> In private hands our choice is limited, toxicity is rewarded, rage is called engagement, public trust is corroded, and basic human decency is often an afterth

> In private hands our choice is limited, toxicity is rewarded, rage is called engagement, public trust is corroded, and basic human decency is often an afterthought. Sure. But why is it so? Have these "private hands" somehow made people into toxic, rage-filled robots lacking "human decency"? Or, were people already like this before they started using social media, and these "private hands" really did nothing but follow what people craved and rewarded with their attention? It's easy to paint Big Social Corp as evil, and yeah, of course they are to some extent. They literally just do what makes them the most revenue in ads, without any regard for how that affects their users. But I think we're missing something when we absolve individual human beings from responsibility, and paint them out to be mere victims of the siren song of social media. There's an old web comic that I'm sure a lot of you have seen, that simply makes the claim that: > Normal Person + Anonymity + Audience = Total Fuckwad I am a fierce proponent of the right to anonymity online -- BUT -- social media is but a subset of "the Internet". There is nothing saying that anonymity must be, or even should, be the norm on any web platform regardless of its purpose. I have no concrete suggestion on how to do it, but personally I'm quite confident that if you remove "anonymity" out of the fuckwad equation, you don't eliminate the problem, but you decimate it to a degree where it's barely a problem anymore. I very much doubt this is the road Mozilla will choose to take, since it seems completely opposed to everything they stand for, but I'd like to reiterate that you can be a privacy proponent without demanding privacy everywhere, just like you can be a proponent of free speech without being a proponent for "the right to be heard".