Poll of the Day > Actor Idris Elba says 'ID' should be required to make a Social Media Account...

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.yahoo.com/news/idris-elba-said-mandatory-social-121231251.html

Do you think should happen? (Poll Question)

And would you still come to Gfaqs if you had to show ID to use the MsgBoards?

pionear posted...

And would you still come to Gfaqs if you had to show ID to use the MsgBoards?

Are we considering anonymous message boards social media now?

---

My first and last name have been a string of topics on this board for a decade. I don't give a shit if any of you goobers know who I am lol

KodyKeir posted...

Are we considering anonymous message boards social media now?

It is social media.

Edit: I got an auto mark for the word "dyke" I don't even see it lol

---

Kody's username


---

Ohhhhhhh

---

EvilMegas posted...

Edit: I got an auto mark for the word "dyke" I don't even see it lol

Yeah me too. Why the auto-mod so aggressive. It's 4 letters in a person's name.

I think ID should be required to get CHECKMARKED... but that's it

---

EvilMegas posted...

It is social media.

I've always seen it as antisocial media, but that's what conservative have been calling internet users for decades so, some bias there.

Clench281 posted...

Kody's username

last part of Kody, first part of Keir (it's actually part of my name, it is just usually separated by the other middle name)

---

I think it would be a step in the right direction

---

Yes, but it needs to go through an independent secure system so that your government issued ID never falls in the hands of the social media company.

Call it "ID-Pal" or something idk

---

In the Netherlands we have something called "DigiD", should not be impossible to allow a platform like myspace or twitter access to that in safe way.

---

Mead posted...

I think it would be a step in the right direction

It would also be a step in the wrong direction.

The problem is, while requiring people to use their real names might negate some of the more aggressive and abusive tendencies brought on by anonymity, it could also help silence legitimate discussion, or even simply lead to a lot of groupthink as people become afraid to ever say anything contrary to the hivemind (see also, people who won't post on Reddit for fear of getting downvoted, but multiply that by about a thousand). Assholes dox people now over incredibly trivial bullshit - imagine what would happen if your name was attached to everything you said or did online.

Requiring real identity to MAKE an account, but not requiring that info to be shown to the public, would theoretically be a good idea (because then people who make criminal statements or use accounts to encourage criminal actions could be identified by legitimate law enforcement agencies via contacting the site admins to ask for the info)... except for the fact that someone would inevitably find a way to hack the data and either dox the shit out of people they disagree with, or blackmail people by threatening to reveal their info.

Basically, we need accountability because humans are shits, but having accountability is also a terrible idea because humans are shits.
---

Horrible idea. There's crazy fucks out there who will hunt someone down just because they said something the crazy person didn't like.
No way in hell would I use any "social media" that required Real ID.

EvilMegas posted...

It is social media.

Technically yes, it's all "social media". I would rather have a different term, though. I think there's significant differences between a message board and something like twitter, facebook, instagram. The former is generally self-contained. The latter is built intentionally so that anything posted can be (and is encouraged to be) shared around and "go viral". While message boards certainly have trolls and horrible nasty posts, I think the newer forms of social media are a much bigger breeding ground for that stuff.
While both types can easily lead to "living in an echo chamber", I think psychologically there's a difference, too. Like, you have to specifically go and seek out a forum. But w/ the newer social media, if you start posting or viewing certain content...even stuff that's not that extreme... you'll get suggested content of a "similar" vein that can quickly lead down a rabbit hole of extremism, plus you'll be bombarded w/ posts from all over validating it.
Like...if you go to Stormfront, you know deep down you're a bad person. But if you go on twitter and read a fairly neutral story about the border wall, then see some sensational post about the "crime being imported" that's too shocking to ignore...before long you're surrounded by alt-right content and you're still just on twitter. "Maybe this is normal?"

Well, he's British so... he's probably not used to the ideas of freedom or anonymity. However, it's funny at a time when people are balking at IDs being used needed for voting, you have some moron who wants IDs for social media accounts. So instead of just having the same problems you have now, you'd be adding identity theft on top of it. Imagine the fun you might have when a ISIS supporter, Antifa member, or white supremacist impersonates you online -- because they either get banned under their own name or don't want to use theirs -- and then you're stuck dealing with the consequences of their actions. Having already been stuck having to address the lies and harassment campaigns started by a certain malicious misinformer, I think this is a stupid, fucking idea.

