What most affects discourse isn't someone's name, but certain data one can find out if one knows someone's name.
What kinds of data? Depending on the conversation, it could be: age, nationality, academic credentials, profession, criminal record, etc.
The net could use a standard way to verify details that matter about a user. This would let users keep their real names private, without making it so easy for bot armies, paid agitators, bullshit artists, trolls, and others to poison public discourse.
Unless you are innocuously named Thomas Smith, yes it's incredibly dangerous to require real, usually traceable names. In protest we can all change our name to Thomas Smith (even us women) and then we'll see how fun it is for those that demanded this.
Why not just include social security number or national identification number. There are many people sharing same name. So that information would be helpful. Also hopefully those are unique so would simplify implementation.
I think we will have to choose between free speech and completely anonymity in the internet at some point. Unfortunately Germany would likely not preserve either.
"Solomon is hiding because he is a coward who enjoys belittling other people from behind a safe veil of invisibility. His is like many sites on the internet, who mock and insult while lacking any courage to own their own words. In public, these cowards would not dare to say the same things, because they know full well that someone just might come after them, knock their yapping blocks off, or in a worst case scenario, go to their house one night and kill them." —Jennifer Diane Reitz, author of Unicorn Jelly, on a pseudonymous critic of her comics
The world really would be a better place if we had psychotic people committing homicides over real or perceived slights on the internet. Have you seen the verbal abuse, harassment, and stalking celebrities endure? It's wise to extend this to everyone so sometimes people don't say mean words?
> has called for an end to widespread anonymity on the internet, saying users should post under their real names.
So you can hound them with lawyers and law enforcement then silence them forever when they criticize you:) If they still dare to lookup punch repeatedly with NDAs and copyright infrigement claims. Then suddenly you have no competition, you're the only and perfect candidate.
Merz is a fucking idiot, the first genuinely incompetent chancellor we've elected in a long time. Kohl, Schröder, Merkel, Scholz… you could disagree with their politics, but they weren't stupid. Merz is.
(Of course if we wanted truly competent, we could've had Habeck, but true competency is too dangerous to be electable in German politics.)
If someone acts against your interest it doesn't mean that they're stupid and if that person gets to the top of the hierarchy, they certainly aren't stupid.
You clearly have very little insight into German politics. He's there because there was noone better. He has no prior experience in actual governing, like, not even as a mayor. It's just that the remainder of the CDU is even more paper mâché.
Friendly reminder he EXPLICITLY ran on protecting debt-limits in the German constitution, got elected on those promises and then changed course literally on day 1 after being elected.
Okay, yeah, sure, maybe the "don't assume malice" is out the window at this point. There are things he's genuinely incompetent on, though. Just google "Merz realitätsfern" (= lost touch with reality).
It's really sad seeing governments flailing about, not doing much, other than mucking about with totalitarian control systems. Governments are full bore ahead on trying to put the genie back in the bottle, to undo our ability to go about unmolested.
And alas they are having way too much success. Either restricting rights, or obstinately just bringing up the same awful policies again and again and again, to try to shift the Overton window against what is accepted, or to try to get a lucky break & get some of their creeping state surveillance in by luck.
No one seems to be playing the numbers game, taking 2% chance of working shot after 2% chance to actually give us rights, protect our rights. Governments just take take taking, each nation thinking it should be allowed to say how the internet needs to work.
Fun fact, the man had over 4000 Germans investigated by state police for insulting him on social media, people got their homes raided for stuff like "you sound drunk".
But you can officially call him "Kanzlerversager" (looser chancellor) without fearing any harm or his fragile trumpesque ego, because factually he couldn’t get a majority of the parliament to vote him into office, he needed a second try as the first chancellor in history.
This is just another try of a man that is known for his raging and temper whenever he gets critiqued to find more people he can sue and remove from public discourse because state police is going to raid your home with automatic weapons if you dare to insult someone on the internet in Germany in 2026. And most people will rather stay silent than risk their kids being traumatized 6am in the middle of the week if you remove the anonymity layer.
What most affects discourse isn't someone's name, but certain data one can find out if one knows someone's name.
What kinds of data? Depending on the conversation, it could be: age, nationality, academic credentials, profession, criminal record, etc.
The net could use a standard way to verify details that matter about a user. This would let users keep their real names private, without making it so easy for bot armies, paid agitators, bullshit artists, trolls, and others to poison public discourse.
Unless you are innocuously named Thomas Smith, yes it's incredibly dangerous to require real, usually traceable names. In protest we can all change our name to Thomas Smith (even us women) and then we'll see how fun it is for those that demanded this.
