I'm no fan of the 'employer' part, because it places companies in a position as arbitrators of behaviour that they don't deserve. BUT: Considering the stuff I

I'm no fan of the 'employer' part, because it places companies in a position as arbitrators of behaviour that they don't deserve. BUT: Considering the stuff I see people posting online, I do think it's such a cesspool of hatred, ill-will and really bad arguments that I am concerned how societies will continue to function, if these interactions become a routine part of civic society. In the past, your opinions, and statements were moderated by your peers, i. e. friends, family, or even strangers (but face-to-face). Sure, that meant a certain degree of self-censorship in some cases. But apart from some anarchists notion of "free speech", I have yet to see anything good emerging from the cauldron of freedom (see /r/the_donald for reference). Anonymously posting hate-filled comments or fake conspiracies is probably legal, but that doesn't mean it's good. It has real costs, both in how it may hurt those it wants to hurt, as well as the toll it has taken on the political narrative. There needs to be a mechanism to include the author in the fallout from his comments. The best I can think of would be connecting posts to the author's Facebook profile. If your friends all see the stuff you write at bbc.co.uk, you'll be a bit more circumspect in what you say. Generally, posts that the author would be ashamed of if their mother read them are probably something we can do without. Ideally, we should come up with a mechanism that respects the idea that we all have multiple public personas, i. e. it's completely legitimate to ask a question on a sexual health forum but you still don't want your family to see it. But these 'personas' shouldn't be license to act without taking responsibility for the consequences.