We should debate idea's not authors. Anonymous Speech enables idea's to be spread not personality cults, one would thing those opposing Elon believing that people just support him because of his personality and fame would want more Anonymous Speech not less
This only works if you guarantee that both sides are going to argue in good faith and, well, gestures at the world, that just isn't realistic right now?
But I'm starting to think even that doesn't really get to the heart of the issue. I think there's something about the network effects that leads to a dumbing down even if everyone thinks they are arguing in good faith. I feel like I've noticed a negative difference in discussion quality even over the past year. I can read a reddit headline now and feel more confident I can predict the content of the top two or three comments, the lazy popular thoughtless replies. And I've seen emergence of widely upvoted opinions that you know people adopt not because they've thought through it themselves, but because they've seen it two or three other places and thought it sounded good, irrespective of truth or accuracy. So I think we're seeing behavior that appears trollish even though it may not have come from actual trolls. Call it structural trollism, maybe.
> reddit is a crazed totalitarian system with Red Guards on the loose all around the communities looking for wrong opinions to report
..they immediately think to themselves "right, there's another loon", and move on. At worst they get annoyed at their once-mature community getting infested with loons, and they downvote it.
If you want to have an interesting conversation, I would start with not moaning about 'totalitarianism' because you got downvoted on a social media site. You can just say that you're frustrated that the site is moderated by people who don't share your political views. That's all.
Assuming people don’t use multiple accounts and don’t share accounts with others, the current state of Twitter and all major social networks is pseudonymity, not anonymity: you know that all tweets by @someone were written by the same person. Their "real" name doesn’t matter as long as they always use the same pseudonym.
If your ideas can't stand up to anonymous criticism I'd postulate your ideas are the problem, not the anonymous speech.
Yes, there are scammers and bots and a e-commerce platform would need to evaluate identities for transactional purposes. But to discuss ideas? Please more anonymity.
Facebook pushes “real names” because Zuck thought it was a good idea, and it makes them more money.
To be fair Facebook started with the "(re)connect with your college friends" premise, so it made sense for them to push real names. Not that they couldn't have changed it later, though.
Sure, they may log your IP and your ISP could connect the dots, but it still provides privacy.
Although this will probably get derailed now by GPT3-esque astroturfing/trolling.
Anonymous speech is like graffiti, pseudonymous is like Banksy.
How can you cancel anyone with a better idea than you have if you don't know who they are?
The difference before the Internet is that if I found your idea odious I could punch you in the nose you even if you were "anonymous". And, in return, you were not likely to be attacked by a mob unless you actively did something really horrible.
There are two big problems with social media:
1) I have no way to directly punish you when I find what you are saying sufficiently irritating. You are unlikely to say something really nasty to my face if I could slap you for it. I am unlikely to slap you if you can do so in return unless there is a really good reason. I don't have a good suggestion as to how to implement something which works for this.
2) You have no way to defend against a mob who finds what you are saying sufficiently irritating. In the US, we, nominally, run on presumption of innocence before we punish someone, and the defendant has the right to confront their accusers. Mobs are anathema to both of these. The solution for this is that social media should not be granted safe harbor. If you need moderators, you should also be liable for what is being said on your platform. If you want safe harbor, you should only schelp electrons.
That is false, you do understand that many seminal works like the Federalist Papers where penned anonymously with attribution only coming by way of historians looking at other known works, the entire purpose of Publius was to ensure people were debating the IDEA's not the people.
You seem to be operating under the false idea that before the internet the only communication was in person verbally.
>I have no way to directly punish you
that is not a problem and you should not be empowered to "punish" anyone for their speech, it is very sad you do not respect the concept of free expression but people like you are the exact reason Anonymous Speech is required. You reject the premise of "I may disagree with you but I will defend your right to say it"
Respecting speech you approve of is easy, respecting speech you find offensive is what requires protection. We have lost that in principle in modern times
>You are unlikely to say something really nasty to my face if I could slap you for it.
if you did, you would and should be jailed for battery. Physical violence is NEVER an acceptable response to speech. This modern "punch a nazi" narratives prevent in the authoritarian left is an affront to the principal of free expression
Sorry. This is completely wrong. The GOVERNMENT must respect speech that people find offensive. And I will defend to the death the right of free speech to not be oppressed by the government.
I, as an individual, do NOT have to respect your offensive speech. It is, in fact, my DUTY to oppose your offensive speech, and I'm tired of people forgetting this. And, yeah, some of those reponses will be "against the law". Lots of people have been arrested for sit ins, protests, chaining themselves to fences, violent labor strikes, etc.
> if you did, you would and should be jailed for battery. Physical violence is NEVER an acceptable response to speech.
Sorry, my experience says you are wrong.
Racial slurs, for example, tamp down real fast after the first time someone gets a punch in the nose for slinging one. Been there. Seen that.
Might you be going to jail for battery? Maybe. But that's the risk you take. Might you take real damage getting your ass kicked? Maybe. That's the risk on the other side.
Far too many people are willing to say and do odious things simply because they never get any actual punishment for them. See: the disbelief of all the Jan 6 mob. A couple of those people having gotten their asses kicked might have caused their brains to process that what they were doing was wrong before it escalated to people getting shot.
If you go up to someone and call them a slur, then you have committed verbal assault:
"the use of offensive language directed at a person, where such language is likely to provoke a reasonable person to physical violence."
No it can't.
Also, that has nothing to do with making that response with physical violence legal. You can still only use violence when you are defending yourself against physical injury. Sure, provocation might be mitigating, or get you to a lower level of assault or murder (as the case may be), but it’s not a full defense.
You actually do, if by respect you mean that you are obligated to not engage in violent activities against someone for speech.
If you are going around doing that, then hopefully, other people will engage in their fully legal rights to self defense against you for such actions, or use the legal use of government force against to, to segregate you from society.
You don't have to respect what I say. You have to respect my right to say it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
First sentence clearly states that to adhere to the principle, retaliation is not to be feared or people will not speak up. This threat of violence is prevalent in dictatorships all around the world.
But for any intellectual dialogue the adherence to freedom of speech is a minimal requirement.
There is a difference of principle and requirements de jure.
There is a large group of people that is more interested in other people instead of ideas and to evaluate anything they need to check their trust in the person uttering it. I think they simply need different platforms.
Otherwise I 100% agree, there are good behaving anonymous platforms but I don't know if Twitter ever can become one. I would never register with my real name though.