[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.

[squigz]

I'm talking about other citizens.

[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

[squigz]

You continue to ignore the very glaring issue with trying to address these issues by de-anonymizing speech - that is, any such system will be easily circumvented.

Furthermore, the idea that we can't address this in any other way is wrong. We can work to combat and ban misinformation and propaganda campaigns. We can outlaw it for domestic politics. We can work with other countries where such efforts come from to stop them. We can put warnings and other labels on misinformation. To say nothing of the education angle.

[lovich]

When you say “…any such system will be easily circumvented.” What do you mean by “circumvented”?

If I’m proposing that your statements are tied to your identity what’s the circumvention there? Just fake IDs?

> Furthermore, the idea that we can't address this in any other way is wrong. We can work to combat and ban misinformation and propaganda campaigns. We can outlaw it for domestic politics. We can work with other countries where such efforts come from to stop them. We can put warnings and other labels on misinformation. To say nothing of the education angle.

I don’t see how you can have a problem with making statements tied to identities as an attack on free speech but then suggest that the government decides what correct speech is. That seems like a direct attack on the “free” part of speech separate from the less important “anonymous” part

Edit: also sorry for the delay, HN’s automatic blocker kicked in

[squigz]

> When you say “…any such system will be easily circumvented.” What do you mean by “circumvented”?

I mean... bypassed. Ignored. Fooled. This might be with fake IDs, it might be by compromising the system itself, it might be something else.

> I don’t see how you can have a problem with making statements tied to identities as an attack on free speech but then suggest that the government decides what correct speech is. That seems like a direct attack on the “free” part of speech separate from the less important “anonymous” part

Interestingly, I really haven't said anything about "free speech", nor have I taken the position that the government is unable to already tie your identity to your online activity. Anyway, those responsibilities I outlined could be put on the platforms, if you somehow trust them more, or perhaps a third party service.

Out of curiosity, supposing identity verification doesn't work out, what ideas might you propose for tackling the issues of misinformation and propaganda?