[lovich]

Hard disagree on anonymous speech. Individual humans should have free speech but that is divorced from anonymous speech.

With anonymous speech you don’t even know if you’re talking to a person or a program.

If you want to say something, then say it with your identity. You don’t get to be anonymous when saying something to my face so why should it be allowed across a screen?

[squigz]

> If you want to say something, then say it with your identity. You don’t get to be anonymous when saying something to my face so why should it be allowed across a screen?

My face is not my identity. Do I have to tell you my full name and address when I talk to you? I sure hope not!

Beyond that, what about the threat of violence for saying something? As another commenter points out, this is a real issue for marginalized groups, but also could easily become an issue for your average citizen sharing their political opinion.

While I agree it would be nice having some level of assurance that you're talking to a human, particularly going forward, the only way I could support such a system is if no party involved would be able to track what I visit or pin an actual identity to me as a user - but, perhaps more importantly, it also needs to not be easily broken by those actors who it's trying to stop. Otherwise it's useless and just hurts your actual citizens.

[lovich]

> My face is not my identity

Nah, it’s infinitely more identity than a screen name. If you speak in person I know which human being had those thoughts. In the medium we’re communicating over right now neither I nor you could tell if the counterparty was just a computer program.

> Beyond that, what about the threat of violence for saying something? As another commenter points out, this is a real issue for marginalized groups, but also could easily become an issue for your average citizen sharing their political opinion.

If you’re in that situation then you already don’t have free speech, so honestly that tradeoff seems like it doesn’t matter

> While I agree it would be nice having some level of assurance that you're talking to a human, particularly going forward, the only way I could support such a system is if no party involved would be able to track what I visit or pin an actual identity to me as a user…

That’s a lot of words to say you don’t agree with the idea. Pinning an actual identity to you is what makes it non anonymous

[squigz]

> If you’re in that situation then you already don’t have free speech, so honestly that tradeoff seems like it doesn’t matter

What? Are you saying that if you face the threat of violence for saying something, you don't actually have free speech? By this logic, literally nobody anywhere has free speech.

[grog454]

> By this logic, literally nobody anywhere has free speech.

Nobody anywhere has freedom of speech. And a majority of people don't really think about what it means and don't want it in the purest form despite what they say.

Two examples of "free speech" that are protected in the U.S. under the first amendment:

1. Overt racism (less threat of imminent violence).

2. Nazi apparel.

Say the wrong word or show the wrong symbol in certain settings and you'll quickly understand what I mean. Furthermore I'm confident > 50% of U.S. citizens would find you in the wrong and would support whatever happens to you without much consideration of legality.

Freedom of speech is an ideal with no successful implementation and I don't think that's a bad thing. I prefer to live in the real world where saying stupid shit has consequences and people think just a little bit more carefully about what they say.

[lovich]

Yea, if you don’t say what you think because of fear of violence, you don’t have free speech.

I’m actually surprised at your surprise. Is there a definition of free speech that includes not speaking because of violence?

To be clear I’m speaking of “free speech” as a right in the absolute sense. I am aware that various situations and events degrade that in every attempt to implement it. Having anonymous speech lets your circumvent that somewhat, but comes with the tradeoff of disinformation and societal manipulation we’re currently dealing with.

Also for clarification are you describing violence from other citizens or violence from the government? I need the clarification as I wasn’t specific enough myself in that I don’t think there is currently any anonymous speech if the government wants to identify you, only anonymity from the average Joe.

[squigz]

I'm speaking of violence from other people, yes.

> but comes with the tradeoff of disinformation and societal manipulation we’re currently dealing with.

I'd rather solve those issues in ways that don't eliminate anonymity and privacy on the Internet. Furthermore, as I noted in a previous comment, any such system must be immune to being circumvented by those actors doing those things. Otherwise, they will quickly adapt and we go back to business as usual but with less privacy.

[eimrine]

> I'm speaking of violence from other people, yes.

Is this the violence from other citizens? Is this the violence from state actors? Your answer is not clearly answering the question.

[lovich]

> I'd rather solve those issues in ways that don't eliminate anonymity and privacy on the Internet.

Then we will have to disagree. I think the anonymity is the source of the problem and there is no workaround for it. I would prefer this problem solved instead of waiting around for someone to possibly figure out an alternative while we suffer under the weight of all discourse being flooded by disinformation so that no one can agree on reality.

If your ideology leads to its own destruction than it’s a failed set of values, and that’s what I believe is happening to people who value free speech without divorcing that from anonymous speech

[heavyset_go]

Just thought I'd share the EFF's take[1] on the importance of anonymity and its long history with free speech:

> Anonymous communications have an important place in our political and social discourse. The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that the right to anonymous free speech is protected by the First Amendment. A frequently cited 1995 Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads:

> > Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.

> The tradition of anonymous speech is older than the United States. Founders Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote the Federalist Papers under the pseudonym "Publius " and "the Federal Farmer" spoke up in rebuttal. The US Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized rights to speak anonymously derived from the First Amendment.

> The right to anonymous speech is also protected well beyond the printed page. Thus in 2002 the Supreme Court struck down a law requiring proselytizers to register their true names with the Mayor's office before going door-to-door.

To build on that, the Fourth Amendment protections against general warrants stems from the fact that general warrants were used to identify and persecute anonymous authors, many of which were founders and framers.

[1] https://www.eff.org/issues/anonymity

[zelphirkalt]

Probably only works for as long as you are not living in a dictatorship, authoritarian state, utterly corrupt country, or similar. Then suddenly we would want our anonymity back.

While anonymity comes with its own issues for society, I am not convinced it would be worth it getting rid of it.

[Doxin]

While what you're saying sounds like a reasonable enough stance on the face of it, keep in mind that this would deeply fuck over closeted queer folks among other marginalized groups.

[lovich]

It would. Currently they and everyone else are getting deeply fucked because the signal to noise ratio on the internet has been obliterated and everyone is being manipulated all the time by misinformation from humans lying to bots.

I think the trade off for a lack of anonymity is worth it. This is crass and old but the penny arcade guys identified this decades ago

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/greater-internet-fuckwad-theo...

[Doxin]

I agree misinformation is a big problem. Possibly the biggest problem of our time, right next to global warming. But as it stands now, as a queer person, you can find a spot on the internet with like-minded people. Even when closeted. Hell when closeted it's the only place you can find like-minded people.

If we require people identify themselves online you drive all closeted queer people away, into solitude, into feeling no one will ever understand them. That's not worth the price of admission.

We need a better solution than that.