BREAKING NEWS: You’re not Anonymous on Facebook (Duh)
Court orders Meta to unmask anon OP.
PSA: Anonymous posting in Facebook groups isn’t a privacy shield: You can’t just defame someone and get away with it. (Apparently this is news to some people.)
A judge in the Netherlands says Meta must name an anonymous user. In today’s SB Blogwatch, we see both sides.
Your humble blogwatcher curated these bloggy bits for your entertainment. Not to mention: AI hands.
How Free is Your Speech?
What’s the craic? Ashley Belanger reports—“Facebook to unmask anonymous Dutch user”:
“Deserved an opportunity”
Facebook allows users to post anonymously in private groups when admins allow it. [But now] users may feel a little less safe posting anonymously. The Court of the Hague in The Netherlands ruled that Meta … must unmask an anonymous user accused of defaming the claimant.
…
The claimant tried to get Meta to remove the posts, but Meta responded with an email saying that it would not do so because “it is not clear to us that the content you reported is unlawful,” [and] suggested that the man contact the anonymous user directly … triggering the lawsuit against Meta.
…
The court decided that the claimant … deserved an opportunity to challenge the … statements. [It] ordered Meta to provide “basic subscriber information” on the anonymous user, including their username … names, email addresses, or phone numbers associated with their Facebook account.
Who broke the story? Alex Ivanovs—“Meta Forced to Reveal Anonymous Facebook User’s Identity”:
“Right to address the allegations”
[It’s] a landmark decision that signals a shift in the balance between user privacy and accountability on social media platforms. [It] highlights the ongoing challenges faced by tech companies in navigating the delicate balance between user privacy and accountability for online actions.
…
The accusations surfaced in a private Facebook group focused on dating, where users share experiences about their dates, often including personal information and pictures of the individuals involved. It is common practice in these groups to post messages anonymously. … In this case, the anonymous user accused the plaintiff … of transgressive behaviour, a claim the plaintiff vehemently denies.
…
The judge [said] freedom of expression “is not unlimited” and that the man cannot reply within the closed Facebook groups. … The judge acknowledged that while it couldn’t be definitively established that the accusations were baseless … the plaintiff’s right to address the allegations was paramount … and can only do so with the data held by Meta.
ELI5? This Anonymous Coward probably sees the irony:
The male Facebook user is being accused of manipulating and secretly recording his partners by the anonymous poster. So, once Facebook declined to take action, he went to the court for help, and got it.
If he didn’t do the things he’s being accused of, then he should be able to face his accuser and seek whatever relief he’s looking for. Freedom of speech doesn’t … mean freedom from consequences.
But isn’t going to court a bit extreme? Because someone said something nasty about you on the internet? mellosouls sets us right:
If you’re the person having their reputation smeared by anonymous cowards it maybe doesn’t seem so petty. … This seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to do: Have the person slandering somebody anonymously brought into the light where there is a level playing field in which they can present their case.
Of course, we’re not privvy to what the alleged “transgressive behaviour” involved. Defenestrar pictures the scene:
Sometimes there are warning signs [and] you’d like to warn your 61,000 closest friends not to hang out with the person. Or maybe it’s more a violation of social expectations: “This person ordered the most expensive bottle of wine and then left me to pick up the room service tab. Did that happen to anyone else?”
“Bang!” goes my anonymity. mjwx is not a complete **** (allegedly):
I know I’m not anonymous on Facebook, it really doesn’t bother me. Same as I’m not anonymous at the airport or when I use my bank/credit card.
…
I’m not worried about something I wrote on Facebook 10 years ago resurfacing. … I feel safe because I’m not a complete **** who says hateful and inflammatory things.
But what of the unintended consequences? trepanne gets inside your head: [You’re fired—Ed.]
I’m not sure the court really thought through all the implications here. Is the Dutch legal system inviting themselves to become a party to every single he said/she said drama on Facebook?
Meanwhile, thekaj wishes it hadn’t needed a court order:
I had to chuckle at the pretty standard Facebook response … of basically, “We’ve turned a blind eye to this. Why don’t you deal with this yourself or just ignore it?”
And Finally:
You have been reading SB Blogwatch by Richi Jennings. Richi curates the best bloggy bits, finest forums, and weirdest websites … so you don’t have to. Hate mail may be directed to @RiCHi, @richij or [email protected]. Ask your doctor before reading. Your mileage may vary. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Do not stare into laser with remaining eye. E&OE. 30.
Image sauce: DonkeyHotey (cc:by; leveled and cropped)
