You're posting this to an HN thread on an article that cites as one of its principle sources someone who's only engaged anonymously or pseudonymously with the Internet for the past decade.
You're now reading a comment by that same person.
The fact of bad-faith actors under real names across multiple platforms is ample evidence that requiring real names is not itself sufficient. The examples of Homer, Voltaire, the Federalist Papers, Mark Twain, Willy Brandt, and numerous others shows that anonymity or pseudonymity can give rise to great works and thoughts. It's often the only way certain thoughts, or communities, can find voice.
Impunity seems far more likely a core problem, and one which, when identified as such, should be able to be addressed without necessarily piercing the veil of identity.
Technology is not the only realm of solutions -- social and civil conventions should also be explored thoroughly.
You're now reading a comment by that same person.
The fact of bad-faith actors under real names across multiple platforms is ample evidence that requiring real names is not itself sufficient. The examples of Homer, Voltaire, the Federalist Papers, Mark Twain, Willy Brandt, and numerous others shows that anonymity or pseudonymity can give rise to great works and thoughts. It's often the only way certain thoughts, or communities, can find voice.
Impunity seems far more likely a core problem, and one which, when identified as such, should be able to be addressed without necessarily piercing the veil of identity.
Technology is not the only realm of solutions -- social and civil conventions should also be explored thoroughly.