5 ms·
> The only thing we have to lose is privacy for domain owners. This is a huge downside. Anonymous publishing is a very important right.
by centimeter 6y ago
> The only thing we have to lose is privacy for domain owners.
This is a huge downside. Anonymous publishing is a very important right.
- darkerside 6y agoMust speech be anonymous to be free?
- boogies 6y agoYes. That’s why voter anonymity is so important, for example.
- darkerside 6y agoI would posit that for normal run-of-the-mill communications, anonymity is overrated. What is this edge case of politically sensitive communications that you think is at risk?
- quicklyfrozen 6y agoI lose my job for supporting the wrong candidate?
- hombre_fatal 6y agoMost HNers here including yourself are writing comments with the comfort of anonymity. I don't want to worry about anything I have to say being tied to my identity, whether it's even my thoughts that there's nothing wrong with a "master" branch much less my much more unsavory thoughts in the tech space.
- darkerside 6y agoIsn't it possible that people become more comfortable attacking common sense opinions like that because they are only expressed in pseudonymity? If the veil were lifted, we'd all have to stand behind our opinions, and people who wanted to disagree would have to do it to our faces. Maybe removing humanity from the internet is not the panacea it seems?
- boogies 6y agoWhat isn’t “politically sensitive”? If you create a git repo, the first branch’s name is a controversial political issue. “Everything’s political” ~ What’s-his-face the communist in Fiddler on the Roof after introducing “Will you marry me?” as “a political question.”
- eznzt 6y agoYes. Think of countries with a mandatory "impressum" (Germany and Austria)
- webmaven 6y ago> > The only thing we have to lose is privacy for domain owners. > This is a huge downside. Anonymous publishing is a very important right. It also wouldn't work. Or rather, at best it would only work as well as political campaign message attribution does (and that's with considerable enforcement muscle aimed at it). Somehow "dark money" often manages to evade these efforts, and evade the consequences of violations, and I wouldn't expect transnational phishing and scams to be any different. Which isn't to say that we should stop trying, but sacrificing the capability of the general public for anonymous speech in return for dubious-at-best attribution by well-heeled actors seems like a poor tradeoff.