Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

YouTube Disables Comments and User Uploads For Korean Users

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the somewhere-a-congressman-drools dept.

Censorship 237

Craig Mundie may want a driver's license for the Internet, but Korea has actually implemented something of that kind. And, as first-time accepted submitter Pseudonym Authority writes, in the form of an excerpt from PC World: "Google has disabled user uploads and comments on the Korean version of its YouTube video portal in reaction to a new law that requires the real name of a contributor be listed along each contribution they make. The rules, part of a Cyber Defamation Law, came into effect on April 1 for all sites with over 100,000 unique visitors per day. It requires that users provide their real name and national ID card number."

cancel ×

237 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Posted Anonymously (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37374644)

Posted Anonymously just because I can.

Re:Posted Anonymously (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37374740)

Which Korea are we talking about here? What a brain-dead summary.

Re:Posted Anonymously (4, Funny)

Quartus486 (935104) | more than 2 years ago | (#37374812)

Considering it's about websites with over 100 000 unique visitors per day and the total number of internet subscribers in North Korea can be summed up by the fingers of your hand...

Re:Posted Anonymously (2)

dintech (998802) | more than 2 years ago | (#37374886)

Well done South Korea. Anything that protects people from Youtube comments is a good thing.

Re:Posted Anonymously (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37375174)

I think they can still read them, actually, that's only thing they can do.
So, it's somewhat worse than before.

Re:Posted Anonymously (1)

dingen (958134) | more than 2 years ago | (#37375092)

South Korea obviously. Like YouTube would have a North Korean portal website.

Re:Posted Anonymously (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37375450)

It's half a conversation... like listening to North Korea respond to unpublicized provocation or a palestinian responding to her dead kid-often to scapegoat a wider population

Usually makes for good evening news in the form mass killings and murder suicides..

Re:Posted Anonymously (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37374922)

Replied anonymously and called you a dink.
Just because i can. For now.

I honestly feel no need to ever login here to slashdot. Even after what... a decade? damm. I rather like being able to say things that won't be held aginst me in a court of law.. Or more likely a job app. What i say today i may not agree with tomorrow. But the net doesnt work that way. Once you say it. Its attributed to you forever. And i can't imagine that ever being a good thing. At best it's neutral. At worst it can ruin your life.

Sure makes me miss bbses with required handles.

Re:Posted Anonymously (1, Interesting)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 2 years ago | (#37375234)

But you lose the ability to brag about it when you made a correct prevision. You are also less likely to be taken seriously. Slashdot's attitude is smart : "Anonymous coward". Being anonymous is frowned upon, but is possible because of the few very legitimate reasons to do it.

Re:Posted Anonymously (0)

CubicleView (910143) | more than 2 years ago | (#37375246)

AC posts are only good for one off comments, it's impossible to argue a point with a ghost, so replying to one is pointless (sigh)

Re:Posted Anonymously (3, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#37375274)

The main advantage of logging in is that you get notified when someone replies to you. This means you can actually have a discussion, rather than just a load of one-off comments.

Re:Posted Anonymously (1)

NoobixCube (1133473) | more than 2 years ago | (#37375276)

After a minor facebook fiasco not related to me at my previous work place (small shop/office, not many of us there), I told my boss that if our posts on facebook were to be scrutinised, even when they don't relate to work, don't defame the company, and don't involve any coworkers, they could pay me at quarter-time for all of my off hours. I worked there for another 18 months before I quit due to other issues caused by factors well outside the job's influence, but in all that time, I never again heard of anyone's social networking being criticised (and with just eight of us, I'd have heard it if it were the best kept secret in the office); and numerous times after that I DID directly criticise the company, I named names and pointed out blatant illegalities, with no repercussions. If you stand up for yourself, you either get fired, or get what you want. My competence and essential position as the only guy with any product knowledge meant they weren't about to fire me.

Re:Posted Anonymously (1)

NoobixCube (1133473) | more than 2 years ago | (#37375282)

That last sentence sounds more arrogant than I intended. Only intended a tenth of what's positively dripping off that.

