Did you really think I was worried that the next constitution wouldn't be debated in youtube comments or was that just to set up your LMFAO joke (which I laughed at)?

I'll speak more plainly just in case it was the former:

Anonymous speech being widespread and common instead of just "available" is extremely important for a healthy society.

Anyone who thinks that removing anonymity is good because it cuts down on curse words is an idiot.

Anyone who doesn't own stock or work for the big players is acting against their own interests for supporting those trying to win the current fight to be the first online identity monopoly, especially since they are both trying to tie them to real names.

Youtube is a great example when using hyperbole because it has famously stupid comments that will not be improved by a reduction in curse words. The other paragraphs were not necessarily about youtube just because it was mentioned in a sarcastic opening comment.

You set it up. I spiked it.

For what it is worth I like this comment more than your previous because it gets to an actual problem. The problem isn't YouTube's editorial choices since there are good competitors; but rathe that there is a limited market of large scale identity providers that many other sites are becoming dependent on.

However I still disagree it is a big problem. It's the same privacy problem of credit cards versus cash. As long as cash is legal and privacy laws are strong enough I think it will be ok. People will make efficient choices depending on the context. Most people don't want anonymity most of the time as it turns out, and those who do can still get it.

I don't know that it's a big problem, but it's the wrong direction to move a free society irrespective of the amount of damage it will do. Maybe it will not end up being a big problem but I completely disagree with your assessment of the situation.

> People will make efficient choices depending on the context

Except they won't and don't. I know it's nitpicky but this kind of economics pseudoscience of rational actors and market utopianism is not based on evidence. It is, in fact, in direct conflict with the evidence. People will choose the option with the best marketing, with very little consideration of their own interests. Anonymity is too far removed from direct consequences for people to make this decision rationally.

That's why setting a strong social norm that anonymity is strongly tied to free speech is important. It's both true and it might be effective since even though most people don't actually want free speech they at least think they do.

I think that anonymity when there is some friction to publication is great. But anonymity + frictionless publication becomes more problematic.