Anonymity allows for sockpuppetry, the digital equivalent of ballot stuffing. A dedicated actor can essentially commit a sybil attack against an online communit

Anonymity allows for sockpuppetry, the digital equivalent of ballot stuffing. A dedicated actor can essentially commit a sybil attack against an online community, creating the illusion that a particular point of view is more widespread than in reality. Most individuals don't have the time or resources to perform this or hire people who can, but state-level actors can and do, as can influence groups, in which case it's either called astroturfing or marketing. Money buys influence. There's a reason why loyalties are still best tested face to face, and why most social progress requires people in a room, people on the street, and a few allies behind the scenes. Different groups struggle for influence all the time, even within the same state. On the international level, states compete against other states by winning hearts and minds and swaying the public, despite publicly preaching cooperation, trade, and peace. This has always been this way, and the upside is fewer commoners are getting killed in the field of battle at the behest of their king. For a critical reader, when reading anything, ask yourself, are the points raised plausible? Are the sources believable? Could anyone have an agenda (yes), could anyone have an axe to grind? (maybe) Who does this information benefit or hurt? Could it be genuine, or a false flag? Then consider your existing beliefs. Do they still hold? If yes, you were exposed to some new information and a different point of view and you're enriched for it. But are your views invalidated as a result of this new information? If so, then slow down and repeat these steps until you're satisfied with the conclusion. (On the other hand, anonymity is a partial countermeasure against reprisal. I'm a sock of a medium volume HN poster, and predictably, I don't know if you'll believe me, and you won't know if I'm being genuine)