| ▲ | squigz 3 days ago | ||||||||||||||||
You continue to ignore the very glaring issue with trying to address these issues by de-anonymizing speech - that is, any such system will be easily circumvented. Furthermore, the idea that we can't address this in any other way is wrong. We can work to combat and ban misinformation and propaganda campaigns. We can outlaw it for domestic politics. We can work with other countries where such efforts come from to stop them. We can put warnings and other labels on misinformation. To say nothing of the education angle. | |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | lovich 3 days ago | parent [-] | ||||||||||||||||
When you say “…any such system will be easily circumvented.” What do you mean by “circumvented”? If I’m proposing that your statements are tied to your identity what’s the circumvention there? Just fake IDs? > Furthermore, the idea that we can't address this in any other way is wrong. We can work to combat and ban misinformation and propaganda campaigns. We can outlaw it for domestic politics. We can work with other countries where such efforts come from to stop them. We can put warnings and other labels on misinformation. To say nothing of the education angle. I don’t see how you can have a problem with making statements tied to identities as an attack on free speech but then suggest that the government decides what correct speech is. That seems like a direct attack on the “free” part of speech separate from the less important “anonymous” part Edit: also sorry for the delay, HN’s automatic blocker kicked in | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||