You make a good point but I disagree.

Anonymity is not the same as pseudonymity.

On #Nostr your real name doesn’t matter, because your reputation is linked to your pseudonym.

Forever.

So there’s your skin in the game.

nostr is less pseudonymous than bitcoin?

Some great comments here. Allow me to blather a bit.

"By only voicing your dissent anonymously you are reinforcing the frame of the censor"

- by discouraging anonymity you reinforce the power of the censor, not just directly, but also indirectly by causing people to mindlessly self-censor and never realize they might actually believe the forbidden stance if they entertained it.

"So what to make of the fact that the world's first decentralized, peer-to-peer content protocol is filled with anonymous handles? The optimistic view is it's just a remnant of centralized media where someone really could throttle your reach or de-platform you for wrong-think, and anonymity were more necessary."

- Bitcoin is pseudonymous. Nostr is less so. I think humans have a flaw, and that is that we have a hard time loving people in the real world that we know think differently than us. Sometimes we kill them. Sometimes we simply don't hire them. That's why we have laws to protect freedom of speech. Laws that don't prevent people from being hired by a private company because of wrong think. A lawsuit is so much more messy than just being a nym and not having to deal with it at all. Anonymity tempers those weakness.

"creativity-killing self-censorship resulting therefrom"

- yeah once the net effect on creativity is 50/50 maybe we start discouraging nym use. For now, it doesn't even close. Anecdotally, a while ago I said something to a friend that could easily have gotten me cancelled in the recent environment. For 24 hours I stressed over whether he would go to the presses. I watch as my mind convinced myself I didn't mean it. No wait, i did! I couldn't have.. In the end I had no idea whether the gears of social pressure and possible exile had changed my mind, or whether I had actually discovered my error.

What data could we use to inform whether we should be discouraging or encouraging nym use?

>you cant dox yourself

are you new to the internet or something?

From the article:

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 it’s tempting to level the playing field. The ring quite likely saved Bilbo’s life in The Hobbit, and (temporary) anonymity enabled Snowden to go public with his revelations. In fact, the anonymity of bitcoin creator “Satoshi Nakamoto” 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 you’re a regular person posting what you take to be interesting, true or important in the public square.

The reply is retarded. You can’t dox yourself as doxxing is about having your info shared *against your wishes*.

All of modern history people were publishing under aliases.

For many different reasons.

without skin in the game you have people who stand for nothing, Other social media platforms could deplatform you. Now that’s no longer possible.

You have wrote yourself into a catch-22.

Either,

A. The discourse is less genuine due to lack of skin in the game

Or,

B. The discourse is less genuine because people will self censor if they have too much skin in the game

Further,

You then state that claims are easier to verify if we know what credentials users have...

This is part of fiat culture, not of a meritocracy.

Ideas should stand (or fall) on their own merit (or lack thereof).

“You shouldn’t be doxed, but you should dox yourself.”

Do you even read what you fucking write? Jebus.

I think anonymity should be permissible but discouraged. So no one is advocating for doxxing you and getting you in trouble at your day job.

But do you not see the problem here? Maybe there are 10 other people who work where you do who don’t dare speak put, and the censors believe all the compliant employees are in lockstep with their permitted world views. How would they even know anyone is dissenting? How would someone else at your work know to reach out to you?

But even beyond that, you undermine the views you hold by being unwilling to stand by them. And should you simply stating your opinion that Israel is committing genocide get fired, perhaps long-term it would be for the best.

And as I said, I don’t think anyone should be doxxed, but I think putting your name to your views and letting the chips fall should be encouraged.

Alright, I was a bit unfair. I don't know you, good on you for standing up for what you believe.

I agree with some of your points, like this one: "By only voicing your dissent anonymously you are reinforcing the frame of the censor, validating his contention that no decent person would hold your view."

You're right, but there is a massive power imbalance. Everyone who speaks is made an example of. It's just not possible to speak freely and without fear when your livelihood and safety are threatened over it. Most of us cannot afford it.

Knowing who you are is an implicit threat that the system holds against you. It's not a coincidence that all major social media platforms are cracking down on anonymous accounts.

So I disagree that anonymous speech should be discouraged. On the contrary, I think we need to re-normalize it. By doing so, we normalize the idea that it's ok to share your opinion without having to fear for your life.

The way you show you believe in your idea is by attaching your name to it. Talk is cheap. Talk without skin in the game is the cheapest.

always with “the jews” Stephan. Can’t respect someone who stoops to that in a respectful discussion like this.

LOl, what a ridiculous statement. I was one of those they went after on Twitter.

But I’m glad I said what I said because I had a right to say it, and I also happen to correct in almost every case.

Exactly. Your point is that without anonymity you wouldn’t speak your mind. And that’s a problem that you can’t only blame on the State.

That’s great, but think about how many more people would come to a true free speech protocol if they knew you were here.

I define anonymity as unconnected to a person’s actual identity in real life.