Beyond that, it sounds like way to leverage violence and intimidation to stifle online discussion, which could be the real agenda here.

EvilMegas posted...

My first and last name have been a string of topics on this board for a decade. I don't give a shit if any of you goobers know who I am lol

Well, you might feel differently if you had psychos from this and other boards threatening your life at times (and Gamefaqs has done exactly dickall about most of those threats).

EvilMegas posted...

Edit: I got an auto mark for the word

Yeah, their auto-censor is still the worst. It also takes forever to find where the system randomly connected the dots.

Clench281 posted...

Kody's username

Oh right, I knew it was something like that. Honestly, why the fuck does Gamefaqs let somebody sign up with a name that pings their auto-filter? This site is so backwards.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Requiring real identity to MAKE an account, but not requiring that info to be shown to the public, would theoretically be a good idea (because then people who make criminal statements or use accounts to encourage criminal actions could be identified by legitimate law enforcement agencies via contacting the site admins to ask for the info)... except for the fact that someone would inevitably find a way to hack the data and either dox the shit out of people they disagree with, or blackmail people by threatening to reveal their info.

And keep in mind that trolls often get banned, so they'd need a new ID for their new accounts. When that doxxing does occur, it could impact somebody who's never even used the site.

streamofthesky posted...

Horrible idea. There's crazy fucks out there who will hunt someone down just because they said something the crazy person didn't like.

This so hard. Of course, a wealthy, privileged elite asshole like Idris Elba doesn't have to worry about anything like that, since he likely has security.

---

but having an id for voting is too far...
---

Zeus posted...

So instead of just having the same problems you have now, you'd be adding identity theft on top of it.

Stealing an account is identity theft anyway. But you do make the point that any ID on social media could be of someone other than the account owner so is worth as much as them just stating their real name.

Zeus posted...

Beyond that, it sounds like way to leverage violence and intimidation to stifle online discussion, which could be the real agenda here.

It's to enforce existing hate crime laws that don't stop applying just because you're doing it via social media. It's an attempt to simplify the job of an investigating officer to track down someone who's committed an established crime. Generally UK law is well-intentioned and overarching.

Krazy_Kirby posted...

but having an id for voting is too far...

The UK is getting photo ID for voting, because it's not actually an issue.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

It's to enforce existing hate crime laws that don't stop applying just because you're doing it via social media. It's an attempt to simplify the job of an investigating officer to track down someone who's committed an established crime. Generally UK law is well-intentioned and overarching.

Whether the ideas are visible or not doesn't help with that. You could argue that using IDs for the sign-up might -- which, again, is assuming that the ID belongs to the person registering it -- but making the ID itself visual doesn't. And Idris pretty explicitly made clear that's not what he was looking for. He stated that he wants peoples' names attached to their opinions.

And, not for nothing, but using full IDs when registering for everything online would also provide new opportunities for identity theft. We *already* over-use public forms of ID, which leads to rampant identity theft.

---

Nah. Not with doxxing, hacking, cyber stalking etc. being what it is. I guess no one told this twit to never give out your real info on social media.

---

Zeus posted...

Imagine the fun you might have when a ISIS supporter, Antifa member, or white supremacist impersonates you online

How is that any more likely with an ID requirement to sign up than it is now?

---

pionear posted...

And would you still come to Gfaqs if you had to show ID to use the MsgBoards?

There would be no trolls and shitposters.

---

Asking if an ID is required to vote!!! I bet then it's RACIST to require it.

---

It's an incredibly stupid and shortsighted idea. Imagine living in Hong Kong and having your real name attached to your posts while you try and unveil the hideous things that are going on there. If you think a company like Twitter is going to protect you, good fucking luck. They've long since proven they're not above bowing down to a place like China.

Whistleblowers and the like are protected for a reason. It should stay that way. Even if we have to deal with dickheads because of it.

Also this disproportionately affects the poor and POC who aren't able to get an ID. They should have a voice too.

---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

It would also be a step in the wrong direction.

We wont know for sure unless we start actually walking.

---

Its a buzzfeed news article.


---

Zeus posted...

Honestly, why the fuck does Gamefaqs let somebody sign up with a name that pings their auto-filter? This site is so backwards.

\_0_/

Krazy_Kirby posted...

but having an id for voting is too far...