How do... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37374646)

Not familiar with the popular opinion in korea ofcourse, they may actually want this, but how does a law like this get through... don't people want any privacy?

Re:How do... (5, Insightful)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | more than 2 years ago | (#37374710)

how does a law like this get through... don't people want any privacy?

It is simple. Just tell the public that only terrorists, criminals and paedophiles want anonymity on the Internet. If people will put with being groped at airports, then it isn't so unthinkable that they would be too bothered by something that seems as trivial as requiring real names on the net.

Re:How do... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37374764)

only terrorists, criminals and paedophiles want anonymity on the Internet.

O_o

Only someone with something to hide would want anonymity.

Re:How do... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37374896)

-1 Troll? I see someone failed to see the obvious irony in my anonymous post :P

Re:How do... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37374898)

by Anonymous Coward

anybody got something to hide( or you are not free-minded or unwilling to admit you think other than other paeople)
or some opinion when spoken in public would invoke unrightfull prosecution(by the people next-door for example)

for example: in my opinion religion is for stupid people(is an example), but my [christian|Islamic|Scientology] (is still an example)neighbors might trow stones at me until i move outside the neighborhood.(is still an example)

in a free world you should be able to speak your opinion, even when your opinion revokes people or the government, Anonymity guards this right.

and final: we don't cut public bathrooms because some perverts place camera's there. so Anonymity helps offender's of the law, but it cannot be revoked just to catch the 0.5% criminal

Re:How do... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37375226)

But I am a terrorist/criminal/pedophile :(

Re:How do... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37375314)

Our western values appreciate privacy. The east has some catching up to do on individual privacy.

(And yes, I'm saying that because I'm sick of attitude that everything out of the east is just as good but different. NO IT'S NOT. Hey man eastern cultures just like dictators, stop enforcing your western values on them man.)

Re:How do... (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 2 years ago | (#37375484)

Just tell the public that only terrorists, criminals and paedophiles want anonymity on the Internet.

How much money [youtube.com] will it take to make us safe from anonymous Internet users?

Re:How do... (2)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 2 years ago | (#37375046)

don't people want any privacy?

No.

Re:How do... (1)

Jawnn (445279) | more than 2 years ago | (#37375068)

Not familiar with the popular opinion in korea ofcourse, they may actually want this, but how does a law like this get through... don't people want any privacy?

If the staggering success of Facebook is any indication, the answer is clearly "No. They do not."

Re:How do... (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 2 years ago | (#37375184)

IMO Facebook isn't much different from posting on Slashdot or any other message board, with the exception that you're a lot more likely to have met the people you chat to on Facebook, unless you actively participate in lots of random group pages. There's nothing forcing you to put private info up on Facebook, nor is there anything stopping you from saying private things on Slashdot.

Re:How do... (3, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#37375288)

Slashdot doesn't have web bugs on thousands of popular sites that all get sent your Slashdot cookie so that it can correlate your browsing habits across a large subset of the web. It also doesn't require to you provide your real name and won't ban your account if it discovers that some of the information that you've provided is incorrect. Oh, and it doesn't track your friends / foes to search for common interests to provide to advertisers.

Re:How do... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37375270)

No, they don't. In fact, when I've brought up privacy on-line to people in the past there's always at least one that claims privacy is for criminals and child molesters. They don't see any reason why any non-criminal would want to remain private. It's quite sad.

"So this is how democracy ends, to thunderous applause."

hear that big record scratching noise? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37374656)

it means the party is over in Korea. Sure their broadband is superior ot the US, but this throws a sledge hammer into it.

Re:hear that big record scratching noise? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37375004)

So, by implication you're saying the US can now continue sucking at broadband? At least you can be number one in something...

Korea? Wich Korea? (5, Insightful)

biduxe (541904) | more than 2 years ago | (#37374676)

North Korea of course. No democratic country would have such a law.

