This position is a slippery slope to a world where true anonymity is made illegal. Your confusion is more subtle and arguably more dangerous: that anonymity can make certain illegal actions easier does not mean that anonymity should not exist.
edit: In the case described here I am especially unsympathetic for anon as they chose to defame someone's real life identity. In this incident there was no proactive monitoring by gov/law/inc. as you so fear. Instead the wronged had to hire private council and prove the defemation in court a priori. Even after proving the impact to their character the judge's ruling is only tentative, giving anon an opportunity to present facts supporting their claims (and if you read the judge's statement closely, had anon presented evidence, there would have been no basis for the defamation suit and no need for unmasking). And even if there is no facts and anon legit defamed the person, anon may still evade justice given the paltry noncompliance fine Meta would have to pay. So let me ask you, would you like to live in a world where someone could baselessly and maliciously accuse you of rape or other defaming acts without consequence?
> would you like to live in a world where someone could baselessly and maliciously accuse you of rape or other defaming acts without consequence
Yes, if the alternative is that I can be held criminally liable for hosting a web forum that doesn't require some form of government enforced ID system. How could it be any other way (genuine question)?
The alternative is how things currently work. Meta is not being held criminally liable here, and people are allowed to use the platform anonymously so long as they do not engage in criminal behavior.
Thats a false dichotomy. Many kinds of freedom actually result in less freedom. A society where you are free to sell youself into slavery is less free. A society where 10 year olds are free to work in the coal mines is less free. A society where you are free to ignore legitinate court orders is less free because people will turn to vigilante justice instead.
i find the fear vs freedom dichotomy to be a legitimate set of choices. you didn’t argue against fear, you argued against individual freedom vs societal freedom. which is not what the gp was going on about.
For example many countries have mandated seatbelt laws. In this case the freedom to not wear a seatbelt is exchanged for health and safety. Someone could claim this is done out of fear, and that's not completely untrue. And as you allude, fear can be totally rational and backed by data, thus fear vs. freedom is not an unreasonable exchange.
Apple is trying to keep your identity secret on your device so that they cant verify anyone only devices.
I'll use the exact same kind of argument to make the opposite point:
Facebook answering a legal subpoena isn't illegal.
> To be anonymous don’t reveal your identity to anyone on line.
They are not anonymous from Facebook perspective.
There is no "right to anonymity" on Facebook, no more than there is a "right to free speech", the user accepted all the TOS when they signed up. Even the GDPR doesn't grant any right to "anonymity", however the platform cannot use identifiable data however they like, but you bet legal data subpoenas are not covered by the GDPR.
Exactly I'm not sure of your point. If an organization gets a subpoena they turn over what they know. If they don't know they can't hand it over.
I don't think you are making the opposite point but I will try to be open minded. From my perspective we agree.
Are we punishing those who wish to remain anonymous but do not have the technical ability to do so. Is there a right to anonymous in the EU?
If anonymity isn't allowed why can't advertisers track you in the EU without your consent.
What privacy are you in favor of? Identities should be private when in public? Until someone requests it and then it goes into the public record?