[dheera]

Yes, and also, I'd argue that anonymizing your location is a sacred feature of the internet that anytime someone builds a better mousetrap we WILL build a better mouse. The internet is not a place where requiring proof of location is welcome.

For online polls, it should never be necessary, either: My rights to vote somewhere should depend only on my membership status to that somewhere, and not my current physical location.

[Larrikin]

This is similar to the argument the failed experiment 4Chan showed the internet. Being fully anonymous, the best arguments don't rise to the top, bad actors lie and lie and when confronted with their lies, they just pretend to be someone else and lie some more. All completely anonymous online polls are effectively useless. It's nice to have some research in helping them be a little less useless.

[dheera]

Anonymity should still be a choice. Especially location anonymity.

While I don't mind 7 billion people knowing what I intentionally said publicly, I don't want 7 billion people knowing where I sleep or where I am at this exact moment.

[frotty]

I'd love to see your documentation on where it was ever claimed that 4chan was an experiment in anonymity creating a usable filter for quality?

Completely anonymous online polls are impossible, I'm thinking the goal is to have effectively non-publicly identifiable polling with the ability to disallow double voting. Seems absolutely trivial if Every Relevant Citizen was set up with their own API / digi-thumbprint.

[Larrikin]

It was one of the main selling points of 2chan and 4chan 20 years ago. I'm sure Moot is on record somewhere discussing it.