Banning anonymous social media accounts would only stifle free speech, democracy
disagree with this take. It might stifle free speech but in my book it does not stifle democracy, and reducing the latter to the former is a mistake. I think the basic unit of democracy is the citizen, and the citizen is not a private person. Being a citizen means participating in public life, and public life brings with it, trust, accountability and reputation. I do not belief at all that such a thing as an anonymous democracy can exist.Anonymity might be a useful tool against certain forms of authority, that is to say it can guard certain negative rights, but i think it is an absolutely wrong tool to build a community in any active sense, because to be part of a community means to have an identity and be accountable.I think anonymity is appropriate for whistleblowers or transparency activists, but not for ordinary people who wish to participate in public and political life or discourse. I also don't buy the argument of the article that power imbalance justifies anonymity. People in power are not wrong just because they are in power. They should have the same recourse against say, vile attacks or defamation that anyone else has. This 'stick it to the man' impulse that allows viciousness in discourse just because there are imbalances in power is i think a form of misguided egalitarianism.HN is I think a good example. Quite a lot of people here have their real names attached to their accounts, those that don't at least comment under a consistent pseudonym, the site is quite harsh when it comes to avoiding bans. This elevates the discussions here compared to completely anonymous websites which are effectively a toxic swamp. If I had to pick between the HN democracy and the 4chan democracy, I knew what I would pick.