[indigochill]

> worth compromising the design of a network

That depends on what the design of the network is.

In my mind Freenet is too free for reasons discussed in sibling comments (but in short, literally no safeguards against Not Safe For Life content, by design).

For me, practically, federation provides a far improved middle ground. People can still freely distribute content without being beholden to any particular middle man, but there is more visibility afforded to node operators about what they're hosting and they therefore can both remove content that they don't want to be hosting and remove users from their network who are making problems.

Gossip protocols are another solution which also works for similar reasons.

Ultimately, anonymity is an anti-pattern in the same way that the hot new zero-trust stuff is in the blockchain world. Humans, social beings that they are, fundamentally operate on trust, which fundamentally requires identification. Removing either of those creates more problems than it solves.

[AnthonyMouse]

> Ultimately, anonymity is an anti-pattern in the same way that the hot new zero-trust stuff is in the blockchain world. Humans, social beings that they are, fundamentally operate on trust, which fundamentally requires identification. Removing either of those creates more problems than it solves.

Quite the opposite. Forced identification is an instrument of fascism. There is a reason the phrase "papers, please" is associated with the villains.

Communities can then be layered on top. But even there, what you need is a persistent identifier with which to build a reputation, not a government tracking number with which to be extracted from your bed at 4AM and shipped off to a prison cell if you're accused of crimethink.

The talk of "community standards" gets to the root of it. To have community standards you have to have a community, and each community will have its own standards. Which means the standards belong in the community and not in a generic protocol at the core of the network used by diverse communities with mutually incompatible ideals.

[indigochill]

I think we're agreeing.

> But even there, what you need is a persistent identifier with which to build a reputation, not a government tracking number

The persistent identifier is all I mean. I agree that tying it to a government-issued identification is problematic since it then gives the government the administration/moderation power. As long as there is a persistent identifier (and one the community owns so it can take meaningful moderation/administration action when necessary), then we're good.

By "anonymity" I mean the absence of a persistent identifier (for example, someone uploading something to BitTorrent is anonymous by default, as far as I know).

> To have community standards you have to have a community, and each community will have its own standards. Which means the standards belong in the community

Also agree with this. This is where federation really shines in my book, as it lets each community apply its own standards while also enabling networking across communities with sufficiently compatible ideals while retaining the autonomy of each community.

[yjftsjthsd-h]

> Ultimately, anonymity is an anti-pattern in the same way that the hot new zero-trust stuff is in the blockchain world. Humans, social beings that they are, fundamentally operate on trust, which fundamentally requires identification. Removing either of those creates more problems than it solves.

You will forgive me, "indigochill", if I fail to respect your argument against anonymity made from behind a fake name.

[sham1]

You will forgive me, if I find that that your attempt at trying to find a flaw in the GP poster's argument is itself flawed.

This use of a nickname is pseudonymous, not anonymous. HN is specifically not anonymous.