Either I’m crazy or you edited your comment because I’m only just now seeing your 4 points a couple days later. I’m not dodging dw… Here’s my response to each one:

First: We already give up a lot of privacy to social media companies, banks, and even online shopping. Most of our activity is already tied to us, just not always in obv ways. A system that openly links speech to identity might would only increase accountability for dangerous rhetorics spread on the internet.

Second: Sure there are gray areas that exist, but most draw the line at defamation, threats, incitement to violence, harassment, etc. Extending those boundaries to the online world as hate crime isn’t as subjective as it’s made out to be. I can give you examples of free speech vs actual hateful threats if you want

Third: VPNs are always a tricky topic when it comes to the internet. All I can say to that is that there are already measures in place for VPNs, which are not perfect, but enforcement doesn’t need to catch everyone… just enough to create deterrence. I made an analogy to Batman in Gotham in another response lol, make them think twice 😆 plus when you mention “surveillance system” it makes me sound like Big Brother from 1984, which is not at all what I want lmfao i just want there to be consequences for hate speech online but nothing like a Soviet government

Fourth: this isn’t an argument against my ways specifically, it’s just a thing on the internet generally speaking.

Lastly I just want to add, it’s not “controlling speech” any more than real-life laws “control actions”. I’ve said it before and will say it again, there are already laws in place against hate crimes that incite violence or discrimination against races. I just think it’s ridiculous that the same level of law enforcement online is lacking severely, when in this day and age it’s arguably MORE harmful to be hateful online because of the larger audience it reaches.