O/T: Trolls & 'Anonymous Mud-slinging'

Iraq: Maliki and negotiations with Barzani Posted on: Fri, Aug 31, 2012 'Iraqi PM Nouri Al-Maliki and President of Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) Massoud Barzani are said to be going ahead with negotiations to narrow differences over some issues, including notably the KRG oil contracts.' http://www.tacticalreport.com/view_news/Iraq:_Maliki_and_negotiations_with_Barzani/2872 == Author bonobo77 View Profile Add to favourites Ignore Date posted Tuesday 08:37 Subject O/T: Trolls & 'Anonymous Mud-slinging' Votes for this Posting Voted UP 41 times. Message Terrific article in the Guardian this morning that accurately distills the personality changes inspired by the internet and its 'anonymous' boards. Well worth a few minutes of your time. Jonathan Myerson guardian.co.uk, Monday 27 August 2012 19.00 BST http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/27/web-bizarre-synthesis?fb=optOut When Martin Luther triggered the Reformation by nailing his Ninety-Five Theses to the door of a Wittenberg church, he didn't sign it GloomyGripe65. He put his name to the document. Centuries later, when his namesake publicly declared his support for the Memphis strikers, he didn't sign it HaveADream1963. If it was worth saying, it was worth putting your name to it. Yet take a glance at any comment thread on the Guardian site, YouTube or even on the government-recommended website Mumsnet, and you'll find discussion boards littered with gruesome and, crucially, anonymous mud-slinging. This isn't about trolls (their viciousness is merely a symptom of something more serious); this is about people who would never class themselves as abusers or hecklers, let alone "nasty". And yet, liberated by user-name anonymity, ordinary citizens – work colleagues, your school-gate fellow parents, your son, your mother – will type statements they would never dream of saying to the subject's face. They probably wouldn't even gossip it to mates in the pub – the mates would look away, shocked by this needless vitriol. So who exactly decided that pseudonymity is a crucial brick in the wall of free speech, whether on the web or elsewhere? Maybe user names once boasted a valid internet purpose. But any such justification is now thoroughly subverted, and we are left with the queasy ethics of the untended playground, where the nastiest bully wins out simply because he knows he can. When South Korea recently introduced a law demanding all online users identify themselves before posting to message boards, a Carnegie Mellon study of the effects showed that online participation did not drop in the long term but "uninhibited behaviours" certainly did: "swear words and anti-normative expressions" were significantly reduced. In spite of this, last week the law was overturned by a constitutional court on the grounds that it was violating freedom of speech. This was partly because some South Koreans switched to overseas-hosted forums where their identities could remain hidden, though the research has shown that this group of individuals was "more likely to be assertive or abusive". In spite of the court reversal, many observers believe South Korea is ahead of the curve (as with many matters of technology) in its desire to pin names to users, that it has recognised that this is a freedom too far. Introducing the law, a national assembly member declared that "internet space in our country has become the wall of a public toilet". Toilet walls have existed almost since the beginning of time, but few have ever granted those walls the status of an unalienable democratic right. Once counter-cultural, the web has now created this bizarre synthesis of toilet wall and Tom Paine – calling on human rights to justify human unkindness, to allow full rein to the worst side of us. But imagine (as I have done for a new play) if all user names magically reverted to the individuals' real names. Go on, think about it – what would actually be different? What, most importantly, would be lost? What have you ever posted – on a discussion board, or Twitter or elsewhere – to which you are not willing to put your name? If user names had never been invented, would you have not still wanted to participate? How can any of us stand for the right to say something that we dare not own? Because this isn't idle chatter lost in the air. The internet isn't written in pencil, or even ink or even ink – it's carved in stone. Much of this character assassination remains visible forever – or certainly decades. Further, this abuse often squeezes out passionately argued commentary, and the absence of true debate debases and devalues the national dialogue. Without a name to stand behind it, free speech too easily slides into verbal delinquency. It has become too easy to be unkind, and we have lost something as a result. And what of whistleblowers? To this, an easy answer: the Royal Mail. Didn't whistleblowing exist before the advent of the internet? To speak freely, to be outspoken – even highly and outspokenly critical – is of course one of the most treasured rights of a free society. I'd go further: sticking your head above the parapet, saying something provocative while also being brave enough to put your name to it, is an almost euphoric pleasure. It's scary but it's honest and it's brave. It nourishes the heart. = Kurdistan defers to stop oil exports for 15 days 01/09/2012 13:36 Arbil September 1 (Rn) said Natural Resources Minister in the Kurdistan region said on Saturday that the provincial government decided to extend the duration of the export of oil to the outside for 15 days, in order to give an opportunity to the government in Baghdad for talks and addressing the issue of oil between Erbil and Baghdad. was the Kurdistan Regional Government has halted oil export in the month of April last year, due to non-payment of dues by foreign oil companies operating in the region, but they returned and resumed the export process on August 2 / August, and decided to be a period of export for one month, that will be disbursed dues to companies and otherwise are suspended the export process. said Ashti Hawrami told the Kurdish news agency (Rn) announced today that "discussions are continuing between the governments in Baghdad and Erbil to pay the dues of foreign oil companies operating in the Kurdistan region, in order to continue the province exported oil, and increase the proportion of oil exported." He said he "It was due in the event of non-payment of Baghdad receivables foreign oil companies in the region, to be today is the latest in the export process, and stop the process, but because of the Eid holiday, and in order to give more chances to the parties all to discuss the subject, decided the provincial government to extend the period oil exports for 15 days, any up to 15 Eul / Sept.. " says the Kurdistan Regional Government said on Baghdad to pay $ 1.5 million for foreign companies oil operating in the Kurdistan region in the field of investment, but Baghdad and only agreed to exchange about 560 million dinars to those companies . http://www.aknews.com/ar/aknews/2/324084/