Re:Korea? Wich Korea? (1)

Rakshasa-sensei (533725) | more than 2 years ago | (#37374692)

They of course talk about South Korea, after all the North is called 'Democratic People’s Republic of Korea' which as we know fall into the category of democratic countries.

Re:Korea? Wich Korea? (4, Insightful)

ledow (319597) | more than 2 years ago | (#37374724)

Any country with "Free", "Democratic" or "People's" in its name is, almost without exception, anything but.

Re:Korea? Wich Korea? (0, Flamebait)

MRe_nl (306212) | more than 2 years ago | (#37374794)

You missed "United".

Re:Korea? Wich Korea? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37374874)

Except no.

Re:Korea? Wich Korea? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37374876)

Yep, chain gangs are united. It doesn't make them free.

Re:Korea? Wich Korea? (2)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#37375302)

Not sure why this is flamebait. Consider the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. So united that we had Irish terrorists blowing up people for half a century trying to make Northern Ireland independent, we have a referendum on Scottish independence scheduled soon, and there's a growing movement for Welsh independence. Or maybe the United States of America, where states rights are a major issue and people from Texas (for example) will claim that they're Texan rather than American.

Re:Korea? Wich Korea? (-1, Troll)

DrBoumBoum (926687) | more than 2 years ago | (#37374908)

"Land of the free, home of the brave."

Such a joke indeed.

Re:Korea? Wich Korea? (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37374696)

Nope. FTFA, it's South Korea.

We're doomed.

Re:Korea? Wich Korea? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37374700)

North Korea of course. No democratic country would have such a law.

"Democratic" (and the various other forms of government) are all about who makes the laws, not about what sort of laws they make. No form of government is immune to making bad laws.

Re:Korea? Wich Korea? (1)

Suferick (2438038) | more than 2 years ago | (#37374900)

The eternal conundrum. What is democratic behaviour? Behaviour that democrats like, or behaviour that preserves democracy? In any case, I'm not sure this law would qualify. Perhaps the key is in the date it came into force, and it is a giant April Fool?

Re:Korea? Wich Korea? (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 2 years ago | (#37375244)

It could have been deliberately posted on april 1st just to avoid scrutiny.

NK: "We're passing an outlandish law today"
world: har har har har ...
NK: *enforces it*
world: wtf you were serious?
NK: "you snooze you lose. It's already entrenched try and stop us"

Re:Korea? Wich Korea? (1)

RuBLed (995686) | more than 2 years ago | (#37374730)

No you are mistaken, North Korea is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. The one in the south is the Republic of Korea which doesn't have Democracy in its name. This is really obvious.

Re:Korea? Wich Korea? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37375018)

North Korea of course. No democratic country would have such a law.

Really? I can tell you Brazil got close to implementing such a law more than once. And the subject comes and go in the Brazilian political mediums with alarming frequence.

Seriously old news (5, Informative)

crossmr (957846) | more than 2 years ago | (#37374702)

Google did this over two years ago..seriously slashdot.. I know you're usually behind but this is embarrassing.

Wow timothy you are really clueless aren't you?
Cmdrtaco must be spinning in his grave.

This is extremely easy to bypass, just set your location to another country, done, you can upload and comment just fine.

Re:Seriously old news (1)

ShiftyOne (1594705) | more than 2 years ago | (#37374744)

Apparently even the posters don't even bother reading the articles anymore... First line under the title: Apr 13, 2009 3:50 am

Re:Seriously old news (2)

biduxe (541904) | more than 2 years ago | (#37374808)

First line under the title: Apr 13, 2009 3:50 am

For those with disabled javascript the date is hidden.

Re:Seriously old news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37375100)

For those with disabled javascript the date is hidden.

Even so, the story is clearly several months old at least (April). Sure, April 2009 is way worse, but even April 2011 would be considered too old to post IMHO.

Are the editors actively trying to force CmdrTaco to return by posting crap?

Re:Seriously old news (1, Funny)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 2 years ago | (#37375342)

Dewey Defeats Truman!

