to an end
Privacy advocates have however condemned previous attempts to dismantle on-line anonymity.
attacked: Erin Andrews was also present at the meeting to speak about her traumatic experience of cyber bullying
Critics complain that the forced introduction of some kind of ‘on-line passport’ would damage the freedom of speech and blunt the internet as a tool for dissidents to speak up against oppressive governments.
The panel also pressed Mrs Zuckerberg to list what forthcoming safeguards the site has to protect security, she declined.
She added simply: ‘There’s so much more we can do.
‘We’re actively tying to work with partners like Common Sense Media and our safety advisory committee.’
The panel were joined by Erin Andrews, an ESPN anchor who had a naked video of her posted on-line by a stalker.
At times becoming emotional, Mrs Andrews asked Mr Schmidt why searches for her name still brought up images and videos of the offending tape, despite her repeated attempts to have them removed.
Adding that just because she was a woman in her 30s She said: ‘It’s still cyber bullying.
‘Somebody needs to step in. As a family we’re always asking, what is it going to take.’
Facebook has previously come under fire after founder Mark Zuckerberg said he would ‘fight’ to allow under-13s to
use the social networking website – despite warnings it would put the
most vulnerable children at risk.
In
America the age limit, also of 13, is dictated by laws designed to
protect young children, but Facebook’s 27-year-old billionaire creator
believes the educational benefits of using the site mean the
restrictions should be lifted.
Print this article
Read later
Email to a friend
Share this article:
Here’s what readers have had to say so far. Why not add your thoughts below,
or debate this issue live on our message boards.
The comments below have not been moderated.
-
Newest -
Oldest -
Best rated -
Worst rated
Ok, I just had to take a look at her name and job title to completely destroy any credibility she has. But the message here is important. The internet is the only place we have left in which we can do and say what we like. Not long ago people would have laughed at the idea that wherever we go, whatever we buy, we would be recorded by the government and profit seeking corporations. People would not have believed that for pennies, one company will sell personal information entrusted to them to another, information that allows them to locate and advertise to a person wherever they are in the world. Freedom for online anonymity is vitally important to the democratic future of this country; everywhere else people are near persecuted for having unfashionable beliefs. But on the other hand, there is no reason Facebook and co cannot demand people’s information in order to let them use their product. It is simple: you want it, you pay. The price here is your personal information.
Report abuse
If he says so, I guess we must obey.
Report abuse
Authoritarian Governments and employers engaged in illegal activities must be applauding these sentiments loudly. How often has “protecting the children” hysteria led to curbs on freedom of expression and erosion of other liberties? Very often indeed is the answer, especially since the “war on terror” excuse isn’t convincing people anymore.
Report abuse
Eh, didn’t her brother tell the G8 summit participants that the Internet shouldn’t be regulated?
Report abuse
There are many perfectly ;legitimate reason why somebody would want to keep their real name private. There have been cases of people losing their jobs, or in some countries even their lives, for posting the wrong thing online. People should be able to critisize their employer without fear of sacking, or critisize their government without fear of improsonment. Anonimity makes this possible. People who are in the public eye may want to have a second online identiy just so they can interact without their fame getting in the way. Somebody who is being victimised by their neibours, or even their own family may want to be able to talk about the victimisation and ask for advice without announcing the fact to their victimisers. I could go on and on.
Report abuse
I wouldn’t go as far as to ban all anonymity, but I would introduce laws making the registered owner (cited on WhoIs) of any website fully liable in both civil and criminal law for all anonymous content posted on it. That would give website owners an incentive to moderate postings on their sites sensibly if they do decide to allow anonymous contributions. ISPs who offer an anonymous website hosting service (i.e. in exchange for a fee, the ISP’s address goes on the WhoIs entry, not the website owner’s) would be similarly liable for the content of any anonymous sites they host.
Report abuse
The views expressed in the contents above are those of our users and do not necessarily reflect the views of MailOnline.
