[slg]

>Viewing anonymous posts on the internet is almost always voluntary.

No it isn't. Social media is a near required part of modern life for a lot of people, especially those in the public sphere. For example, it is near impossible to be a freelance journalist without a social media account. Once you have that account, people are free to push their anonymous posts to you.

>This is closer kin to victimless crime as opposed to real crime than it is conditional rules of engagement.

This is just a baffling comment and shows you are out of touch with the type of abuse we are talking about. I can't imagine you have seen any of this first hand if you think this is "close kin to victimless crime". There are very much victims on the end of this abuse.

[burnafter182]

You literally just indicated that anonymity is important. Freelancers could publish under a pseudonym - a form of anonymity to protect themselves from the public.

And I mean, there was that one time that some dude, in person at a press conference threw a shoe at George W. Bush, the President of the United States of America, he wasn't anonymous, and what level of force could've been deployed as recourse ran up to death, evidently not adequate disincentive.

I can make a victim out of myself by a few alterations in my personal narrative. I choose not to.

[slg]

This is classic victim blaming. It is the fault of the person being abused for either not being preemptively anonymous or for "choosing" to allow doxing, death threats, and the like being part of their "personal narrative"?