It's an unnecessary barrier to the process, which in America, has already become extremely difficult, to protect the "purity" of the ballot. (Translators Note: "Purity" is code for whites only)

In Canada, if you don't have ID, you show a couple pieces of official mail and affirm you are who you say you are and that you will only vote once in this election, good to go. I even gave a voter the oath once, felt very officious.

If a platform wanted to offer a speakers corner with verified users, they can certainly try to enter the marketplace, but to force existing platforms to verify their users, will create all the problems Zeus talks about.

---

Smarkil posted...

It's an incredibly stupid and shortsighted idea. Imagine living in Hong Kong and having your real name attached to your posts while you try and unveil the hideous things that are going on there. If you think a company like Twitter is going to protect you, good fucking luck. They've long since proven they're not above bowing down to a place like China.

Whistleblowers and the like are protected for a reason. It should stay that way. Even if we have to deal with dickheads because of it.

Also this disproportionately affects the poor and POC who aren't able to get an ID. They should have a voice too.

I'm against this but ive always wondered why race has anything to do with ability to get an id. I get poor people and I feel IDs should be free since they technically are legally required

---

Smarkil posted...

It's an incredibly stupid and shortsighted idea. Imagine living in Hong Kong and having your real name attached to your posts while you try and unveil the hideous things that are going on there. If you think a company like Twitter is going to protect you, good fucking luck. They've long since proven they're not above bowing down to a place like China.

Whistleblowers and the like are protected for a reason. It should stay that way. Even if we have to deal with dickheads because of it.

Also this disproportionately affects the poor and POC who aren't able to get an ID. They should have a voice too.

Exactly, Idris has had his wealth go to his head.

Red04 posted...

Its a buzzfeed news article.

ok boomer

---

Mead posted...

We wont know for sure unless we start actually walking.

Walking without knowing what's in front of you is a great way to walk straight off a cliff.



Sycophant posted...

Exactly, Idris has had his wealth go to his head.

It's likely more a case that, as a celebrity, he's already used to the idea of having forfeited most of his anonymity and privacy entirely, so he doesn't see the big deal why other people might not be so keen on it.

Plus, let's be honest, how often is Idris Elba going to be posting on social media anyway? Most celebs only really use it at all to help advertise their own brand/projects, and that requires them to be non-anonymous (and blandly sterile). So they're not going to be making anonymous accounts to rant about stuff on social media (most of them don't even run their own public Twitter accounts, leaving them in charge of social media assistants).
---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Walking without knowing what's in front of you is a great way to walk straight off a cliff.

we arent blind though, we can look

---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Walking without knowing what's in front of you is a great way to walk straight off a cliff.

It's likely more a case that, as a celebrity, he's already used to the idea of having forfeited most of his anonymity and privacy entirely, so he doesn't see the big deal why other people might not be so keen on it.

Plus, let's be honest, how often is Idris Elba going to be posting on social media anyway? Most celebs only really use it at all to help advertise their own brand/projects, and that requires them to be non-anonymous (and blandly sterile). So they're not going to be making anonymous accounts to rant about stuff on social media (most of them don't even run their own public Twitter accounts, leaving them in charge of social media assistants).

To be fair he was defending athletes who, let's be real, would be the target of racist comments on Twitter regardless of whether the athletes themselves even had Twitter accounts. Not motivated because of people targeting him


---

mooreandrew58 posted...

I'm against this but ive always wondered why race has anything to do with ability to get an id. I get poor people and I feel IDs should be free since they technically are legally required

Mostly socioeconomic correlations, rather than being directly race-based. Abolishing the fees for ID's would help, but the more significant issue there is accessibility: There often aren't offices in or near lower-income areas that people without cars can readily get to to obtain an ID, plus taking the necessary time off of work to do it isn't an option for people without paid leave and/or enough financial stability to not suffer for losing half a day's work.

Those certainly aren't insurmountable issues, but they nonetheless constitute extra barriers to getting an ID for lower-income populations, which in turn means that voter ID laws make it more difficult for lower-income people to vote.

---

Zeus posted...

You could argue that using IDs for the sign-up might -- which, again, is assuming that the ID belongs to the person registering it -- but making the ID itself visual doesn't. And Idris pretty explicitly made clear that's not what he was looking for. He stated that he wants peoples' names attached to their opinions.

He explicitly says he wants the equivalent of Twitter's blue check mark, verification to the company, not users. At no point in his post does he ever state he wants other users to see real names.

Zeus posted...

