Because anonymity allows people to say things that aren't true without repercussions. Or, it allows people to say the darkest part of their sinful heart without risking their reputation. One suggestion I've seen him make is to have two comments sections: one for real and verified people, and a second that is for anonymous persons (and bots). That way there is no censorship, but you would have to choose to click on the second string anon board to see it (and the verified board would essentially be promoted).
I like this idea. We have all seen the filth on 4chan, the wild west of anonymity. We should have freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean there should be no risk in speech. Think of those fake Patriot Front protestors. They ran like little bitches once their masks were torn off.
One thing the religious right needs in America is to be more bold in their speech and stand up to the left. It's a risk to get doxed. But that's why we need the fear of God in anyone that would risk stepping on our property.
And your credibility is what? The most profound refutation of your idea is Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, who never used a pseudonym that I am aware of, and who gained his moral stature for simply standing by the truth. He was exiled from the land he loved, but in the end was not only victorious, but also vindicated. We should learn from his example...not hide like moles from the light. When we do that we hide OUR light under a bushel.
Do you think in future that ANY of these postings will be preserved for posterity to admire or ponder? Don't kid yourself. It will simply be unplugged when it is out of date and all the data will disappear. All the handles will nonexist. All our pride will vanish with it, which is as it should be.
Back before the internet, anons words were limited to what they could spray paint on the side of the building under the cover of night, eg: "Resist!", which might be seen by a few people the next day.
But now we can give full directed piercing attacks to the cold black heart of evil, with examples, and evidence, and then it can spread around the world in a few hours.
There is no comparison to back then and now. We aren't hiding our light as anonymous. some people are letting it shine brighter than they want to do in person, because they will be targeted if they did that in person.
I don't want to be known, i have no desire for attention or for people to 'follow' me. I am a red pill bomber and truth teller, and i back my things up.
And here you are, singing to the choir. I don't kid myself by thinking being on this page entitles me to a place in history. That is laughable. Maybe what I say in my true person might count. This is like Fight Club. We get to trade punches, but we don't talk about it, nobody knows about it---and who knows if we do anything when we walk on the street?
Because anonymity allows people to say things that aren't true without repercussions. Or, it allows people to say the darkest part of their sinful heart without risking their reputation.
Not irl consequences perhaps, but if someone uses an online name to lie or say stupid crap, it’s going to damage the reputation of their online persona. Look to all of the drama surrounding Fishyman for evidence of that. (Not saying that he always lies and says stupid things, but he is controversial despite being anonymous here). There are a number of trolls, shills, and idiots here that illustrate the same idea.
If a private (non government) company wanted to introduce a voluntary system like the one you describe, I wouldn’t personally have a problem with that. There are still two issues though:
Most social media companies may technically be privately/ publicly owned, but in reality they are extensions of the government/mainstream media.
Your system does not directly prohibit censorship, nor does it even guarantee that anons stay anons if the CEO changes his mind at the behest of his Congressional pals.
The foundation of this issue is that Elon said he would preserve the privacy of people who want to be anonymous, and Dr Peterson has publicly come out against that. He’s against the fact that you and I both comment anonymously on the internet because “muh dark tetrad” psychobabble. I just think that telling other people what they can and can’t do online is generally a bad idea and invasion of 1A rights.
And if you don’t like the “filth” that comes with anonymity, then you don’t have to look at it. It’s that simple.
Because anonymity allows people to say things that aren't true without repercussions. Or, it allows people to say the darkest part of their sinful heart without risking their reputation. One suggestion I've seen him make is to have two comments sections: one for real and verified people, and a second that is for anonymous persons (and bots). That way there is no censorship, but you would have to choose to click on the second string anon board to see it (and the verified board would essentially be promoted).
I like this idea. We have all seen the filth on 4chan, the wild west of anonymity. We should have freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean there should be no risk in speech. Think of those fake Patriot Front protestors. They ran like little bitches once their masks were torn off.
One thing the religious right needs in America is to be more bold in their speech and stand up to the left. It's a risk to get doxed. But that's why we need the fear of God in anyone that would risk stepping on our property.
And your credibility is what? The most profound refutation of your idea is Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, who never used a pseudonym that I am aware of, and who gained his moral stature for simply standing by the truth. He was exiled from the land he loved, but in the end was not only victorious, but also vindicated. We should learn from his example...not hide like moles from the light. When we do that we hide OUR light under a bushel.
Do you think in future that ANY of these postings will be preserved for posterity to admire or ponder? Don't kid yourself. It will simply be unplugged when it is out of date and all the data will disappear. All the handles will nonexist. All our pride will vanish with it, which is as it should be.
Anon, our anon is more potent now.
Back before the internet, anons words were limited to what they could spray paint on the side of the building under the cover of night, eg: "Resist!", which might be seen by a few people the next day.
But now we can give full directed piercing attacks to the cold black heart of evil, with examples, and evidence, and then it can spread around the world in a few hours.
There is no comparison to back then and now. We aren't hiding our light as anonymous. some people are letting it shine brighter than they want to do in person, because they will be targeted if they did that in person.
I don't want to be known, i have no desire for attention or for people to 'follow' me. I am a red pill bomber and truth teller, and i back my things up.
And here you are, singing to the choir. I don't kid myself by thinking being on this page entitles me to a place in history. That is laughable. Maybe what I say in my true person might count. This is like Fight Club. We get to trade punches, but we don't talk about it, nobody knows about it---and who knows if we do anything when we walk on the street?
Not irl consequences perhaps, but if someone uses an online name to lie or say stupid crap, it’s going to damage the reputation of their online persona. Look to all of the drama surrounding Fishyman for evidence of that. (Not saying that he always lies and says stupid things, but he is controversial despite being anonymous here). There are a number of trolls, shills, and idiots here that illustrate the same idea.
If a private (non government) company wanted to introduce a voluntary system like the one you describe, I wouldn’t personally have a problem with that. There are still two issues though:
The foundation of this issue is that Elon said he would preserve the privacy of people who want to be anonymous, and Dr Peterson has publicly come out against that. He’s against the fact that you and I both comment anonymously on the internet because “muh dark tetrad” psychobabble. I just think that telling other people what they can and can’t do online is generally a bad idea and invasion of 1A rights.
And if you don’t like the “filth” that comes with anonymity, then you don’t have to look at it. It’s that simple.