The strongest counterpoint to that is the intense chilling effect that zero anonymity would have on political dissent and discourse that doesn't match the status quo or party line. I feel that would be much more dangerous for our society than occasionally suffering the consequence of some radicalized edge cases.

▲

slg 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

In that instance, the anonymity is treating the symptom and not the root cause of the problem you fear. The actual problem is a society that does not tolerate dissent.

▲

NoahZuniga 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

You might live in an extremely free country and have no fear about political prosecution but still fear social prosecution.

If someone I was friends with made racist remarks, they wouldn't be prosecuted for that. But I would stop being their friend. Similarly if I was the only one in my friend group against racism and advocate firefly against it, they would probably stop being my friends.

▲

slg 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

>If someone I was friends with made racist remarks, they wouldn't be prosecuted for that. But I would stop being their friend.

So you want your friend to be able to anonymously express their racism while being able to hide it from you? I can't imagine advocating for that as a desired goal rather than a negative side effect.

>Similarly if I was the only one in my friend group against racism and advocate firefly against it, they would probably stop being my friends.

If we are talking about a society level problem, I think it is a little silly to think a society as toxic as this hypothetical one could be saved by anonymous internet posting.

For the record, I'm not as against anonymous posting as the person who started this specific comment thread, I just think this line of argument is advocating for a band-aid over bigger issues.

▲

NoahZuniga 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

These were just extreme examples to indicate that there can be social repercussions to dissenting.

Maybe a more convincing example is that if I advocate for making it easier to build housing because that will lower the cost of housing and many of my friends are homeowners, they might really not like me because lowering the cost of housing directly lowers their net worth.

Are these people evil for not wanting to lose their retirement savings (wrapped up in their home)?

Edit: also

> So you want your friend to be able to anonymously express their racism while being able to hide it from you?

While on the specific example of racism I'm pretty convinced of my moral correctness, I am not bold enough to declare that every bit of my worldview is the universally correct one. I am also not so bold to say that I will always be instantly convinced of my incorrectnes by a friend challenging my worldview (if they actually do have a better stance on some thing). My conclusion is that my friend should have some place to platform his better opinion without (having to fear) alienating me. And the only way to achieve this as far as I know is anonymous platforms.

▲

foxglacier 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I live in a society as toxic as that. It's New Zealand. One of the minor parties currently in government aims to undo systemic racism. However, the popular opinion is that they are the racists because of that. I don't dare tell people that I voted for them because I'll be judged as a racist by some of my family members and loose friends. If I say it on the local internet groups, others will be hostile to me for it. Anonymity helps people to speak up about these issues.

How do we solve those bigger issues when we live in an emperor's new clothes society? Wait for children who haven't learnt the rules to point them out?

▲

synecdoche 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

I understand this view is unpopular, but nevertheless. For something to be systematic there needs to be some set of rules governing it. I have yet to see any evidence of discriminatory rules as part of any western company or government policy, except for affirmative action and equivalent policies which do have such rule sets, where some group is prioritised to the detriment of other.

	▲	hoss1474489 2 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Explicit and obvious encoding in rules isn’t what makes something systemic.
	▲	pseudalopex 2 days ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Systemic and systematic are different words.
	▲	foxglacier a day ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I meant systematic then, sorry. It's the system of rules that's racially discriminatory. We even have different voting rights based on race.

▲

Chris2048 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> aims to undo systemic racism ... they are the racists because of that

this sounds like a suspicious characterisation - how are they trying to undo systemic racism, and what do they identify as "systemic racism"?

▲

foxglacier a day ago | parent [-]

https://www.act.org.nz/defending-equal-rights-democracy

For example, "Ended race-based waitlists" (for healthcare).

▲

Chris2048 a day ago | parent [-]

Which race was favoured? Did labour justify the racial-basis as addressing pre-existing inequality?