And, not for nothing, but using full IDs when registering for everything online would also provide new opportunities for identity theft. We *already* over-use public forms of ID, which leads to rampant identity theft.

We already give ID for all kinds of things, it's no more vulnerable than any sale online.

adjl posted...

Mostly socioeconomic correlations, rather than being directly race-based.

Just say it's stereotyping minorities as poor.
---

they tried that in south korea, and it got cancelled.

---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Basically, we need accountability because humans are shits, but having accountability is also a terrible idea because humans are shits.

---

adjl posted...

Mostly socioeconomic correlations, rather than being directly race-based. Abolishing the fees for ID's would help, but the more significant issue there is accessibility: There often aren't offices in or near lower-income areas that people without cars can readily get to to obtain an ID, plus taking the necessary time off of work to do it isn't an option for people without paid leave and/or enough financial stability to not suffer for losing half a day's work.

Those certainly aren't insurmountable issues, but they nonetheless constitute extra barriers to getting an ID for lower-income populations, which in turn means that voter ID laws make it more difficult for lower-income people to vote.

And none of that has anything to do with race. And let me tell you poor people seem to magically have a ID when they wanna buy beer or smokes. I'm not saying no body has issues with getting a id but its no where as many people as those against ids for voting make out. You bring up taking time off work. Idk where these people are working but every legit job ive had required me show my ID before I got hired. well they wanted a photocopy of it.

I'm all for programs to help those that do need the help though like even paying for a taxi for them.

---

Love ya Idris, but Sodium hydride.

---

tonicpalin posted...

they tried that in south korea, and it got cancelled.

yep and there is of course the rule that any idea can be tried only once and only exactly the same way

---

Clench281 posted...

To be fair he was defending athletes who, let's be real, would be the target of racist comments on Twitter regardless of whether the athletes themselves even had Twitter accounts. Not motivated because of people targeting him

right. defending those poor poor millionaire sports celebs with Nike deals.

---

Smarkil posted...

It's an incredibly stupid and shortsighted idea. Imagine living in Hong Kong and having your real name attached to your posts while you try and unveil the hideous things that are going on there. If you think a company like Twitter is going to protect you, good fucking luck. They've long since proven they're not above bowing down to a place like China.

Whistleblowers and the like are protected for a reason. It should stay that way. Even if we have to deal with dickheads because of it.

Also this disproportionately affects the poor and POC who aren't able to get an ID. They should have a voice too.

i remember when middle eastern critics were dumb enough to post on ZUCCbook and Twits with their real names and then got "disappeared". thanks, pawns of google overlords.

---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Just say it's stereotyping minorities as poor.

It's a little more than just stereotyping. Anything that specifically affects the poor disproportionately affects (certain) minorities, by virtue of those minorities being over-represented among lower-income communities. That's just the simple reality of the matter.


---

tonicpalin posted...

right. defending those poor poor millionaire sports celebs with Nike deals.

Maybe I'm crazy, but I just don't think someone being an athlete makes it ok to sling slurs at/about them

---

Hell no! I dont want the fools who run these sites knowing where I live! Yeah, Im in California, but thats all you get from me.

---

tonicpalin posted...

right. defending those poor poor millionaire sports celebs with Nike deals.

What a weird, incel take. Like money is supposed to shield people from racism, threats and bullying

---

Cotton_Eye_Joe posted...

There would be no trolls and shitposters.

nope. the toxic harassment from kpop fans in korea kept happening anyway when such ID laws were in place...

---

I also find it ironic that a person on an alt is trying to troll in this topic lol

---

Mead posted...

we arent blind though, we can look

Yes - that's what pointing out the potential drawbacks are in this little metaphor.

Saying "Ehh, fuck it, let's just do it and see what happens" is the opposite of that.
---

adjl posted...

It's a little more than just stereotyping. Anything that specifically affects the poor disproportionately affects (certain) minorities, by virtue of those minorities being over-represented among lower-income communities. That's just the simple reality of the matter.

It's also completely irrelevant. Poorness isn't more of an issue if it's a minority. It's a lazy attempt to make everything racism as universally people are against racism, but not everybody is compassionate to the poor.

Notice how nobody goes "underfunding schools is sexist to boys as boys are disproportionately failing at school".
---

As always, you don't need to weigh in on the topic of racism, racist.

---

EvilMegas posted...

As always, you don't need to weigh in on the topic of racism, racist.

It's funny how you never bring anything of note to any argument you join.
---