Why not just include social security number or national identification number. There are many people sharing same name. So that information would be helpful. Also hopefully those are unique so would simplify implementation.
I think we will have to choose between free speech and completely anonymity in the internet at some point. Unfortunately Germany would likely not preserve either.
I‘m ok with real opinions on the internet.
[dead]
Same. I use my actual name and show my Linkedin on HN.
Unless you're a troll or a bot or are in any way shape or form paid to post your opinions, why wouldn't you stand behind them?
It's not like we talk to people on the street with a knight's armor on
Email me your address, I’ll head over and look through your things. If you have nothing to hide, you’ll agree.
(Thank goodness it doesn’t work that way.)
Spoken like someone who has never lived in an oppressive regime. Must be nice.
On the other hand, being that inconsiderate isn’t very nice at all. Plenty of people live in places were saying the wrong thing and get your jailed or worse, like the UK: https://www.forbes.com/sites/steveforbes/2025/09/09/people-a...
Or at least never been on the receiving end of an oppressive regieme. Look at e.g. Germany. Plenty of ex-SED members are happy the relive the past.
"Solomon is hiding because he is a coward who enjoys belittling other people from behind a safe veil of invisibility. His is like many sites on the internet, who mock and insult while lacking any courage to own their own words. In public, these cowards would not dare to say the same things, because they know full well that someone just might come after them, knock their yapping blocks off, or in a worst case scenario, go to their house one night and kill them." —Jennifer Diane Reitz, author of Unicorn Jelly, on a pseudonymous critic of her comics
The world really would be a better place if we had psychotic people committing homicides over real or perceived slights on the internet. Have you seen the verbal abuse, harassment, and stalking celebrities endure? It's wise to extend this to everyone so sometimes people don't say mean words?
> has called for an end to widespread anonymity on the internet, saying users should post under their real names.
So you can hound them with lawyers and law enforcement then silence them forever when they criticize you:) If they still dare to lookup punch repeatedly with NDAs and copyright infrigement claims. Then suddenly you have no competition, you're the only and perfect candidate.
The classic way is to pass laws so egregious that everyone is guilty of breaking them by merely existing, then selectively enforce them.
As a German:
Merz is a fucking idiot, the first genuinely incompetent chancellor we've elected in a long time. Kohl, Schröder, Merkel, Scholz… you could disagree with their politics, but they weren't stupid. Merz is.
(Of course if we wanted truly competent, we could've had Habeck, but true competency is too dangerous to be electable in German politics.)
If someone acts against your interest it doesn't mean that they're stupid and if that person gets to the top of the hierarchy, they certainly aren't stupid.
You clearly have very little insight into German politics. He's there because there was noone better. He has no prior experience in actual governing, like, not even as a mayor. It's just that the remainder of the CDU is even more paper mâché.
There had been no one better than Merkel for 16 years.
You can say about Merkel what you want, she was competent.
Dont mistake malice for incompetence.
Friendly reminder he EXPLICITLY ran on protecting debt-limits in the German constitution, got elected on those promises and then changed course literally on day 1 after being elected.
Okay, yeah, sure, maybe the "don't assume malice" is out the window at this point. There are things he's genuinely incompetent on, though. Just google "Merz realitätsfern" (= lost touch with reality).
It's really sad seeing governments flailing about, not doing much, other than mucking about with totalitarian control systems. Governments are full bore ahead on trying to put the genie back in the bottle, to undo our ability to go about unmolested.
And alas they are having way too much success. Either restricting rights, or obstinately just bringing up the same awful policies again and again and again, to try to shift the Overton window against what is accepted, or to try to get a lucky break & get some of their creeping state surveillance in by luck.
No one seems to be playing the numbers game, taking 2% chance of working shot after 2% chance to actually give us rights, protect our rights. Governments just take take taking, each nation thinking it should be allowed to say how the internet needs to work.
Fun fact, the man had over 4000 Germans investigated by state police for insulting him on social media, people got their homes raided for stuff like "you sound drunk".
But you can officially call him "Kanzlerversager" (looser chancellor) without fearing any harm or his fragile trumpesque ego, because factually he couldn’t get a majority of the parliament to vote him into office, he needed a second try as the first chancellor in history.
This is just another try of a man that is known for his raging and temper whenever he gets critiqued to find more people he can sue and remove from public discourse because state police is going to raid your home with automatic weapons if you dare to insult someone on the internet in Germany in 2026. And most people will rather stay silent than risk their kids being traumatized 6am in the middle of the week if you remove the anonymity layer.
Let that sink in.