> Should domain name registrations require a verifiable real name?

As the very first comment on that slashdot post says, what reporter is going to stop and do a whois before publishing the juicy, breaking news they just stumbled on. Requiring real-names doesn't help with the issue, but risks harming plenty. Having your contact details in a publicly accessible database can lead to self-censorship through fear that someone'll do a who-is and pay a visit (or coerce the local plod into unwittingly doing so).

It was a land grab when ICANN tried it previously, and doesn't bring any additional benefit now. It's funny though, how many years have we been telling people to avoid putting personal details online, and still we're seeing people trying to demand more.


On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 10:48 PM, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:

I have to chuckle about these people complaining about fake news.  Let's say there are two problems:
1.   People promoting fake news.
2.   People FAILING to promote GENUINE news.

The MSM (mainstream media) just spent about a year avoiding telling the truth about Hillary Clinton, and her corruption.  (I won't list the details; no point).  It misled the public enormously.  Why, then, should we pay attention to its complaints (and those of others) who are claiming that false facts are being pushed?  

Further, I should point out that "fake" news would tend to not exist in an environment in which the MSM actually covered such negative news.  The problem, as I see it, is that UNLIKE previous election cycles, and non-election coverage, in 2015-2016 the MSM took a very biased position, and avoided covering embarrassing and incriminating facts.  This was especially true in the last few months of the campaign.  


Which (IMO) is part of what screwed Clinton over. If you look at the stuff that came up in the final months, whilst damaging, it was all stuff that she could probably have recovered from (the public being fairly fickle and forgetting things quite quickly) had it come up earlier on.

Had the media broached it further on rather than trying to ignore it, they could have helped the candidate they wanted to win to actually do so. Instead they buried their heads in the sand and pretended there was nothing to see, even as it became clearer and clearer that there was quite a lot more to be told.

Whether you're happy or sad about Trump, I think it's fair to say the media had quite a hand in putting him where he is today, even if that's the opposite effect to the one they intended.
 


--