Meta forced to reveal anonymous Facebook user's identity
I feel like some of the discussion about anonimity here is kind of misplaced. Just because illegal activies can be done under anonimity shouldn&#x27;t mean anonimity should be banned aswell(in order to &quot;prevent illegal activities&quot;). That&#x27;s one of the worst things that can happen(and it&#x27;s somewhat happening already), and if I&#x27;m not mistaken this could also be interpreted as illegal and unconstitutional in countries&#x2F;places where there is such thing as a &quot;right to (&gt;and not&lt;) associate&quot;(and it&#x27;s various forms).<p>And I&#x27;m sorry for the upcoming little rant, but whoever thinks they&#x27;re anonymous while using a Meta(or any Big Tech platform, really) product is an idiot, tech literate or not. Not even places like 4chan have true anonimity, depending on the place &amp; jurisdiction we&#x27;re talking about[remember the  case of the guy making a call to violence(illegal) that got arrested]. The &#x27;traditional&#x27; web is not anonymous at all:not only the underlying protocol(s) is&#x2F;are inherently not anonymous by design, but you add insane surveillance and you can eventually crack anything. Even things like TOR&#x2F;others are not truly anonymous, and the US regime proved that if they want to find you, they will, assuming they have jurisdiction.<p>Coming back: I don&#x27;t quite get why people talk about free speech in this context. Not only S230 is a broken f&amp;ckfest but we&#x27;re also talking about a non-US place. What&#x27;s more hilarious is that even if we would have talked about the US, defamation (w&#x2F; calls to violence &amp; other speech not protected by 1A) is still illegal.