The inability to monitor all illegal activity is a trade-off we accept as a society to maintain the right to anonymity. You'd rather we sign that right away for some supposed guarantee of safety? A guarantee made by the synthesis of your government and your corporations?

Nothing of the sort. I think anonymity is a privilege that is granted and can be enjoyed while engaging with society or online however anon chooses, up to the point where anon's actions breaks the law.

It's a classic fear vs freedom dichotomy. We are both being a little intellectually dishonest, and should perhaps frame the question a little differently. To answer your question:

> would you like to live in a world where someone could baselessly and maliciously accuse you of rape or other defaming acts without consequence

Yes, if the alternative is that I can be held criminally liable for hosting a web forum that doesn't require some form of government enforced ID system. How could it be any other way (genuine question)?

> How could it be any other way (genuine question)?

The alternative is how things currently work. Meta is not being held criminally liable here, and people are allowed to use the platform anonymously so long as they do not engage in criminal behavior.

> It's a classic fear vs freedom dichotomy

Thats a false dichotomy. Many kinds of freedom actually result in less freedom. A society where you are free to sell youself into slavery is less free. A society where 10 year olds are free to work in the coal mines is less free. A society where you are free to ignore legitinate court orders is less free because people will turn to vigilante justice instead.

all you say is true but that isn’t a false dichotomy defense. it’s “just” a refutation of his position. to contest a false dichotomy you need to explain that there is a third choice.

i find the fear vs freedom dichotomy to be a legitimate set of choices. you didn’t argue against fear, you argued against individual freedom vs societal freedom. which is not what the gp was going on about.

IMO the tradeoff is freedoms vs. protections. People can agree to exchange certain freedoms for protections, and codify this exchange into law.

For example many countries have mandated seatbelt laws. In this case the freedom to not wear a seatbelt is exchanged for health and safety. Someone could claim this is done out of fear, and that's not completely untrue. And as you allude, fear can be totally rational and backed by data, thus fear vs. freedom is not an unreasonable exchange.