[_fh5n]

I think that this overall push towards eliminating anonimity and trolls from the internet can only have negative outcomes. Sure, nobody will ever be offended again, but at what cost? And who are these easily offended people for whom we're sacrificing freedom of speech?

It baffles me how nobody sees a parallel with 1984, here, and it's not the usual cliche claim. From: >do not say anything against someone To: >do not think anything against someone The step is incredibly short.

Moreover, how are we supposed to have true bipartisan information if we can only see one side of the coin because the other one would require to talk bad about someone?

I can see every dictator of the world smiling, as proposals like this are being considered throughout the world.

[Cthulhu_]

Nobody's claiming that nobody will ever be offended again (straw man); the idea / theory is that by using real name, there'd be less anonymous trolling.

Offense might become even worse when it's not done anonymously though. Then it becomes a real person kicking a target's shins. Can be good (the argument improving, becoming more of a critique than just brainless insulting), can be bad (the offender not giving a fuck).

Linus has been offending people for a long time without using a pseudonym. But he knows what he's talking about, and is not ashamed of himself for the language he uses / has used.

[type0]

> the idea / theory is that by using real name, there'd be less anonymous trolling.

> Offense might become even worse when it's not done anonymously though. Then it becomes a real person kicking a target's shins.

If you completely ban pseudonyms, the trolls will just impersonate other people. The effect is that it will be even more harmful for personal well-being for both those who get trolled and those who get to be impersonated.

[bandrami]

And the theory is apparently contradicted by the evidence. As the article points out, people are actually more sensitive to group norms when they are anonymous than when they are whatever the opposite is (nonymous? eunonymous?).

The problem isn't the anonymity, it's the norms.

[mjevans]

Linus is effectively a celebrity within his field. That status makes him exempt from some things and more vulnerable to others. He is effectively already a respected public figure and already exposed to much of the attack face that most individuals are better off trying to avoid.

[eli_gottlieb]

>I think that this overall push towards eliminating anonimity and trolls from the internet can only have negative outcomes. Sure, nobody will ever be offended again, but at what cost? And who are these easily offended people for whom we're sacrificing freedom of speech?

The problem here is that "freedom of speech" has come to somehow include, "freedom to incite violence or threaten murder." Just this New Year's weekend, I had to connect two IRL friends over Facebook, because Friend X knew someone in Friend Y's region of the state who had been doxxed and was being threatened with guns. I tried to put them in contact so Friend X's harassment and threat victim could stay on Friend Y's couch, since their own home wasn't safe anymore.