3 ms·

Here is a corollary: public debate will have to be accompanied by real, verified identities. Maybe not the whole internet, but there will have to be a de-anony

• dexen 8y ago
  This idea has been tested extensively over several years, on many popular platforms, and failed all the way, every time it's been tried. Two prominent examples being Facebook and Twitter; the former requires real names and photos (fakery is grounds for ban), while the later provides "Verified" checkmark to verified users. In spite of that, FB carries a lot of mis-information and objectionable opinions, while the verified Twitter users engage in the same underhanded, despicable tactics and name-calling we got to expect from the anonymous accounts. Contrast that with HN, which accommodates the full spectrum from anonymous, through pseudonymous, to fully-linked to offline identity. The quality of discourse here is high, and yet the costs and burdens to both users, and moderators, are reasonably low. The idea of enforcing identities has been proven unhelpful. Plus, there are strong voices among unpopular and persecuted minorities that it puts them at elevated risk, both on- and offline. Just say no to this PII gathering scheme masquerading as "accountability".
  • jay_kyburz 8y ago
    Nobody has done it seriously, and as far as I'm aware, there are no laws currently that prevent you from just lying thought your teeth. Lets try a system where its effectively perjury to tell a lie on the internet :)