I completely agree with your comments here. Your statements are concise and well presented. I would very much like for SOMEONE to present the counter to your arguments (whether that presenter believes that position or not.) I know that They seem to be incapable of making a rational counter argument, They keep trying to use "talking points" as an argument, and They seem to have the opinion that they should not need to defend themselves.
The implication that the value of one person's speech is made greater simply by spending a greater number of dollars is a nasty falsehood perpetuated by insecure small people who found they can bully others with their money. It is the same argument as saying that the person who's voice is loudest is right. I'm not saying it doesn't work I'm saying it is wrong and immoral. True "free speech" is minted in a coin of equal value wielded by any person who can speak with string character and integrity. Qualities that are severely lacking on our society.
Except that everyone who trots out Rand's Objectivist philosophy conveniently omits the fact that the companies in that "reality" would be a vehemently opposed to laws favoring a given business model as they would any regulatory oversight.
I know the game of politics is to cherry-pick the "facts", but that doesn't make them factual!
From Google: pseuˇdo ˈso͞odō/ adjective adjective: pseudo
1. not genuine; sham. "we are talking about real journalists and not the pseudo kind" synonyms: bogus, sham, phony, artificial, mock, ersatz, quasi-, fake, false, spurious, deceptive, misleading, assumed, contrived, affected, insincere; More informalpretend, put-on "her 'diamonds' are so pseudo" antonyms: genuine
Origin More late Middle English: independent use of pseudo-.
While I want to agree with your comment completely I can't. Nothing, and I mean nothing, ever unfolds as it is foreseen. It is never quite as good or bad as any given prognosticator describes it.
Why can't we all work fewer hours? Why are some people compelled or forced to work 60+ hours per week while others can not get any work?
The system we are forging will not work without some fundamental changes in how societies function. I am not endorsing handouts and I am not suggesting we "return to the old ways." I am hoping more people will see the dysfunction of the path we are on.
You mean that some bad actors will act badly even if they know their actions are known to all.
Probably true. However I think that number would still be lower than if people feel that they might "get away with it" due to anonymity or their belief that they are anonymous, even if eventual forensics eventually "outs" them and their bad actions.
Don't take this to mean I am willing to throw out my ability to be anonymous. I simply want to "see more of the picture."
It seems to me that anonymity is only bad when it is not evenly distributed. It must be available to *everyone* or no-one. But that isn't what those who would take away our online anonymity want. They want to keep their anonymity and deny us ours. That is one of the primary benefits of a corporation is it not? True a corporation does not provide perfect anonymity for its holders but it does effectively so.
If truly no-one could hide from scrutiny then I think anonymity would not be a "hot-button" issue. Sadly though I don't think the world would be any better a place.