While I understand the value of anonymous public communication, I think it comes with a huge "bad-actor" problem that we haven't figured out how to offset.
Anonymity is a problem when it is used to commit crimes and law enforcement seems inadequately staffed to police cyber crimes even when the perpetrator isn't even anonymous or pseudo anonymous.
Do we need something like an Internet "drivers" license for anyone who wants to post content to the public? Analogous to needing a license to drive on public roads? Maybe that idea can be tied into Section 230 concerns? I'm sure there are obvious difficulties, just spitballing. Balancing liberty and safety isn't easy.
There should be several classes of license. One to read, one to comment, one to create content, and of course one for interactions like voting up or down, or liking.
Any violation in any of the categories would be cause for revoking the license. We can't have people creating content, for example, who have read illegal content. That's the mechanic at work behind disinformation.
Anonymity is a problem when it is used to commit crimes and law enforcement seems inadequately staffed to police cyber crimes even when the perpetrator isn't even anonymous or pseudo anonymous.
Do we need something like an Internet "drivers" license for anyone who wants to post content to the public? Analogous to needing a license to drive on public roads? Maybe that idea can be tied into Section 230 concerns? I'm sure there are obvious difficulties, just spitballing. Balancing liberty and safety isn't easy.