4 ms·

> If you want to say something, then say it with your identity. You don’t get to be anonymous when saying something to my face so why should it be allowed acros

by squigz 11mo ago

> If you want to say something, then say it with your identity. You don’t get to be anonymous when saying something to my face so why should it be allowed across a screen? My face is not my identity. Do I have to tell you my full name and address when I talk to you? I sure hope not! Beyond that, what about the threat of violence for saying something? As another commenter points out, this is a real issue for marginalized groups, but also could easily become an issue for your average citizen sharing their political opinion. While I agree it would be nice having some level of assurance that you're talking to a human, particularly going forward, the only way I could support such a system is if no party involved would be able to track what I visit or pin an actual identity to me as a user - but, perhaps more importantly, it also needs to not be easily broken by those actors who it's trying to stop. Otherwise it's useless and just hurts your actual citizens.

lovich 11mo ago
> My face is not my identity Nah, it’s infinitely more identity than a screen name. If you speak in person I know which human being had those thoughts. In the medium we’re communicating over right now neither I nor you could tell if the counterparty was just a computer program. > Beyond that, what about the threat of violence for saying something? As another commenter points out, this is a real issue for marginalized groups, but also could easily become an issue for your average citizen sharing their political opinion. If you’re in that situation then you already don’t have free speech, so honestly that tradeoff seems like it doesn’t matter > While I agree it would be nice having some level of assurance that you're talking to a human, particularly going forward, the only way I could support such a system is if no party involved would be able to track what I visit or pin an actual identity to me as a user… That’s a lot of words to say you don’t agree with the idea. Pinning an actual identity to you is what makes it non anonymous
- squigz 11mo ago
  > If you’re in that situation then you already don’t have free speech, so honestly that tradeoff seems like it doesn’t matter What? Are you saying that if you face the threat of violence for saying something, you don't actually have free speech? By this logic, literally nobody anywhere has free speech.
  - lovich 11mo ago
    Yea, if you don’t say what you think because of fear of violence, you don’t have free speech. I’m actually surprised at your surprise. Is there a definition of free speech that includes not speaking because of violence? To be clear I’m speaking of “free speech” as a right in the absolute sense. I am aware that various situations and events degrade that in every attempt to implement it. Having anonymous speech lets your circumvent that somewhat, but comes with the tradeoff of disinformation and societal manipulation we’re currently dealing with. Also for clarification are you describing violence from other citizens or violence from the government? I need the clarification as I wasn’t specific enough myself in that I don’t think there is currently any anonymous speech if the government wants to identify you, only anonymity from the average Joe.
    - squigz 11mo ago
      I'm speaking of violence from other people, yes. > but comes with the tradeoff of disinformation and societal manipulation we’re currently dealing with. I'd rather solve those issues in ways that don't eliminate anonymity and privacy on the Internet. Furthermore, as I noted in a previous comment, any such system must be immune to being circumvented by those actors doing those things. Otherwise, they will quickly adapt and we go back to business as usual but with less privacy.
      - lovich 11mo ago
        > I'd rather solve those issues in ways that don't eliminate anonymity and privacy on the Internet. Then we will have to disagree. I think the anonymity is the source of the problem and there is no workaround for it. I would prefer this problem solved instead of waiting around for someone to possibly figure out an alternative while we suffer under the weight of all discourse being flooded by disinformation so that no one can agree on reality. If your ideology leads to its own destruction than it’s a failed set of values, and that’s what I believe is happening to people who value free speech without divorcing that from anonymous speech
        11mo ago

by squigz 11mo ago

lovich 11mo ago

> My face is not my identity Nah, it’s infinitely more identity than a screen name. If you speak in person I know which human being had those thoughts. In the medium we’re communicating over right now neither I nor you could tell if the counterparty was just a computer program. > Beyond that, what about the threat of violence for saying something? As another commenter points out, this is a real issue for marginalized groups, but also could easily become an issue for your average citizen sharing their political opinion. If you’re in that situation then you already don’t have free speech, so honestly that tradeoff seems like it doesn’t matter > While I agree it would be nice having some level of assurance that you're talking to a human, particularly going forward, the only way I could support such a system is if no party involved would be able to track what I visit or pin an actual identity to me as a user… That’s a lot of words to say you don’t agree with the idea. Pinning an actual identity to you is what makes it non anonymous

squigz 11mo ago
> If you’re in that situation then you already don’t have free speech, so honestly that tradeoff seems like it doesn’t matter What? Are you saying that if you face the threat of violence for saying something, you don't actually have free speech? By this logic, literally nobody anywhere has free speech.
- lovich 11mo ago
  Yea, if you don’t say what you think because of fear of violence, you don’t have free speech. I’m actually surprised at your surprise. Is there a definition of free speech that includes not speaking because of violence? To be clear I’m speaking of “free speech” as a right in the absolute sense. I am aware that various situations and events degrade that in every attempt to implement it. Having anonymous speech lets your circumvent that somewhat, but comes with the tradeoff of disinformation and societal manipulation we’re currently dealing with. Also for clarification are you describing violence from other citizens or violence from the government? I need the clarification as I wasn’t specific enough myself in that I don’t think there is currently any anonymous speech if the government wants to identify you, only anonymity from the average Joe.
  - squigz 11mo ago
    I'm speaking of violence from other people, yes. > but comes with the tradeoff of disinformation and societal manipulation we’re currently dealing with. I'd rather solve those issues in ways that don't eliminate anonymity and privacy on the Internet. Furthermore, as I noted in a previous comment, any such system must be immune to being circumvented by those actors doing those things. Otherwise, they will quickly adapt and we go back to business as usual but with less privacy.
    - lovich 11mo ago
      > I'd rather solve those issues in ways that don't eliminate anonymity and privacy on the Internet. Then we will have to disagree. I think the anonymity is the source of the problem and there is no workaround for it. I would prefer this problem solved instead of waiting around for someone to possibly figure out an alternative while we suffer under the weight of all discourse being flooded by disinformation so that no one can agree on reality. If your ideology leads to its own destruction than it’s a failed set of values, and that’s what I believe is happening to people who value free speech without divorcing that from anonymous speech
      - 11mo ago