Now you can't really equate Reddit with an democratic election, but places like those are the closest we have come to an public square in the online world and hiding the mechanisms which decide who gets how much visibility is not without effect (on the trust within the system).
Speaking of, the primary revenue feed for Twitter is advertising, which directly competes with fairness and transparency goals: ad business is predicated on the idea that more $ = more speech, regardless of the intrinsic value of the speech; and since there is no practical way to know where the $ came from, it does an end run around transparency goals.
Adds too much friction and scares away those who want anonymity.
KYC works for financial institutions because it's regulated across the board. And let me tell, it's a pain.
It's probably another product though :)
There's no way for social platforms to tell apart which anonymous users are "good" or "bad"...
KYC wouldn't help against state actors, which are the offenders with potential to cause most damage. They're the issuers of their national IDs in the first place, it's useless to verify their ID.
you're are not presenting a feasible solution.
you can easily verify who this account belongs to, you cannot verify easily that this is the only account I have.
which is the problem.
further complicated by irrational attitudes to official identity such as you see in america. have a fraud resistant national ID system? fuck no! we want to use an unsafe mechanism never built for this purpose and impossible to safe guard!
good luck with that
Has this ever happened, though? How is it different from giving hackers source code?