Granted, possibly forcing real names will make it easier to catch some bullies; but you won't catch all of them. Conversely you'll have removed an important safe harbor for their victims.
Moving things into the public sphere, transparency, and protection by the law is what helps weak people. Anonymity is a tool of power, always has been.
Is that why peter thiel not anonymous? Is there a reason why he goes on TV and gives interviews?
> There's a reason why your address and taxes paid are public information in Sweden.
What is the reason?
> Anonymity is a tool of power, always has been.
Is that why the witness protection provides anonymity? Is that why many rape victims are provided with anonymity?
How come you are anonymous then? Because you have so much wealth and power?
Most of his financial dealings are well hidden. Took until last year for propublica to figure out that he was stashing billions into a Roth IRA somehow. So when it comes to things that matter, he very much tries to be.
Transparency brings crime and inequality to light. Sweden publicizes these things because it means you can see disparity clearly. Donors to political parties can't hide. Their information is on display. Someone who makes 8 bucks an hour doesn't gain anything from financial anonymity. Lobbyists, politicians, oligarchs do.
And the reason why we need to have people in witness protection or hide rape victims is because we can not get to their assailants. The fact that with a movement like MeToo say, women collectively started to expose powerful people was significantly better than having to individually hide.
That is privacy, not anonymity.
> Donors to political parties can't hide.
In the US, we have anonymity for small donors. If you donate less $200 I think you can remain anonymous.
> And the reason why we need to have people in witness protection or hide rape victims is because we can not get to their assailants.
No. Even if the assailants are in jail, we provide anonymity/protection in case the assailants have associates who might do harm.
> The fact that with a movement like MeToo say, women collectively started to expose powerful people was significantly better than having to individually hide.
The MeToo had the backing of powerful people/establishment. That's why it worked. Not because of a handful of women. There was political protection provided by the elites. A handful of women doing MeToo in a different environment might get them jailed or even killed.
I agree with you to some degree. I believe politicians and the powerful should not have anonymity and highly limited privacy. I believe that the general public should absolutely have anonymity.
I disagree with your extreme blanket policy of denying anonymity to everyone.
Free speech requires anonymous speech.
That is the only solution that is compatible with human rights.
The problem is that the strong side still has many ways to bully people even without anonymity. On the other hand the weak side ends up with Nowhere To Hide.
Something to take into account is that culture changes and people change, and some things are situational. Even if you're on the majority side here and now; doesn't mean you might not be on the 'undesirable' side sometime/someplace else.