Not true. No reworld identity required.
Yes, Facebook has real world identity on everybody. Certainly Google does.
Dude, thatâs seriously paranoid. I for one would like to know who Iâm talking to, check out your publications, and such. Perfectly innocent. Of course you canât doxx anyone whose name is already public, right? It would be impossible for you to doxx me, for example.
3 Likes
Depending on church bodies and institutions, if one was to be in agreement or promote the positions that are often discussed here it would potentially cause them problems.
That is why I would like to see full disclosure of affiliation. If someone has a contract or has signed a agreement to promote a certain position, it would be dishonest to come here and not disclose it. When someone posts here, donât you think that the person posting has a responsibility to be honest and to accept responsibility for what they say? If they are under some agreement that forces them to take a certain positions, they should not be allowed to anonymously post - they should register, use their real name and disclose their affiliation and the fact that they are under contract that prevents them from deviate from their employersâ official positions.
Just the oppositeâŚwhat if they are deviating, or exploring, deviating from their employers official positions?
1 Like
They shouldnât do that here. PS is not a confessional. If someone has disagreements, doubts, or cognitive dissonance with the agreements that they signed, it is up to them to take care of that on their own.
I disagree. We want to be a safe place for people to contemplate positions that deviate from their employer.This is one of the most legitimate reasons for anonymity out there.
A safe place for whom? Readers/Contemplators or Anonymous Posters? If you are making PS into a safe haven for anonymous malcontents to come here and work out their career decisions in anonymity, you are just looking for problems.
If you were a registered and verified member with name, contact information , DOB, affiliation and you accepted the standard terms and conditions of the forum, I wouldnât banned you for anything that you say.
So your claim to be a free speech advocate opposed to banning is conditional. Originally, I thought that @swamidass had simply ignored your stated position on free speech and banning.
And you didnât answer the question. Why would you have banned me?
In spite of his statement that he supports free speech and is opposed to banning.
How would you verify ID? That seems problematic.
It is really simple and is done automatically. Two way authentication using a text message and email upon registration. And then an automatic verification services that uses credit bureau and government sites that verify identities. You may not know this but when you use an app on your phone to buy a donut at Duckin Donuts, your identity is verified several times by your bank, Dunken Donuts bank and many middle entities in between.
When you register and your identity is verified, you are then usually asked to agree to the terms and conditions of the site. It is pretty standard and you do it many times without knowing it.
1 Like
Hmm, so provide credit card info as ID?
No, you donât supply anything like that. You just supply your name, DOB, and state you live in. This information is used to verify you against known credit bureau information. If there is no credit bureau info on you, you canât be verified and you canât move forward registering.
1 Like
Iâll tell you what. If you donât like my name from now on you can call me John Harshman the Second.
2 Likes
I support free speech and I am against banning, Just not here.
Credit checking for a blog! Well, as long as we can trust Joshua and any others in charge to be absolutely trustworthy (as compared to the people youâre credit checkingâŚ).
But just to note that when I set up the Godâs Good Earth Blog recently (with no responsive features), there were two enormous bursts of activity from multiple sites in China, one after 1 week, and 1 a fortnight later. Nothing for them to find - but might have been quite useful to hack a database of academics and religious people.