Letter to the editor: Nameless evil on social media | TribLIVE.com
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: Nameless evil on social media

In response to the threat posted on Twitter Sept. 3, where an unidentified person indicated he or she would commit a hate crime at an undisclosed Pittsburgh hospital on Sept. 4 (“Online threat made to Pittsburgh-area hospital not credible, traced to teen,” Sept. 3, TribLIVE), I have one simple question: Why are there no calls for social media platforms to verify the identities of their users?

We hear endless calls for legislation against “hate speech” and for “more gun control.” “Hate speech” cannot be defined without obliterating the First Amendment. And “more gun control” is repeated by countless people who are clueless about existing federal and state gun laws.

So while every half-wit and celebrity virtue-signals on social media every time there is a tragedy, no one cares that these platforms facilitate the very evil they supposedly condemn. There is nary a word about forcing users to provide some form of verifiable identity to social media platforms, such as a credit card. Obviously this would diminish the volume and influence of platforms like Twitter, Facebook and Instagram.

But isn’t that the point? If we’re going to have a mature conversation about preventing hate and evil in this world, it won’t be had with people whose only known identity is the “left testicle of the forbidden one.”

Alan Martin


TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.