Not all anonymous behavior is antisocial. Take, for example, people who sheltered Jews during WWII. I suppose by some definition this is antisocial if you defin

Not all anonymous behavior is antisocial. Take, for example, people who sheltered Jews during WWII. I suppose by some definition this is antisocial if you define "antisocial" as bucking local society. But by that definition democracy always leads to antisocial outcomes. This quote from George Bernard Shaw highlights the value of some "antisocial" behavior and seems like a rather democratic ideal: “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” Some people can be publicly unreasonable. We have unpleasant names and consequences for such people, as you demonstrate. Other people can be privately unreasonable. If all progress depends on the unreasonable man, isn't there value in facilitating cowards to be unreasonable? Obviously a great deal of damage is also done by unreasonable people. But I suspect that the balance of a few heros outweighs the many villains and it is better to err on the side of individual privacy. I just wonder why I promote individual privacy while discouraging government privacy. What arguments can be made for or against that seeming contradiction?