That’s an opinion, worth thinking about, but I would define it a bit differently. I like the idea of integrity in the literal sense where you are the same person publicly and privately. That’s freedom to me, not having to pander to the particular crowd du jour.
It’ll make some people mad, but how can you be free if you need everyone not to be mad at you?
Right, my point is if you take the risk of doing so online, it’s a personal one. If you avoid the risk, it’s a societal one.
In the unlikely event the state wants to get you, it will. But if no one speaks out under their name, we will have a state so empowered, it will usher in a dystopia for everyone.
That’s why one *should* take the risk now while it’s still relatively small in many places. That’s the gist of the post.
likewise, I appreciate the good-faith back and forth.
At the individual level that’s true, but hiding behind anon handles puts the power in their hands at scale. It means we’ve agreed we can’t speak our minds openly.
yeah, I can see that — as I said I created a separate account to ask technical questions for op sec reasons too.
But yeah, I don’t think it’s so much about particular verifiability as there can always be fakes, but generally if people were really fed up with something, and it was just posted openly by prominent and regular people alike, the State would take notice in a hurry.
I would also like to see financial transactions to be as private as possible where desired. Maybe there’s a way for NOSTR to join zaps in a pool and unjoin them to obscure it to third parties.
As I said in the post, there are times and places for it. For most of us, IMO that is not the case, and we help bring about a state of affairs where it is the case by not standing up for our rights under our real names.
I fought that fight on Twitter (and that was a bit rough as they tagged my job) and I see the same straw-man, out-of-context, personal insults going on here, even with my tepid (I’d *encourage but not require* people to post under their real name) take.
But sticks and stones. They won’t shut me up.
Boomer? FFS, I don’t look that old in my profile pick, do I?
Good luck to you too. Pam. I hope enough people refuse to live in a society where that’s permitted.
Yes, I used to have an anon handle on Twitter to ask technical questions too. I didn’t use it as a substitute for my political opinions (though I did occasionally slip into posting some there for a minute.)
There are times and places for it (as I stated clearly in the post).
And yes, I’m talking about social media as the public square. In that case I think most people should speak up about things under their own names and be counted.
Ironically the entire reason why there’s some risk in having your views out there with your name attached is that fewer people are willing to do it. I’d like to see this risk reversed by everyone posting as though it was their right. Because it is.
Do you think by keeping your head down and going along you are safe from a regime that would put you in jail for 20 years just for having an opinion?
A regime like that would do anything to maintain power, even arbitrarily, and you know why they get away with it? Beacuse when they start threatening people, the people back down and go along with it.
Pretty soon you can’t dissent, then you can’t listen to certain podcasts or access certain websites, then your bank account is frozen, etc.
How does that state of affairs come to pass? By the compliance of the people. Those who hide are throwing those who stand up under the bus. They are playing a short-sighted game of going along, hoping no one comes for them.
We’re not there yet, but we surely will be if everyone stays in hiding.
I addressed all of that in the post. And I don’t care about Jordan Peterson. You are not posting under your name to appease anyone — it’s to exercise your own rights and beat back the censors.
Do you realize people were canceled for saying trans women shouldn’t compete against real women in sports, even though that was a majority opinion? The only reason that happened is because people went along with it even though they knew it was ridiculous.
That’s what you’re doing under a nym. Going along with everything then dissenting in a place where it can’t be counted.
You might be right that we’re late in the game, and it’s teetering, but one way it would collapse for sure is if millions of people in regular jobs just told the truth as they see it rather than pretending to go along.
Strawman harder!
Yes, I get it, but having real skin in the game (the state knows who you are) makes your dissent much more powerful than if you are only saying it while invisible and unaccountable.
How many followers you have is small potatoes, especially when the reason you got those followers was from dissenting anyway.
When did I say I had the right to know who you are, or that I wanted to know who you were particularly?
Did you even read the initial post to which you’re responding?
I’m just encouraging people to have courage rather than kowtowing because Google might not hire you.
And you are not openly speaking out. You are speaking out while hiding in the shadows.
I posted about it. In real-life reptuational risk adds skin in the game. But more importantly it sends the message that the censors are wrong, and you’re willing to stand up (with that real life skin in the game) for what you believe. Nyms undermine that because you’re only willing to say it under the condition it can never get back to you.
If you want to work for Google and keep your mouth shut, then work for Google. But I’m not going to stop advocating for people openly speaking out for what they believe because you want a Google salary, and they won’t let you.
I think your finances should be private, and bitcoiners should absolutely be anonymous. I’m only talking about posts in the *public* square.
And while I would *encourage* ditching the anon handles, I would never want to require it, or do what Elon is doing.