[seneca]

> Anonymity is not a prerequisite to freedom of speech.

I couldn't disagree more. The vast majority of papers the founders of the US published to argue against tyrannical government were written anonymously.

> Broken lives of people harassed by anonymous trolls on social media are the dark side of anonymity.

This is a cliche "think of the children" argument. Stripping away anonymity is a gargantuan problem, and enables authoritarian regimes to punish dissent. Trolls are a very minor problem comparatively.

> Freedom must be accompanied by responsibility and accountability.

This is essentially saying "freedom needs to come with punishments and restrictions when you do things I don't like". It's an oxymoron. The responsibilities a free populace have are moral and civil, they aren't about giving away anonymity to governments.

[ycombigators]

This is coming from someone that voted in an authoritarian regime isn't it. Irony is very ironic.

[mkleczek]

> This is a cliche "think of the children" argument. Stripping away anonymity is a gargantuan problem, and enables authoritarian regimes to punish dissent.

So we agree: authoritarian regimes are a gargantuan problem, not stripping away anonymity.

> Trolls are a very minor problem comparatively.

Online predator almost killed my child - this is not a "very minor problem". At least not for me.

> This is essentially saying "freedom needs to come with punishments and restrictions when you do things I don't like". It's an oxymoron.

It is not bout things _I_ don't like but things that _we (society)_ don't like. In my country nazi symbols are forbidden in public space and I think it is a good thing. So yes - "freedom needs to come with punishments and restrictions".

> The responsibilities a free populace have are moral and civil, they aren't about giving away anonymity to governments.

Why not? There are countries which governments are elected by citizens and are _trusted_ by citizens. Why would I want to be anonymous if I _trust_ people I elected?

[isaacremuant]

Almost killed your one child. Authoritarian governments have murdered many more.

At some point the disingenous concerned parents need to start dealing with their own parenting instead of pretending we need to live in 1984 just because your bad parenting requires it.

Your way has many more deaths of government dissenters. Stop using "death" as a scare tactic. Much like the "war on terror" supporters, it's a fraud.

[mkleczek]

I don’t know about any deaths (or imprisonment) of government dissenters in Poland (where I come from). Do you know any?

Maybe oppressive government and lack of freedom of speech is a problem in your country, I don’t know that and I’m sorry for you. My suggestion would be though, that you try to fix your government instead of anonymously requiring online anonymity because you’re afraid of your own government.

I guess here in Poland trying to protect people from theft and violence is more pressing issue than freedom of speech.

[isaacremuant]

My suggestion is that you learn about history. Because suppressing the ability to write anonymously and have private unmonitored conversations is paramount for political dissent. I'm sure you can find a moment in the history of Poland where having to look over your shoulders when you said something against government policies was a thing. Or are you blind to your own history?

> I guess here in Poland trying to protect people from theft and violence is more pressing issue than freedom of speech

I guess you're the kind that learned from the tactics of your oppressors from both sides and want to implement those in the guise of safety.

You don't need to remove civil rights to prevent theft and violence the same way you don't need to nuke a city to combat rape.

Tackle the real problem instead of removing the most fundamental of rights so you can suppress speech and dissent you dislike, which is all this is.

Very easily it becomes, you can't say this about party B or party A, you can't have this political position.

Give me a break.

Again, all these things posted by people who don't share their full name and address. Do it, the government will share yours anyway, voluntarily or not.

[mkleczek]

> Tackle the real problem instead of removing the most fundamental of rights so you can suppress speech and dissent you dislike, which is all this is.

But the real problem is oppressive government. My government is not oppressive - my government is here to help me and help the society to maintain civil rights.

The view that it is the government that is against civil rights is anarchistic and... wrong. In reality it is the opposite: the only way to maintain civil rights is to have the rule of law and the government that protects them.

What's more: anonymity itself has to be guarded by... the government (and that's what you require). So your logic is twisted: you trust your government to protect anonymity while at the same time you don't trust it to protect freedom of speech.

[isaacremuant]

Post your full name and address if you're so happy with lack of anonymity.

[mkleczek]

I’m sure you know the difference between publication of your personal data and making it accessible for trusted government officials.

[isaacremuant]

"trusted government officials" is such a funny line. Clearly you haven't seen how government workers work. Hint, they're usually not paid all that well and are not to be trusted.

In any case, if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about, dude. Isn't that the line?

Clearly you can't live up by the standards you want to impose on others.

[mkleczek]

> In any case, if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about, dude. Isn't that the line?

I have nothing to worry about from my government - that's the important difference.