You've basically called for the end of anonymity.
Think of the consequences of just that.
I have thought of the end of anonymity or I obviously wouldn't have posted this. What it means is that human beings who can't hide behind a mask should not be allowed to speak.
I was not thinking of you in particular to be sure, but if someone is going to express some idea they should have the balls to stand behind it and defend it.
Is there some
reason as to "Why not?" Such alleged humans should be shut off from speaking or
writing aloud. I say the burden is on you to answer this particular question,
as much as I do appreciate the things you have to say. Now that I think about
it for two seconds more, why do YOU need a mask to hide behind???
In addition, you're also saying it's actually possible to
"appoint" the "experts" that would rule over this scheme.
That's no different than the government saying they're going to appoint some
(non-existent) qualified people to pull the plug on "fake news".
I can and I
would. They would be mostly scientists, or those who approach our problems as
scientists, namely getting and operating from established facts--that readers should be free to challenge, of course. Many humans have devoted their careers
to studying "the facts" and also operating from genuine human values. They are easily
found. I will real off a few from the top of my head: Professor Brian Cox,
Stephen Hawkins, Dr. Margaret Flowers, Dr. Jill Stein, Dr. David Suzuki, the
late David Brower (whose words can still be found), Buckminster Fuller (deceased,
but easily found as well), David Swanson, Debbie Lusignan, Amory Lovins, Dr.
Guy McPherson, and I could easily produce a list of 100 or more if you
seriously want it).
It goes back to the same 1st-Amendment-related question
you've often asked yourself - WHO QUALIFIES as those "experts", and
WHO qualifies as the people who would appoint them?? (I'm pretty sure you've
asked this before somewhere else.)
I have asked this, yes, but I have just provided a few of the answers.
My question to you, is,"Why should we allow any damn fool to put up a pseudonym, generally insane, and give them two cents of attention?"
If one does not have the balls to stand behind what they say, and defend it, fm, imvso.
As for why we should be able to check the source and challenge it, I should think this obvious. For example, I would like to challenged Netanyahu and Trump and get an answer, rather than reading what is utter bullshit.
Interestingly, right after I read your comment, my search engines were hacked and I couldn't get past that for two days of working my ass off. I get ads from utter nutcases that have control over my computer. I want not only to track the bastards down, but send them a virus that destroys their computer and gets them locked up for a decade or two. And occasionally executed, as much as I totally disapprove of the death sentence--hopefully we'll have laws preventing that.
