3 ms·

I share your concern - however harassing people is illegal and if you can't be anonymous to do it then that's also much less likely. I don't buy favourite argu

I share your concern - however harassing people is illegal and if you can't be anonymous to do it then that's also much less likely. I don't buy favourite argument of the US gun lobby - that only criminals ( yes by definition ) would have guns/anonymous accounts if you banned it therefore we shouldn't do anything. You could apply that to anything that's illegal - by definition only criminals are outside the law - so why any laws at all? I'd also be concerned about repressive governments - but I think you could distinguish between mass/public communication and private 1:1 communication. Just like in the real world there is a whole world of difference between saying something in private and publishing something in a national newspaper.

redserk 2y ago
I suggest you consider looking how much it costs to go through the legal system, as it seems your assertion is based in a theoretical understanding of our system. Filing a civil suit can be pretty expensive if you want a lawyer -- which, yes, you do effectively need one. This is effectively a tax on the victims of harassment.
- DrScientist 2y ago
  If it's criminal harrassment - I'd expect the police et al to do the prosecution. Obviously I don't know which legal system you are talking about - but it does raise the issue of cross-boundary jurisdiction which I think is more of a potential challenge.