[intopieces]

Enabled protests in dictatorial regimes, sure. But let’s not overstate social media’s positive impact: nearly a decade after the Arab Spring, few governments outside of Tunisia look markedly different.

The ability of state actors to use social media to spread propaganda should also be considered in our tally of social media impact. The jury is still out on whether they are a net good.

[scrollaway]

This isn't an argument about whether social media is a net positive. This is about people, and whether Twitter protects its users at risk, or builds a system which just begs for government to request their real names.

[intopieces]

It is an argument about whether lack of verification on these platforms is worth preserving. That is not proved convincingly by the instances of protests they allow, since this same practice also allows propaganda.

[twinkletwinkle]

Would it be possible to do a 1-time verification, and then throw away the data? Twitter needs to see a driver's license or passport once, not keep a scan of it.

[macintux]

That seems fraught with peril also. Does Twitter do any check of the data? If not, you've probably just dramatically expanded the market for fake IDs. If so, can governments monitor such verification attempts and associate them with new accounts? If you're living under a hostile regime would you trust Twitter with your ID regardless of assertions of confidentiality?

And there are many people who lack a driver's license and passport. Are they disenfranchised?

[kaoD]

> not keep a scan of it

What prevents me from using the same id in bot accounts then? Verification implies they have to keep some form of personal identification.