It's turning using a computer into a privilege that can be revoked by the government at any time, for any reason.

I want that. I'm tired of bots being half the internet traffic or more. It's driving the general public insane and anonymity on the internet has zero utility. If journalists need to send sensitive information, they'll always be able to use Tor.

I think there's plenty of utility. People can express opinions that they hold honestly but would fear social retribution for if it could be tied back to them publicly. For example, any political opinion that I hold that's modestly center or right of center I would not appreciate being attached to my name online since people are completely incapable of nuance or compartmentalization.

If you wouldn’t make a political statement in a town hall setting where you’re going to show ID, then you probably shouldn’t say it on the internet.

But keep in mind that these laws don’t result in your identity being public. They will ultimately result in the sites you’re posting on know that you’re an enumerated individual. The ultimate benefit as I see it is removing outsized leverage over public opinion by botting likes on your statement or otherwise operating tons of accounts. It should also eliminate threats of violence from the digital public square, since building a prosecution pipeline against those would be easy to do. Same with child grooming, but I’ll acknowledge there’s a way to make that argument in a glib way, as an excuse to realize some of the other goals. It is a real problem though.

As with many detractors of anonymity, it seems that you're assuming that the authorities and neighbors you'll deal with will always be virtuous, and not corrupt nor vindictive toward opponents. Maybe you'd like to expose the town's government's corruption or mismanagement at the town hall, but the town is run by a family with a lot of influence and power over everything that happens within the town. You live in the town, fear for your safety, and have no good way of anonymously opposing their corruption, so you stay silent and they get to keep their power.

I don't see how these laws wouldn't make your identity public to someone, even if it's not the public at large. But it'd be enough for that someone to be an individual or entity who turns out to be interested in silencing your voice. Their knowledge of your identity would probably give them power to silence you not only on their platform but also on other platforms, if access to those other platforms is also tied to one single identity.

Bots are a problem but I suspect there are other ways of dealing with them, ways that don't involve making anonymity or pseudonymity impossible.

I think you’re living in 2010, man. Public discourse in the digital town square is completely destroyed in 2026.

I attribute it mostly to bots, whether from corporate, state, or NGO activity. It’s almost impossible to tell what the organic consensus is on anything. Lies spread faster than ever, and it’s confusing the public enough that this is a very real crisis.

It’s nice that you suspect that botnets could be handled in some other hypothetical way. But in a technical sense, there’s not really a way to do that without enumerating real identity in some way.

There are a dozen ways to handle your “corrupt town” scenario without anonymity that are concrete and not at all hypothetical.

It’s plenty easy to silence you when you’re anonymous and speaking out. Just look at what Twitter and Facebook did. And look at what Reddit does every single day.

Anonymity will always exist in corners of the internet. But it does not belong in the mainstream, easily accessible parts that most people use.

I disagree. I won't repeat my comment, but it carries all the information you need to know.

Thank you for not repeating your comment. Have an excellent day!

I want to read your comment. But first, so I know I'm not dealing with a bot, what is your full name and address? Please upload a photo of your ID as well. Thanks.

That’s not how these laws work. Identity isn’t going to be provided to random users of a social media site.

But I’m not even anonymous here. My name is Mike Keen, and my address isn’t hard to find.

You would think so but some future authoritarian or paternalistic government might disagree. Maybe the government will say that a newspaper should not report on the poorly built bridge that collapsed and killed some people. News of disasters (or death in any form) might be considered two sensitive for children to accidentally be exposed to through a newspaper.

A great argument for why the bloated executive powers should be clawed back by Congress. But not a strong argument for why Congress should stay hands-off.

Also, if something like that happens, that's a blatant 1st Amendment violation and will be enjoined as fast as the case can run up the judiciary. Today's SCOTUS is very 1st-Amendment-friendly (to the chagrin and delight of various flavors of both left and right).

HN has 'user-submitted content' which tends to be one of the categories that these laws target. Newspapers can also run stories on disturbing events that can also fall under these laws. They are often incredibly broadly defined such that it's easier to describe what they don't cover.