[darkhelmet]

I don't think this is really about protecting minors, or hurting big tech, or scoring some short term votes, or anything like that.

I feel it's more likely that the long game is ultimately about de-anonymizing the Internet.

This particular objective is a solid plausible explanation of so many initiatives over the last few years. Perhaps not full public de-anonymization, but at the very least to make it easier for things like CALEA to exist in these spaces as well. The public is constantly shown techniques in whodunnit TV shows where the good guys can instantly look up an IP address or other identifying log entry and associate it with a name/address/etc.

IMHO, the plan is to make Business As Usual untenable and make it cheaper and financially safer for tech companies to give in and identify everybody as a survival mechanism. When its safer to record a passport/realid/etc as a legal defense then at some point it'll be done.

After that happens then it's easy to plug in something like CALEA. The public is already being primed to accept it with the benefits being constantly shown on the likes of CSI/NCIS/etc/etc/etc shows.

Of course, from a profit perspective, it certainly wouldn't hurt that all this valuable user data that is being being compiled is finally cross checked and validated.

Or maybe I'm completely wrong and there's no ulterior motive and there's nothing more to it than politicians trying to be seen to be doing the right thing. Hah! I'm way too cynical for that.

[notyourwork]

Although I don't support it, would the internet be a better place with people being identified? For this to be a constructive discussion, can we assume companies have a proper and secure way to validate identities and store your data? A lot of the extremism we see online is because people hide behind their keyboard. I sometimes wonder if the internet as we know it and social medias pervasive influence would be much different if people were less anonymous.

Please convince me I'm crazy or provide anecdotes that suggest this to be a terrible idea.

I grew up with internet access in the early 90s and have been behind a keyboard ever since.

edit: Downvotes are not for disagreement, please provide constructive discussion to a reasonable question.

[t-writescode]

> would the internet be a better place with people being identified?

No.

Marginalized groups __need__ their anonymity to be safe.

Should a teenager in Utah be doxxed by a message board where they're working through their gender identity?

What about a kid in Georgia that's working through whether or not they believe the religion they were raised in?

How about a wife who is beginning the research process and asking questions about whether what she's experiencing at home is spousal abuse or not?

Anonymity protects those of us most in danger.

[philipkglass]

I have seen little correlation between absence-of-extremism here on HN and how much information people provide about their identities. You can see that brand new throwaway accounts are more likely than others to post extreme rants, but I don't see much difference between year-old accounts that are totally anonymous and year-old accounts that link to personal web sites, GitHub profiles, LinkedIn profiles, etc.

Our local newspaper used to allow people to comment on stories with a Facebook account. People who were using real names and had publicly posted enough information that you'd be able to quickly locate where they lived frequently went on extreme rants.

The newspaper eventually just got rid of Facebook-powered comments, but I see the same behavior (terrible comments under real names, easily linked to employers/homes/schools) on the neighborhood's Nextdoor discussions.

[janalsncm]

> A lot of the extremism we see online is because people hide behind their keyboard.

Maybe this is true, but we also have to think about the perfectly reasonable things we nevertheless wouldn’t want pinned on us. Political opinions, of which many of mine are half-baked and I am writing to test with other smart people, but I don’t want to necessarily be associated with them forever. I don’t want to worry that simply saying tech workers should unionize will impact my employability in the future.

[autoexec]

> Although I don't support it, would the internet be a better place with people being identified?

Better for who?

Any system secure enough that a person could never face consequences for posting something unpopular would also be incapable of accomplishing the goal of censoring things online that are considered "bad".

You say that even our current pseudo-anonymous communication enables "extremism" but any system that would prevent it could be used to stop a whistleblower, or a protestor, or an atheist, or anyone else with an unpopular opinion. I don't see that as making the internet better, and I question how much it would even stop the things most people today would agree to want abolished.

[Nathanba]

People will be even less likely to tell you their real opinions online if a data breach can uncover the real identity behind all their posts

[caskstrength]

> Although I don't support it, would the internet be a better place with people being identified?

I don't believe so.

> For this to be a constructive discussion, can we assume companies have a proper and secure way to validate identities and store your data?

What?! No, we absolutely can't assume that. In fact, good default is to assume that data stored will be eventually compromised with high probability. Assuming otherwise is like believing in some magical backdoors in cryptography that only "good" guys can access and other such nonsense.

> I sometimes wonder if the internet as we know it and social medias pervasive influence would be much different if people were less anonymous.

Social media as we know it today mostly stems from FB which has a real name policy. Don't think FB is much better than others (by any measure that interests me at least).