 |
| Further information |
The Autumn issue of Index on Censorship explores anonymity from pen names to online privacy. This is what they say about the issue:
Anonymity
is out of fashion. There are plenty of critics who want it banned on social
media. It’s part of a harmful armoury of abuse, they argue. Anonymous trolls
send vile verbal attacks to anyone who expresses opinions they disagree with.
So why do
we need anonymity? Why does it matter? Why don’t we just ban it or make
it illegal if it can be used for all these harmful purposes?
“Anonymity
is an integral part of our freedom of expression. For many people it is a
valuable way of allowing them to speak. It protects from danger, and it allows
those who wouldn’t be able to speak or write to get the words out,” Index on
Censorship editor Rachael Jolley writes in the magazine.
The
autumn 2016 issue special report looks at the pros and cons of masking
identities from the perspective of a variety of players, from online trolls to
intelligence agencies, whistleblowers, activists, artists, journalists,
bloggers and fixers.
•
Valerie Plame Wilson writes on the damage done when her cover was blown.
•
John Lloyd
looks at how terrorist attacks have affected surveillance needs worldwide.
•
Ananya Azad
explains why he was forced to leave Bangladesh after violent attacks on secular
writers.
•
Julian Baggini
looks at the power of literary aliases through the ages.
•
Edward Lucas
shares The Economist’s perspective on keeping its writers unnamed.
•
John Crace
imagines a meeting at Trolls Anonymous.
•
Caroline Lees looks at how fixers
can be endangered by working with foreign news companies.
6 comments:
I try to be anonymous, Martin, but your sophisticated filter system always catches me out.
A.Robot (Mrs)
:-)
Martin - would you explain, please, to a social media illiterate like me, what the symbol used above is supposed to mean. Visually, it could appear quite rude!
Just a smile of appreciation at the joke (Prove you are not a robot)
Thank you, Martin. It's a relief to know that!
"Labour MP Iain Wright said the case was one of the most disgraceful he had heard from constituents on sickness benefits....
"Mr Wright said the woman, who did not wish to be identified, had come to him in great distress, blaming the actions of the private firm Maximus, which carries out the assessments." Source: Benefit Tales blog: Stroke victim ‘told to take back-to-work test while still in hospital’
And Scottish Unemployed Workers Network report: ".... So long as we are ruled by a Tory government in Westminster, wedded to neoliberalism and determined in its attempt to transform the welfare state into a surveillance and control state, our Scottish Government will not be able to protect the interests of the poorest and most vulnerable within our society....."
From one of those that neoliberal government seem to think easier to handle dead than alive.
Alan Wheatley, resenting being obliged to confirm to Camden Council that a new tenant sharing my street address that DWP have told them about does not indicate that I am subletting and therefore receiving extra income that I should be reporting to them.
Post a Comment