LOL, no one is âattackingâ anything. This has nothing to do with the post.
Discussion
"... you undermine the views you hold by being unwilling to stand by them."
This is the attack - portraying anonymity as cowardice. Fallacious argument through and through - an idea/opinion does not require a a government approved name and surname to be valid by itself.
Your point seems to be that anonymity should be discouraged so that censors are aware of dissent. I think all the murdered journalists, whistleblowers, Clinton associates and Epstein witnesses, and probably Assange as well would disagree.
You are not Julian Assange, and I am not arguing anonymity is *never* warranted. From the post which you obviously didnât read very carefully:
So I understand in an environment where the powerful act with impunity either because they can hide behind large institutions or because their communications and deliberations are placed off limits itâs tempting to level the playing field. The ring quite likely saved Bilboâs life in The Hobbit, and (temporary) anonymity enabled Snowden to go public with his revelations. In fact, the anonymity of bitcoin creator âSatoshi Nakamotoâ was necessary for its resilience and almost-impossible-to-replicate immaculate conception.
So this is not an argument that anonymity is never warranted, but that it should not be the default if youâre a regular person posting what you take to be interesting, true or important in the public square.
"Privacy is important, but weâre talking about *public* posts. Ideas."
If you believe there is a public benefit to posting with your real name instead of a nym online you are several steps away from claiming we need digital IDs in order to have a voice online. This is the point you are making several times now, and claiming you are not or "lol, wtf" ing as if I write in a different language.
Ideas do not need to be signed with a government approved name to qualify for a discussion/debate.
I donât know how to make this any more clear, but maybe Iâll try for the 100th time for the reading comprehension-challenged:
I am not advocating for *forcing* you to ID yourself. I am not advocating for platforms to force you to ID yourself. I am making the case why you should ID yourself voluntarily because itâs courageous and beneficial. And I specify exactly why in great detail.
You might disagree. Thatâs fine.
But I am not âseveral steps awayâ from claiming we need Digital IDs to have a voice online.
Iâm a fucking million miles away from that.
"It's courageous and beneficial"
Yes, like I said - you attack nyms as cowards. Your view is invalid unless you sign it with your real name when you post. But how can one be certain this person named "Locke Amber" is real and not a bot? If only there was a license for proving identity... ah yes, a gov ID might work!
It's not that hard to extrapolate, seeing as digital IDs are an agenda point for wanna be masters. There's no need for us to agree, but you insisted I was wrong about your position, and repeatedly confirmed it after.
"The censor cannot gauge dissent due to anonymity" only sheep think it's important for their masters to know they do not agree with their policies.