Re:Seriously old news (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37374960)

To be fair, taco /never/ did anything about timothy in the years he had the opportunity to do so, and when pressed actually said he thought timothy does a good job.

Which was when the rest of us just flat gave up any hope. Guess you missed that, and have managed to drag on the sweet illusion that things might improve someday.

Sorry. Ain't gonna happen. Time to swap out the rage and just treat /. as bad comedy.

Isn't G. a little schizo about name collection? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37374704)

On one hand: Google+ (Google's product) that mandates the use of real names, and on the other hand: YouTube (another Google's product) that does not want to collect real names...

Re:Isn't G. a little schizo about name collection? (0)

crossmr (957846) | more than 2 years ago | (#37374716)

keep in mind this story is 2 years old.
Timothy has apparently taken leave of his senses.

Re:Isn't G. a little schizo about name collection? (2)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#37375310)

And now YouTube is connected to G+, so real names for everyone!

Worst April Fools Joke Ever (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37374706)

Worst April Fools Joke Ever

Youtube comments (1)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 2 years ago | (#37374712)

Yes, I'm all for disabling these globally. No good has come of allowing people to comment, or vote on videos.

Re:Youtube comments (1)

adamofgreyskull (640712) | more than 2 years ago | (#37374806)

Not true. The problem with widespread internet take-up is that more and more idiots are finding their way onto the internet. With the decline of Myspace and Geocities the internet needed a new idiot-sink. Youtube comments, and, indeed, the comments sections of most major news-outlets, draw in these idiots and lock them in combat with one another in a few easily avoidable places.

Re:Youtube comments (1)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 2 years ago | (#37374816)

Maybe it's just nostalgia, but I can't remember geocities being that bad.

Re:Youtube comments (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37375166)

You can blame aol i think.

they got more braindead morons onto the internet by just putting in a disk than anything else ever.. they turned 'the internet' into a household appliance that everyone should have like a stove.

And dammed if the masses are not ......... yeah.

Damm shame.

Re:Youtube comments (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37375280)

> the internet needed a new idiot-sink

That would be facebook then.

Re:Youtube comments (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#37375316)

With the decline of Myspace and Geocities the internet needed a new idiot-sink

Isn't that what Facebook is for?

Irony can be beautiful sometimes :) (1)

youn (1516637) | more than 2 years ago | (#37374720)

Google takes strong stance against name collection after it says no to fake names on google+ :) haha... oh well, oops, things happen I guess

G+, Anyone? (3, Interesting)

dsavi (1540343) | more than 2 years ago | (#37374738)

I know this happened a while ago, but given the recent events about Google removing users from G+ that were using the service under a pseudonym, this feels really ironic.

Google gone too far. New search engines, anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37374836)

Ironic? It feels like part of the same wider issue to me.

Anyway, google are really going too far now. I can live without GMail etc., but are there any proper alternatives to Google's search engine yet? No, bing / yahoo are not substitutes, and they have the same problems with censorship / results manipulation.

I mean, have any new search engines with good motives and a good database size showed up yet? What about the p2p web search efforts?

Re:Google gone too far. New search engines, anyone (2)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#37375338)

I switched to DuckDuckGo a while ago. It uses Yahoo's BYOSS, which uses Bing on the back end, but it doesn't record any user-identifiable information (even preferences are stored in a cookie that is just a string of preference flags, so two uses with the same preferences will have the same cookie). It uses HTTPS by default, and it (optionally) bounces you via a redirect page to strip out referrer information if you're really paranoid. The search results are okay. It has a link to send you to Google if you don't find the results you want, and the only times I've clicked on it, Google hasn't found anything useful either. Oh, and the UI is a lot nicer than Google.

Re:G+, Anyone? (1)

Xest (935314) | more than 2 years ago | (#37374948)

"this feels really ironic."

It shouldn't, because it's not.

Re:G+, Anyone? (0)

Chris Mattern (191822) | more than 2 years ago | (#37375162)

"this feels really ironic."

