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.
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.
Dr Peterson: communists and government censorship are bad.
Also Dr Peterson: no one should be anonymous on the internet.
Why is he like this?!?
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.
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.