[metalspot]

I don't have to imagine.

Instead on censoring speech why not provide tools that lead to better speech? This is perfectly possible from a tech stand point but companies would rather have the power that comes from censorship.

1. Get rid of anonymity/pseudonymity. Free speech is a right. Anonymity is not. If people had to post everything in their real name you would get rid of all of the fake b.s. and people would be much more civilized in their speech.

2. Provide content filtering tools based on user voting with a public record of user votes and the option for people to turn off the filters so that they can see what is filtered.

With these 2 mechanisms you can create a public square with absolute free speech where hate speech is filtered and suppressed, if people choose that, but the records are clear and people who want to audit the filtering can do so as they please.

[woofcat]

That is a hot take. So if you post asking about abortion access as a 16 year old that should have your name plastered next to it.

The internet has saved many people by opening up questions you wouldn't ask your doctor.

[metalspot]

its a free market so people are always welcome to run services that allow pseudonymity (nothing is actually anonymous on the internet, everything is logged and tracked and traceable) and people are free to use them.

the most popular services (facebook/instagram, twitter) are the ones that have the most real people posting stuff under their real names.

those companies continue to allow fake users for a variety of financial reasons but the fake users are actively degrading the experience.

twitter is working on KYC now, but it is a cheap AI version that is easily exploitable, so it won't make much of a difference (as i understand it so far).

[bobsmooth]

Facebook, Instagram and Twitter are proof that having your real name next to your posts does not mean people will behave better.

[jollyllama]

People talk about this a lot nowadays, but what's your definition of a "fake user" or a fake account? A real human using a name other than a legal name? Hasn't that been the norm online since the late '80s?

[ferbivore]

Did you somehow miss the last five million years of history? People have no problem advocating for evil under their own name.

[metalspot]

and if you have any hope for humanity at all you have to believe that the majority will continue to reject that evil. pretending evil people dont exist doesnt make them go away.

[ferbivore]

The majority of people have no opinion on most issues. Politics is a fight between minority groups that try to sway or force the majority into supporting them. If you are in favour of mandatory deanonymisation for all public speech, what you're doing is giving sufficiently powerful groups a license to harass, unperson or arrest members of less powerful ones.

Are you actually fine with this? I can't help but notice you're not posting under your real name...