It shouldn't, because it's not.

It's like rain on your wedding day.

Who cares about the crazy north koreans (1)

7-Vodka (195504) | more than 2 years ago | (#37374746)

Seriously, who cares about the crazy North Korean dictatorship. I'm sure they're doing other outlandish things to like blacking out half the internet with their not-so-great-firewall and..

Oh.Shit. It's not the North Koreans... [guardian.co.uk]

Fuck. Well, I never knew the South Koreans were supposedly so bad at internet that they need to be tracked and punished.

I guess now when they whomp me at Starcraft I'll at least have their real names so I can know who beat me IRL.

This is not new, nor a surprise (4, Informative)

addie (470476) | more than 2 years ago | (#37374748)

This comes as no surprise to me, having worked and studied in Korea for over five years. There was virtually no way to access any online services - buying tickets, posting comments on news sites and the ubiquitous online cyber-cafes, online gaming - without a government ID number. As foreigners, we are issued an Alien Registration Card (ARC) which ostensibly does the same thing, however in my experience this never worked. Perhaps that was a blessing in disguise, as it meant I didn't put myself in a position to be easily tracked.

That all aside, the mad cow protests of 2008 [wikipedia.org] exemplify why the government wants to do this. Inflammatory comments on cyber-cafes fueled a ridiculous campaign of misinformation that led to the shutting down of downtown Seoul for months on end (not to mention riot police, water cannons, abuse of foreigners, etc). This all stems from the National Security Law [wikipedia.org] , designed to prevent discussion of communist ideals, and support for the DPRK. The acceptance of that law has led to gradual acceptance of further but unrelated restrictions on free speech.

The most depressing aspect of this is that most South Koreans who I know don't see this as a problem. As long as they continue to achieve economic progress, lack of civil liberties is little more than an inconvenience. I hope the attitudes of this generation will change, but only time will tell.

Re:This is not new, nor a surprise (1)

recrudescence (1383489) | more than 2 years ago | (#37374892)

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." ~ Benjamin Franklin

Which Korea ? (0)

Pascal Sartoretti (454385) | more than 2 years ago | (#37374754)

Maybe Americans should learn that there are two Koreas, and that they are very different countries in terms of human rights....

Re:Which Korea ? (2)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | more than 2 years ago | (#37374936)

And maybe South Korea should stop acting like North Korea.

Re:Which Korea ? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37375472)

There are two Koreas, the one full of crazy militaristic bastards and the one ruled by Kim Jong Il.

Re:Which Korea ? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37375206)

Generally we don't talk about North Korea unless it's about their shenanigans. So when we say Korean, we mean South Korea.

Stop being dense.

freedom of speech? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37374766)

actually the need of a nickname to use in the internet to say what you REALLY feel and think instead of your real name and ID just because you are afraid of being isolated from the society may be claimed as a contradiction in not-so-easily-defined land of freedom of speech, or not?

What a terrible law . . . (1)

Cyberllama (113628) | more than 2 years ago | (#37374774)

There are a lot of people elsewhere who think this sort of crap makes sense--mostly people sick of cleaning up forums full of trolls. Even some major sites, like Techcrunch, have made the mistake of switching to Facebook for their blog comment system. It really makes me sad to see that kind of thing happen.

Sure, you cut back on trolling but you cut back on a lot of good stuff too when people don't feel free to speak honestly. I'm not willing to make a political statement of any sort attached to my real name on the internet. It's not that I don't have political views, I'm just afraid someday that I'll be at a job interview and somebody with opposite views will have Google'd me and I'll end up not getting the job.

Re:What a terrible law . . . (3, Informative)

crossmr (957846) | more than 2 years ago | (#37374844)

That's not how it works. The real name is only attached to the back-end, not what people see. Even then, this story is 2 years old and the government here is moving away from it in a sense. They're now encouraging the use of the real name system through a proxy. Your first create an ID at another site, you then use that ID to sign-up at the target site. At some point your ID is verified, but not on the main site. They won't have your identity to reveal, but it still allows them to permanently ban trolls.