	▲	foxglacier 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Maori and possible Pacific Island. I'm not sure how it was justified but I imagine probably because of worse health outcomes for those groups. Trying to correct an inequality with another inequality is still discrimination. People who want that should be honest and identify themselves as racists, not the ones who want to stop racism.

▲

giardini 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

sig says "So you want your friend to be able to anonymously express their racism while being able to hide it from you? I can't imagine advocating for that as a desired goal rather than a negative side effect."

Deceit is a characteristic of our humanity. We all deceive others and ourselves. If people are to be allowed to be fully expressive as humans they need to be able to deceive. And so they require anonymity.

See Robert Trivers' works

https://www.amazon.com/stores/author/B001ITVRUO/about

▲

fercircularbuf 2 days ago | parent [-]

I don't see the logic in this argument. What's the difference from your argument if I state that murder is a characteristic of our humanity? If people are to be allowed to be fully expressive as humans they need to be able to murder.

	▲	Chris2048 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		> What's the difference from your argument if I state that murder is a characteristic of our humanity? It's unclear that it's true. I think the implication is deceit is a human characteristic because all humans do it, perhaps even subconsciously; Is the same true of murder?

▲

imtringued 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Your case doesn't sound reasonable and it also doesn't fit the current zeitgeist.

What people these days are worried about isn't that they are racist and have no outlets for their racism. It's that they worry that whatever they say will be reinterpreted as racism when they were making an honest attempt to not be racist.

	▲	NoahZuniga 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		> What people these days are worried about isn't that they are racist and have no outlets for their racism. It's that they worry that whatever they say will be reinterpreted as racism when they were making an honest attempt to not be racist. So you agree with my point that people could face social prosecution for dissenting (even when they are correct), so we should have anonymous platforms where they can champion their ideas. > Your case doesn't sound reasonable and it also doesn't fit the current zeitgeist. These were just extreme examples to indicate that there can be social repercussions to dissenting. Maybe a more convincing example is that if I advocate for making it easier to build housing because that will lower the cost of housing and many of my friends are homeowners, they might really not like me because lowering the cost of housing directly lowers their net worth.

▲

Spivak 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think we should operate on the premise that no society in the history of humanity has tolerated dissent and none ever will. So treating the symptom is all we can do. It's the basis of why privacy is necessary in any respect.

The rational tolerant society you imagine is so far fetched we don't even pretend it can exist even in fantasies.

▲

tempodox 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Some ailments (society that does not tolerate dissent) cannot be cured, but that doesn’t invalidate protection against their effects.

▲

avazhi 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Maybe the chilling effect is the point, and maybe it's been demonised unfairly.

To be clear, I think freedom of speech is a bedrock foundation of intellectual society and should be the starting point for modern societies.

But perhaps we really should outlaw anonymity when it comes to expression. Allow people to express themselves, but it shouldn't emanate from the void.

▲

Barrin92 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>the intense chilling effect that zero anonymity would have on political dissent

Chilling the discourse would be a feature, not a bug. In fact what discourse in most places these days needs is a reduction in temperature.

This kind of defence of anonymity is grounded in the anthropologically questionable assumption that when you are anonymous you are "who you really are" and when you face consequences for what you say you don't. But the reality is, we're socialized beings and anonymity tends to turn people into mini-sociopaths. I have many times, in particular when I was younger said things online behind anonymity that were stupid, incorrect, more callous, more immoral than I would have ever face-to-face.

And that's not because that's what I really believed in any meaningful sense, it's because you often destroy any natural inhibition to behave like a well-adjusted human through anonymity and a screen. In fact even just the screen is enough when you look at what people post with their name attached, only to be fired the next day.

▲

phendrenad2 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Well, perhaps people should think twice before stirring the pot. Maybe the incentive to get your 20 seconds of fame by making some snappy comment on a public figure's post is part of what's driving incivility online.

	▲	nathan_compton 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		I actually don't think incivility per se is the problem. The problem is that social media encourages us to be inauthentic because we all subconsciously cater to the gaze, both courting its attention and terrified of it at the same time. This is way worse than people being rude.