[carnagii]

Laws like this are long past due. This particular law may not be the best implementation but governments do need to take action to provide their citizens with a real public square online.

Excluding fake and paid users (without a declaration of who is paying them) from that space and protecting free speech in that space is essential to having a public policy discussion.

Private corporations have not done this, and probably never will, so government is the only option left.

[rhn_mk1]

The government may and should provide their citizens with a public square online, but neither do they need to take away anonymity on existing squares, nor does the public square need to be non-anonymous. The concept of being able to go out on the streets, make mistakes, and have them be forgotten is old and integral to public spaces IMO.

[carnagii]

Yes, I agree with this.

I think that governments should provide a verifiable digital ID the same way they provide physical IDs and that they should provide communications platforms that allow people to communicate with these digital IDs in a way that protects their rights the same way that they provide mail service.

I do not think that governments should be regulating/banning activity on private platforms but should be offering an alternative where private platforms fall short. This is really nothing more than bringing existing government services (ID, mail, voting, parliaments) fully up to date with digital technology.

There is a big gap right now where governments don't understand what they should be doing or are incapable of doing it. They recognize the need for action because they see that things are going wrong but are not proposing or implementing the correct solutions yet.

[dahauns]

WTH has this to do with mail service - which inherently allows anonymity for the sender? If anything, analogous to this law, no one would be allowed to send a letter without ID (which also means goodbye post boxes, I guess).

Oh, and if we want to extend the analogy - with current and pending legislation, the mail service would be liable if anyone breaks the law via mail...

[peletiah]

This law is like having to provide and record ID when entering a concert, restaurant or other public places. It's an authoritarian dream, but will be shot down by courts, that's for sure.

[carnagii]

> having to provide and record ID when entering a concert, restaurant or other public places

What do you think cell phones and credit cards are? In all of your examples you do have to provide an ID.

[scriptkiddy]

> Laws like this are long past due.

I disagree. Laws like this are outwardly hostile to the culture of innovation that the internet enables.

> This particular law may not be the best implementation but governments do need to take action to provide their citizens with a real public square online.

I disagree. Governments do not need to provide a public online discussion forum. Plenty of forums already exist. Reddit, Facebook, Hacker News, various phpBBs, deviant art, the chans, tumblr, mastodon, etc. The beauty of the internet as it stands is that if you feel like you don't have a place to speak your mind online, it's extremely easy, and in many cases, completely free to create your own blog or forum. Government should not be involved in public discourse in any role besides that of an observer. It is important for a government to hear the words of it's people, but it is ridiculous to suggest that a government should hold control of where people can have discussions or who can have discussions. This law is authoritarian at best, dystopian at worst.

> Excluding fake and paid users (without a declaration of who is paying them) from that space and protecting free speech in that space is essential to having a public policy discussion.

Protecting free speech is very important. However, this law does no such thing. In fact, it makes it easier to persecute people whose opinions you don't like. Requiring identification for the exercising of free speech is not free speech at all.

> Private corporations have not done this, and probably never will, so government is the only option left.

Regulation on how private companies handle their users is not inherently a bad thing. This law, however, is not only stifeling to free speech, it prevents smaller players from entering the game. It makes it hard for individuals to create their own small online communities by forcing them to navigate murky legal waters.

This law is bad. Everything about this law is bad. There is no single part of this law that is good for the internet.

[msla]

It's only a good thing if you're not going to say or be anything which would get you beaten up if everyone were to know about it. It's easy for people who are, in the example of Austria, White, straight, cis, and either Christian or, at the very least, not Muslim, to decry anonymity, but if you're a member of a disfavored minority group, all de-anonymization does is does is open you up to abuse, discrimination, and, perhaps, violence.

You can take as an example the problems Facebook's "Real Names" policy caused for sexual minorities:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook_real-name_policy_cont...

... except multiply it by a thousandfold when the government is in the pocket of a political party which is... disinclined... to acknowledge the existence or legitimacy of such people.

[Kim_Bruning]

While de-anonymising users may or may not work to stop individual trolling and other abuse (the jury is still out); it most definitely enables organized troll groups. Therefore it's actually not a good idea at all.

[127]

The government isn't providing a public square. Internet is already that and more. The government is enforcing everyone to wear visible name tags by threatening violence on those who disobey.