[jacobedawson]

The strongest counterpoint to that is the intense chilling effect that zero anonymity would have on political dissent and discourse that doesn't match the status quo or party line. I feel that would be much more dangerous for our society than occasionally suffering the consequence of some radicalized edge cases.

[slg]

In that instance, the anonymity is treating the symptom and not the root cause of the problem you fear. The actual problem is a society that does not tolerate dissent.

[NoahZuniga]

You might live in an extremely free country and have no fear about political prosecution but still fear social prosecution.

If someone I was friends with made racist remarks, they wouldn't be prosecuted for that. But I would stop being their friend. Similarly if I was the only one in my friend group against racism and advocate firefly against it, they would probably stop being my friends.

[Spivak]

I think we should operate on the premise that no society in the history of humanity has tolerated dissent and none ever will. So treating the symptom is all we can do. It's the basis of why privacy is necessary in any respect.

The rational tolerant society you imagine is so far fetched we don't even pretend it can exist even in fantasies.

[tempodox]

Some ailments (society that does not tolerate dissent) cannot be cured, but that doesn’t invalidate protection against their effects.

[avazhi]

Maybe the chilling effect is the point, and maybe it's been demonised unfairly.

To be clear, I think freedom of speech is a bedrock foundation of intellectual society and should be the starting point for modern societies.

But perhaps we really should outlaw anonymity when it comes to expression. Allow people to express themselves, but it shouldn't emanate from the void.

[Barrin92]

>the intense chilling effect that zero anonymity would have on political dissent

Chilling the discourse would be a feature, not a bug. In fact what discourse in most places these days needs is a reduction in temperature.

This kind of defence of anonymity is grounded in the anthropologically questionable assumption that when you are anonymous you are "who you really are" and when you face consequences for what you say you don't. But the reality is, we're socialized beings and anonymity tends to turn people into mini-sociopaths. I have many times, in particular when I was younger said things online behind anonymity that were stupid, incorrect, more callous, more immoral than I would have ever face-to-face.

And that's not because that's what I really believed in any meaningful sense, it's because you often destroy any natural inhibition to behave like a well-adjusted human through anonymity and a screen. In fact even just the screen is enough when you look at what people post with their name attached, only to be fired the next day.

[phendrenad2]

Well, perhaps people should think twice before stirring the pot. Maybe the incentive to get your 20 seconds of fame by making some snappy comment on a public figure's post is part of what's driving incivility online.

[nathan_compton]

I actually don't think incivility per se is the problem. The problem is that social media encourages us to be inauthentic because we all subconsciously cater to the gaze, both courting its attention and terrified of it at the same time. This is way worse than people being rude.