HYPOCRITES! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37374784)

Enforcing Real Name Only on Google+, and they pulled this crap? (a few years back at that! So old, strangely never heard about it then though)
Yeah, they are two different sections under Google and it probably would have been a non-issue, IF THEY NEVER DELETED ACCOUNTS ASSOCIATED WITH THEM.

Seriously Google, you are making it so much easier for me to hate you these days. I'm beginning to lose all faith in you.
Killing projects left, right and center, killing off Labs and all that comes with it (Google Research essentially), real name nonsense.
What next? Kill Google Sites? Code? Usenet Access? Groups in their entirety? WHAT NEXT, GOOGLE?!

Re:HYPOCRITES! (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 2 years ago | (#37374796)

Don't think it's a morality issue so much as practicality.

Not that I'd encourage anyone to trust Google more than any other company,

Effing Korea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37374822)

Which effing Korea are you talking about? Or are you not sure?

Yet another tool for control and suppression? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37374872)

Maybe we should drop the Internet alltogether. We were fine without it. We are losing touch of reality and each other. Real people are way cooler than a stupid app on your "smart" phone.
The Internet is no longer the useful tool it was designed to be, but a weapon and a channel to gather intelligence and profile individuals. Just like nuclear energy, the governments find a way to use and exploit the desctructive nature of an invention or discovery.

Re:Yet another tool for control and suppression? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37375258)

Man, have you got it backwards. It is more of a weapon for us than it is for them. Governments have been controlling people forever, with every tool available. Now we have tools to see them doing it. We weren't fine without it. It is like we were blind and didn't know it.

Re:Yet another tool for control and suppression? (1)

peragrin (659227) | more than 2 years ago | (#37375376)

Anything can be a weapon. Old lady church gossip has been used to spread more lies and hurt more people than every stalker who used google.

This is what most people dont realize. Nothing changes in human interactions, merely the tools used is what changes.

Congradulations!! (1)

thegarbz (1787294) | more than 2 years ago | (#37374912)

Congrats first time accepted submitter Pseudonym Authority, your presence has made Slashdot even worse. Seriously though, who thought it would be a good idea to accept a submitter for the first time for posting an article FROM FUCKING APR 13, 2009!!!!!!!

Are we trying to set the bar so stupidly low that a cat on a keyboard can become a Slashdot submitter, and then not only accept the submission but announce it in glory and praise?

Remember when they rolled out the Idle tag, at least we could block that! Maybe Slashdot needs a feature to block first time submitters. ... Though then there'd be nothing left to read right?

Re:Congradulations!! (2)

qwertyatwork (668720) | more than 2 years ago | (#37374964)

...Are we trying to set the bar so stupidly low that a cat on a keyboard

dfhjdsg...dsdgjku8io8nss555%%%

Sincerely Fluffy

Re:Congradulations!! (1)

WinstonWolfIT (1550079) | more than 2 years ago | (#37374970)

Congrats first time accepted submitter Pseudonym Authority, your presence has made Slashdot even worse. Seriously though, who thought it would be a good idea to accept a submitter for the first time for posting an article FROM FUCKING APR 13, 2009!!!!!!!

Are we trying to set the bar so stupidly low that a cat on a keyboard can become a Slashdot submitter, and then not only accept the submission but announce it in glory and praise?

Remember when they rolled out the Idle tag, at least we could block that! Maybe Slashdot needs a feature to block first time submitters. ... Though then there'd be nothing left to read right?

This.

Re:Congradulations!! (1)

WinstonWolfIT (1550079) | more than 2 years ago | (#37374978)

This

Re:Congradulations!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37375112)

... a cat on a keyboard [youtube.com] ...

Geez, what next? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37374940)

Next thing you'll be telling me the Beatles are breaking up, or some cockamamie story that we'll have an actor in the White House soon! Kids these days...

