The Readers: What you said this week on irishtimes.com

The articleSocial media has been getting a bit of a hammering. Jennifer O'Connell, in her column in Wednesday's Irish Times ("Politicians: try using social media before you start legislating for it"), wrote about TDs lining up to criticise social media.

She noted that Mary Mitchell O’Connor, a Fine Gael TD, claimed it was “impossible to quantify how many deaths have been caused or contributed to in the country by the negative elements of social media”. O’Connell also noted that O’Connor, like most Fine Gael TDs, have not updated their Twitter accounts since the general election 18 months ago.

O’Connell said she had indeed encountered “trolls” online and, in response, had developed a thicker skin and a determination to ignore them: “Trying to legislate for online commentary is like trying to juggle sand, and just about as useful,” she wrote.

The reactionTrolls ( becoming a grossly overused word) and bullies are easily managed and blocked. The hysteria about online bullying and abuse is being grossly overstated. Unlike real life, social-media sites have ample tools to protect users. The problem comes when people fail to educate themselves about the very social-media programs they are choosing to use. Saoir

As other posters have suggested, the Government is not happy with the vitriolic commentary from the public because it is a reminder of their own failures at leading. Another issue is an inability to move with the times.People for centuries have made comments about lawmakers, but now their views get aired on the internet and people hear them, share them and make them viral. Just because governments can hear and see these comments doesn't mean we need legislation. The deaths of the teenagers Ciara and Erin [Gallagher], and Minister Shane McEntee, present a dark side of social media, but that hardly means that we need to legislate, wasting effort to control a minority while harming a majority of social media users. AmitWadhwa

The articleAlso on Wednesday, Joe Humphreys wrote about anonymity online ("Anonymity on the internet is the cloak of the coward"), saying we shouldn't prevent people from posting under a pseudonym, but we should ignore them.

The reactionIs it not reasonable to suggest that those who oppose anonymous posters not engage with them? What is so hard about scrolling over comments you disapprove of and engaging only with those who use more conventional names but whose identity you, equally, cannot prove? raggagirly

It is similar to "mainstream" journalists who hide behind the mask of "staff reporter". JohnRyan

It's your right to be anonymous. Are there parallels to our democratic right to vote anonymously? muppetsrus

If an argument is right it doesn't need a "name" or a "face". When the internet started were we told to not reveal our identity on forums and chatrooms etc. Sheep_Know

Publicists have to work harder to push their agenda and seek to demonise those who disagree with their opinions. Most TV/radio shows and print journals invite texting, tweeting and emailing. This liberalisation in communication and commentary can only be a good thing.

To conflate anonymity with trolling is risible. None of the commentary on Mr Humphreys's opinion is trolling. Are commentators expected to publish their address and phone number? There is no real anonymity in the internet, as those who tweeted an allegation about Lord McAlpine have been tracked down. NollaigOC