zlacker

Anonymity is critical to free speech, because there exist bad actors who will resort to violence to suppress speech they don't like.

>>tbrown+(OP)
But, and I understand the argument, that is a problem for IRL society / government to solve.

If someone walks upto me in the voting booth and says "vote for X or I will kill you" that's a crime. If they do it in the pub it's probably a crime. If they do it online the police don't have enough manpower to deal with the situation.

We should change that.

Every time some fuckwit tweets "you and your kids are going to get raped to death and I know where you live" because some woman dares suggest some political chnage I would like to see jail time.

And if we do that then I can understand your argument, but I would then say it is not valid - in a society that protects free speech.

>>lifeis+f6
Actually, there could be places where verified humans are required, and places where they are not.

>>lifeis+f6
That doesn't work so well when the government is one of the bad actors.

>>lifeis+f6
I'm far less worried about being intimidated into voting a certain way by someone who is avoiding the authorities online.

Much more likely is that I'll vote ignorantly because I lack information that someone withheld because they're intimidated by the authorities.

>>tbrown+3h
My point is that if government is a bad actor, there is no recourse. We need a fair democratic society - it's on us to build one / keep it there

>>lifeis+Ln
It might get to be that way some day, but for now there is recourse. France is (in)famous for it and they are currently making use of that way.

And this is important because a "fair democratic society" that doesn't need people to be able to protest is, as history has shown many times, only a temporary affair. The best way to keep it is to not give the government the tools a worse government could use to suppress dissent.