[Aurornis]

This person wasn’t anonymous to TikTok. They were doing this for payments.

TikTok had their information! Voluntarily, too.

Forcing everyone to ID themselves to companies would not have changed anything about this story

> In a fantasy world where I were king, the person who ran this tiktok would be in jail.

Now take this thought one step further and imagine if the king was someone you disagreed with, putting people in jail for posting things they didn’t like. Imagine if the king disagreed with you. Straight to jail?

[unethical_ban]

That's why I said it was a fantasy, and why I didn't suggest it as policy.

There is such a thing as objective truth and objective lies, though, don't deny that.

[glasss]

Yes but in my fantasy world I'm the king because my morals and opinions are best for society. And of course I'll always be reasonable and never have a bad day or let my personal interests take priority over the good of my subjects.

Obviously this is just wishful thinking about governance that people have been saying for milennia. Socrates said philosophers should of course be kings / the ruling class.

There's no simple solution to creating a harmonious society, which of course leads people today and from thousands of years ago to say "Gee, wouldn't it just be nice if everyone listened to me about how to act and what to do when people get out line?". It's a fantasy, and a reminder that anyone wanting a benevolent dictator or to give up their responsibility of being a good citizen shouldn't be taken seriously.

But I do pinky promise I would be a good king if everyone wanted to give me a try.

[unethical_ban]

Right, it's a fantasy. Like I said in my original comment.

[autoexec]

> imagine if the king was someone you disagreed with, putting people in jail for posting things they didn’t like.

Which is why if we passed laws against this kind of thing they shouldn't make posting what the king doesn't like illegal. They should explicitly make it illegal to post disinformation harmful to others. It should work similarly to defamation laws where it makes no difference if you publish something someone else (king or not) doesn't like, as long as it's actually true.

[Legend2440]

This is a very slippery slope. Who gets to be the arbiter of truth? What if you think something is false, and then it later turns out to be true or at least undetermined?

What if you create all this infrastructure for regulating speech, and then the political winds shift and a strongman president ends up using it to suppress speech they don't like?

[autoexec]

> Who gets to be the arbiter of truth?

The same people who decide truth in a defamation case. Let's not pretend that truth doesn't exist or that it's impossible to determine. Anybody can make a factual error, or make a well-meaning post that turns out to be wrong, but that's not what we're talking about here. We're discussing accounts whose entire purpose is to spread harmful disinformation.

> What if you create all this infrastructure for regulating speech, and then the political winds shift and a strongman president ends up using it to suppress speech they don't like?

Again, if the law banning this practice is well written it will be impossible to do that within the context of the law. The fact that some hypothetical strongman president might be able to get away with suppressing speech by acting outside of the law, or might be able to pass other laws that allow for it, is irrelevant. They could theoretically do anything at anytime to anyone regardless.