[trhway]

>This is the current state, today, with anonymity.

whatever the current state, removing anonymity will remove dissenting voices of regular people.

> Which ones?

Russia for example. The sites where verification is implemented has become pro-government bot cesspools.

Here you mentioned LinkedIn - it is where pro-Russian propaganda runs free (especially if compare to for example HN where people freely respond to it), and it is exactly where my even pretty mild response to it got me almost banned, and so I don’t engage it there anymore.

I wonder how do you square your de-anonymity of speech position with anonymity of voting, or do also think that voting should not be anonymous?

[ericmay]

> whatever the current state, removing anonymity will remove dissenting voices of regular people.

I don't think so. It may moderate them, which given our political environment is likely to be a good thing.

> Here you mentioned LinkedIn - it is where pro-Russian propaganda runs free (especially if compare to for example HN where people freely respond to it), and it is exactly where my even pretty mild response to it got me almost banned, and so I don’t engage it there anymore.

Well I don't know what the specific example is. I've seen pro/anti all sorts of things on LinkedIn and when I do I unfollow or find another way to hide the content. But it's also not super engaging. Why is that? Because, well, firstly LinkedIn is a heaping pile of garbage, but also because money, careers, and more are at stake. If you find a pro/anti anything post and start saying really crazy stuff, yea someone might tell your employer about it. How LinkedIn moderates its discussions I think is a separate issue, and, frankly, is yet another demonstration that these platforms are simply not "free speech" and using them means you agree to the terms of service which allows them to moderate how they see fit.

When folks complain about these algorithms or the wrong group buying their favorite platform, there is a very easy and simple solution which is to just stop using them and delete your account. Then, nobody is policing your speech.

> I wonder how do you square your de-anonymity of speech position with anonymity of voting, or do also think that voting should not be anonymous?

I think voting should be anonymous, but you should have identification for voting issued by the state. It's an exercise of your constitutional right, and there are plenty of mechanical and morally good reasons for it. Yelling the most obscene shit imaginable on TikTok is not even in the same ballpark and is not exercising a Constitutional right.