Other platforms are of course more favourably disposed towards multiple accounts, automation assisted high volume posts, shifting identities and parody accounts
They do slightly, but only to the degree that their actual users get annoyed by all the bots. And people are surprisingly willing to put up with the bots, so.... yeah, I agree.
Edit: I need to point out that this should be optional. Anonymity should still be the default.
The other thing is - imagine I were a gay man living in Poland (a country that recently made europe-wide outrage headlines with "LGBT-free zones"), or in Russia where "advocating" for LGBT is a crime, or in Saudi-Arabia where you might end up literally decapitated. I could go and discuss topics regarding my sexuality on Twitter anonymously - but with a forced tie to a government ID?! I would have to fear authorities using my free speech to get me imprisoned or worse all the time!
Also, I never meant to suggest proof of ID would be mandatory to use the service! It would be an additional status you can get optionally, if you want to get extra credibility. If you desire anonymity instead, that should absolutely be your right.
At the moment, you can get a checkmark on your twitter but how you do it is a bit unclear. Technically you have to be somewhat noteworthy, but the bar seems to be really low. If this was an entirely user-initiated process, over time people would associate that status with higher credibility.
> I'm not aware of any significant persecution or hate towards gay people in Poland
Then you need to stop burying your head in the sand. Gay, queer and trans people are attacked all the time, and they have a very strong reason to be afraid. Public institutions are encouraging the aggression, because it serves the interests of those in power.
"Around 100 towns and regions across Poland, nearly a third of the country, have passed resolutions declaring themselves free of "LGBT ideology". These resolutions are essentially symbolic and unenforceable but they have provided fresh ammunition in Poland's increasingly bitter culture war."
True or false?
You can read the whole thing here:
https://v.fastcdn.co/u/ff8eca37/50262470-0-SKPR-commune-ENG....
"Programmes of partnerships with communi-ty organisations should respect the principle of strengthening the family and marriage and rule out the funding of any projects harmful to these values. It is especially crucial to exclude any chance of allocating public funds and public property for projects that undermine the con-stitutional identity of marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman"
== explicit prohibition on use of public funds for any pro-non-straight marriage activism
"Parents should be allowed to verify any external organisations operating on the premises of the school and any materials they use during non--compulsory classes dually: both individually and collectively – through the parents’ board. It is a good practice to present information inc-luding not only the name but also the program-me and profile of the organisation to each parent separately, in a way allowing them to become familiar with the content thereof before enrolment. A similar mechanism should be applied to any other teaching and educational activities pursu-ed by schools or institutions that go beyond the curriculum or that involve issues covered by the cu-rriculum of Family Life Education, including those financed from public grants"
== any parent can veto any external material on ideological grounds
If you download that link, and read it, this is the very first section:
> [...] including the protection of marriage, being a union of a man and a woman, as well as the family, motherhood and parenthood, the right to protect family life [...]
Makes you wonder, would the platforms ever be truly transparent with their product?
Example: Soylent Green.