Putting your name on something gives it validation that cannot be gained from anonymity.
If my accounts were RedactedScience instead of Jim Craddock, I would not be at the top of the indexes on the subject. My effort to unredact what was hidden would suffer.
Anonymity online is desirable, but not always best.
20260320 RedactedScience At the pool with much of the family. It's opening day. What cannabinoid is being produced by the sun exposure? It sure feels nice. Meanwhile, what's inside
I have written an entire book about how the current medical system doesn't even recognize our basic physiology. How the tests are designed to miss things, how the system is designe
20260319 RedactedScience Bedtime Update Symptoms: baseline only. In my world, that's the best you can hope for (as long as you don't think about what it might portend). As a result
5 comments
What Mr. German government and you are talking about are not the same. He is talking about coersed identity exposure. You are talking about voluntary identity exposure, are you not?
I am. I just think anonymity removes so much credibility that you might as well not enter the debates Mr merz speaks of. Any anonymous person has no culpability for what they say, and in an age where bots will seem real, the anonymous will be even more ignored. As long as the right to free speech is respected (which admittedly is a narrowing window from both the left and right), I think you are better off not being anonymous. Anonymity isn't the problem, it's those who would squelch free speech through draconian measures that are the problem. Make them go away and everyone is free to speak as they please with the authority granted by their identity. We aren't talking about anonymity to protect your bags, this should be doable in a just society. It's what we should aim for at least.
People that have nothing to say don't need anonymity. People that have nothing tk ose don't need privacy. Anonymity is a tool to shape societal discourse free from social stigma. They can not identify where to divide an anonymous discourse. No more identity politics. Where they play whites against blacks, men against women, old against young, rich against poor. They fear unique dialogue. They want to sanction you for making use of your sovereign rights.
Point is you have the choice. If we have to use real names, I’m changing mine to Friedrich Merz, I’ve seen multiple sources confirm it is in fact a real name.
You're allowed to have that opinion, but as long as you wouldn't use force to compel people to reveal their identities against their will, you're can rate people words however you want based on your criteria, because you're free. If you decide to support using force to compel people to reveal their identities, that's where I'll materially push back.