Good thread on flaws with the regular "remove anonymity from social media" argument. We absolutely need better safeguards on social media, however removing anonymity isn't just impractical, it also risks quite a number of very dangerous negative effects. 1/
We tend to look at the debate from our own positionality, which means we forget the impact on such calls in countries far more illiberal than in the UK, and have no mistake if we remove anonymity others will follow. 2/
That risks human rights activists, the LGBTQ+ community, victims of domestic violence, and so on and so on. It's also unlikely to make a drastic impact on abuse, just look at how many people who aren't anonymous engage in it. 3/
You can argue that the data wouldn't be shared beyond the platform, but let's be honest you can't guarantee that by a long chalk. There's no way to 100% guarantee the users privacy, and for a number of people that means putting their lives at risk. 4/
As I said though, we need better controls and that is on all of us. We need better reporting systems for abuse, and for people to report abuse. Most of all though we need a complete re-think about our relationship with social media. 5/
It's all too easy for people, anonymised or otherwise, to forget that they are talking to another human being. The screen acts as a block. We need better education and understanding of the real world harms online abuse causes and to ensure it is never seen as acceptable. 6/
And as it happens @robfordmancs sums up the ways to do this far better than, as per usual. 7/

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Daniel Sohege 🧡

Daniel Sohege 🧡 Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @stand_for_all

17 Oct
Language use is important. When discussing asylum seekers and refugees it becomes even more so. It doesn't matter if you have good intentions, the wrong choice of language can have disastrous repercussions, and this piece is littered with wrong choices. 1/
theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
The EU and UK take proportionally a small number of refugees compared to the rest of the world, 86% of refugees are hosted in developing nations. Language like "uncontrolled migration" "untold numbers", "surge" etc give a false impression of scale. 2/ ImageImageImage
It's particularly important that you are also clear about what you are saying. The overall number of asylum applications in the UK is actually slightly down on previous years at present. Yes, there have been more channel crossings, but not "record numbers trying to enter...". 3/ Image
Read 8 tweets
16 Oct
Ollie dokie, deep dive into "you can't be autistic because..." An unfortunately far too common statement which it seems far too many autistic individuals get thrown at them. Now obviously this is just my personal experience as an #ActuallyAutistic individual. 1/
"You can't be autistic because...you can communicate". I don't just communicate, my whole career is based on being able to communicate. Not to sound arrogant, but I'm actually pretty good at it. Here's the kicker, for me, I'm good at it because I am autistic. Not despite it. 2/
I was diagnosed when I was 27, so spent my formative years not understanding why I was "different" and trying to find any way I could to avoid getting bullied for being "weird". Unfortunately all my ideas on this inevitably meant I got more bullied. 3/
Read 17 tweets
13 Oct
"Pushbacks" are illegal under international law. Any deaths caused by Border Force while carrying them out would violate international law, and, as much as this government repeatedly ignores this fact, international law trumps domestic. 1/ amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/o…
The very fact Patel is looking to try and get immunity from prosecution demonstrates a clear knowledge that the #bordersbill will inevitably lead to deaths at sea, and have no mistake that will include children. It is an abhorrent piece of legislation which will kill people. 2/
Not only those attempting to enter the UK though. What is frequently overlooked is that it will give cover, perceived if not practical, for other states to conduct operations which kill refugees. 3/
Read 10 tweets
11 Oct
THREAD: With both Labour and the Conservatives yet again trotting out the idea that the only way to tackle trafficking is to make it harder for people to come to the UK it's worth looking at the whole issue of "safe routes". 1/
I use "safe routes" a lot, but even I will admit it is a hazy, fluffy term which needs fleshing out. As it stands it sounds like we are advocating for more "resettlement routes", and yes we do need more, but they still only account for a tiny fraction of asylum seekers. 2/
This is not a simple issue with a simple solution though, and boiling it down to two words probably doesn't help the majority of people understand that. First off you need to look at a bit of background. 3/
Read 18 tweets
10 Oct
There is a discussion in the replies to this tweet which I think it is worth exploring in more depth, can the Home Office be changed from within, and as such should we be nicer about some of the people who work there, or not. I fall on the "not" side of the argument. 1/
Nothing in life is as simple as saying "if you don't like your job just quit". People have responsibilities, needs etc etc. Just quitting isn't practical for a lot of people. There are times though when it is necessary, otherwise you become complicit in some hideous things. 2/
It's not on the scale of Home Office abuses, but I've been there myself and had to leave a position because I knew what was happening at the place of business was fundamentally wrong and I couldn't be part of it. 3/
Read 9 tweets
9 Oct
"A facilitator of illegal immigration". Look, this isn't complex #r4today. Yes, they are both run by gangs, but there is a difference between "trafficking" and "smuggling", which might not be important to some, but damn sure is to those affected. 1/
Smugglers tend to take an upfront fee and facilitate entry. Traffickers often exploit people after they have transported them. The changes of trafficked victims not knowing where they are heading is also far higher. 2/
In no way defending either, both prey on vulnerable asylum seekers, but conflating the two confuses an already layered and complex issue. It also won't be tackled by closing routes, penalising victims or picking up individuals. 3/
Read 6 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(