[lovich]

My privacy is already decimated. For 2 decades we’ve already known about the NSA slurping up everything[1] on top of the Snowden leaks.

Then you have the mega corps like Facebook who can figure out every detail about you even from merely _not_ using their system because of the hole you leave in your social network that does use them.

The only privacy left is from anonymous troll farms claiming to be an American while talking about how the Texas oblast is valuable for its warm water ports.

I am fine for privacy on consumption of content, but you should be forced to identify yourself for posting so the common man at least has a chance to evaluate your statements instead of being misled, all while, as stated above, our governments and corporations don’t have that limitation.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A

[derf_]

> ...you should be forced to identify yourself for posting...

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the right to anonymous speech is inherent in the first amendment [1] [2]. See also The Federalist Papers or Common Sense, without which the US might not exist at all.

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/362/60

[2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-986.ZO.html

[lovich]

That’s pre the ability for foreign actors to engage in our public square en masse. I think technology has changed the situation.

Free speech absolutism that ends up in creating an environment where real speech is drowned out by lies is not valuable to me. It’s like the paradox of tolerance.

[rockskon]

The first amendment doesn't have a clause that exempts Americans from anonymous speech if it's possible a foreigner could inadvertently take advantage of the freedom too.

You may as well advocate for no one to be allowed to drive cars because of the possibility of someone getting into a car accident.

Or (in case you're a fan of the second amendment) - advocate for guns not being allowed to be sold to law-abiding citizens because of the possibility of the gun later working its way into the hands of someone who would use it for a mass shooting.

Freedoms exist with the understanding that both positive and negative consequences can result from them. The argument is that the good vastly out-weighs the bad and are worth preserving.

[verdverm]

we can design better online spaces, the incentives are not currently aligned

[pclowes]

I disagree because the people who have the most important things to say have the most to lose by saying it.

Also anonymity can actually improve social media polarization (see Chris Bail’s research)

[lovich]

Can you link said research? I have never seen anything but division pushed by anonymity.

Also again, the corporations and governments(for certain levels of government like the members of the Five Eyes) can pierce this veil of anonymity, the people who have a lot to lose already are risking it by speaking.

Edit: this also isn’t a newly diagnosed phenomena, I remember seeing this satirical description of the behavior as a kid back when Web 2.0 and social media was starting to change the internet[1]

[1] https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19/green-blackboa...

[quantummagic]

> My privacy is already decimated. For 2 decades we’ve already known about the NSA slurping up everything[1] on top of the Snowden leaks.

If you were correct, there would be no need for them to push these new laws. The fact is, you will have less privacy after these identification requirements are fully enforced.