Full anonymity in social media should not be allowed. It becomes a cover for bad actors (propagandists, agents, disinformation, bots, age-inappropriate, etc.) It doesn’t have to be a full identity, but knowing your user metadata is open during interactions can instill a sense of responsibility and consequence of social action. As in real life.

▲

creata 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

People should be able to say things without those things following them around for the rest of their lives.

> As in real life.

No, your proposal is very different to real life. In real life, the things you say will eventually be forgotten. You won't be fired for things you said or did years ago, because people will have moved on.

Having a convenient index of everything anyone has ever shared is very different to real life.

	▲	hbarka 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		> You won't be fired for things you said or did years ago, because people will have moved on You realize that the evidence is against you on that one. Just recently, who was that UK ambassador that Prime Minister Keir Starmer just fired?

▲

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

Real life needs full anonymity too. Not everywhere, but it's critical to have some.

For instance a political vote needs to be anonymous. Access to public space typically is (you're not required to identify to walk the street) even if that anonymity can be lifted etc.

Real life is complex, and for good reasons, if we want to take it as a model we should integrate it's full complexity as well.

▲

2 days ago | parent | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

hbarka 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

In the United States, political votes are not anonymous. There is a database of how someone voted.

If you’re out in public, you’re also not fully anonymous. You display metadata such as race, gender, age, behavior. Now you could wear a ski mask during broad daylight but I doubt if you’d be allowed inside a bank. And the bank has a right to judge you for that.

▲

makeitdouble 2 days ago | parent [-]

> There is a database of how someone voted.

That cannot be right, that's the fundamental core of the voting process in our democracies. You might be thinking about the party registrations or voluntary polls ?

> You display metadata

What you show to the world has no requirement to be accurate. If you look like a rich 70 old Asian lady when going to the park there will be no check that's actually what you are (unless the police comes at you for an identity check...). That's particularly impacting for gender, you're typically not required to represent your official assignment, and how you behave isn't stuck to your official identity.

	▲	2 days ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]

▲

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

Looking at any random fullrealname Facebook account will disabuse you of this notion. People will tie vile shit to their identities without a second thought.

Rather than sacrifice the cover that anonymity grants vulnerable people, journalists, and activists, I think we should come at this issue by placing restrictions on how social media platforms direct people to information. The impulse to restrict and censor individuals rather than restrict powerful organizations profiting from algorithmic promotion of the content you deem harmful is deeply troubling.

The first step here is simple: identify social media platforms over some size threshold, and require that any content promotion or algorithmic feed mechanism they use is dead-simple to understand and doesn't target individuals. That avoids the radicalization rabbithole problem. Make the system trivial and auditable. If they fail the audit then they're not allowed to have any recommendation system for a year. Just follows and a linear feed (sorting and filtering are allowed so long as they're exposed to the user).

To reiterate: none of this applies if you're below some user cutoff.

Q: Will this kill innovation in social media? A: What fucking innovation?

	▲	hbarka 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		> cover that anonymity grants [] journalists Quite the contrary, a core journalism principle is accountability and transparency. Readers must know who the reporter is to assess credibility, context, and potential conflicts of interest. Attribution builds trust, allows audiences to verify the source, and distinguishes reporting from anonymous or propagandistic material. This is different from covering source anonymity, but the audience is still relying on the journalist’s _known_ integrity that they’re not just making up some bullshit source.

▲

krapp 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Kiwifarms is an obvious object lesson in why anonymity online is necessary, and hardly the only one.

▲

creata 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

I agree with you, but it's funny that someone else could say the opposite (i.e., that Kiwifarms shows how anonymity lets people get away with saying and doing horrible things) and still sound reasonable.

	▲	beeflet 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Not really. There is a massive crowd of public, named people who harass Chris Chan called "A-logs".

▲

beeflet 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I think the kiwifarms could be a net positive if they incentivize anonymity on the internet through harassment.