Would that stops the bloggers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37375028)

Don't all the savvy bloggers use proxy's?

only one thing to say to that (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37375042)

kekekekekeke

It turns out S.Korea now wants to scrap this act! (5, Informative)

psiXaos (702248) | more than 2 years ago | (#37375120)

Read it here: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2011-08/11/content_13095102.htm [chinadaily.com.cn]

FTA: "The Ministry of Public Administration and Security is set to report to ruling party lawmakers about comprehensive measures to protect personal information online, including abolishing the real-name registration system, Yonhap news agency said."

Also, this says the system was in effect since 2007 :)

How do they tell for sure? (1)

davidbrit2 (775091) | more than 2 years ago | (#37375148)

Do they just block anybody whose view history is more than 80% Starcraft?

Stupid law is stupid (1)

DrXym (126579) | more than 2 years ago | (#37375156)

You have to wonder what was going on in politicians heads to pass this stupid law. It's so easy to bypass and so draconian that it stifles free speech and does nothing to protect against what it is supposed to exist for.

I'm quite certain that Korea could have implemented a national OpenID server (perhaps operated privately and under strict rules about information disclosure) where people could register and create aliases but still be accountable should someone pay a large deposit and file the legal paperwork to reveal who they were.

Timothy (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37375208)

Timothy,

There is simply no way that a community of this caliber can maintain its readership with such a sudden and significant drop in quality. We used to have something very special here--something that made you want to get out of bed in the middle of the night just to read. Please reconsider your recent shift in editorial oversight, or else gracefully step down from your position. I mean, seriously, please, while there's still a core community here.

Sincerely,
Anonymous Coward

Does any of the admins RTFA? (1)

Hamsterdan (815291) | more than 2 years ago | (#37375212)

Or the submitters?

From TFA:

"By Martyn Williams, IDG News Apr 13, 2009 3:50 am "

2 and a half years late is not exactly news. What next, Apple inc hires back Jobs and fires Scully?

why not just post from google+? (1)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | more than 2 years ago | (#37375238)

all you need to do is have google verify the person opening the account is who they say they are... oh wait..

Google, my love, I think you're missing something. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37375366)

Well Google, don't get me wrong. When we first started out, I loved you. It was passionate and all, and hell, it still is sometimes. But I mean, you're turning a bit bipolar on me. I think you might need to seek some professional help.

Google blocks comments from an entire country because of a real-name law.
--->
Google deletes Google+ Accounts because of their own real-name law.

Am I missing something somewhere, or is this just off?

Re:Google, my love, I think you're missing somethi (1)

borrel (2416350) | more than 2 years ago | (#37375448)

mmm, because not giving you real name or posting a comment with political statements not supporting the government can result in death or punishment and because a social network have to be trusted and with varius governments trying to impersonate the public. not doing 1 of them endangers peaple's freedom or securety

In Korea.... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37375384)

Only old people post comments on youtube!

What's the big problem? (1)

stevencbrown (238995) | more than 2 years ago | (#37375426)

before I even read the comments on this story, I knew that Slashdot group think would be squarely against it.

I would usually say I'm quite aligned with the group think, but in this case, I'm not so sure.

I've been thinking for quite a while that the internet would be improved if everyone had to post things under their real identity. It's easy to go for a knee jerk omg, what about people's privacy. But to me, privacy on the net generally (and increasingly) seems to be a cover for posting abuse/rubbish, and it significantly lowers the value of the internet.

Maybe real names isn't the way to fix it, but I think the quality of the net would improve if we could find a way to prevent people positing without the slightest thought.

Shouldn't Be A Problem... (1)

mlauzon (818714) | more than 2 years ago | (#37375432)

For Google, seeing as how they want your real name anyway....

Dear Google+ (1)

Denogh (2024280) | more than 2 years ago | (#37375456)

Take a lesson from your YouTube division.

"We have a bias in favor of freedom of expression and are committed to openness," said Lucinda Barlow, a spokeswoman for YouTube in Asia. "It's very important that if users want to be anonymous that they have that chance."

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>