Facebook accounts today still have identity verification (they often ask for scans of IDs, etc) and yet it doesn't seem to result in a noticeably improved discourse there compared to say, Twitter before Musks takeover. I don't think anonymity actually changes discourse that much.
replyIn my opinion anonymity is a great red herring. The worst offenders on the internet have verified accounts and are public figures. The problem is algorithmic content, prioritizing for engagement and outrage, and then connecting _everyone_. We had what was effectively anonymity in the 90s, but really had NONE of the crazy society-breaking extremism we see now. Getting rid of anonymity will really do NOTHING to halt the march of internet-fueled extremism.
replyEverything is a sliding scale. There would be improvement from verified identities (and doing so through a zero-trust network is feasible.) I agree the worst actors wouldn't care at all, and in that case we address the algorithmic amplification problem.
replyThis. People don't recognize that a tech company with an algorithmic feed is indistinguishable from a public awareness filter. It allows a couple hundred to 1000's of people to set the Overton window of millions/billions. When we actually didn't go algorithmic and went off more natural filtering (geographic, chronological, scope/impact based), it was a modality that one would be hard pressed to even find a schoolchild that couldn't end up being able to meaningfully navigate the space with due training. This is, of course, exactly why monied individuals foam at owning any of the few consolidated media outlets/tech companies. Societal scale leverage on the machine of public awareness.
reply