Elon Musk, Jack Dorsey Address Proposal To Allow Less Anonymity On Twitter – Featured Bitcoin News

Elon Musk, Jack Dorsey Address Proposal To Allow Less Anonymity On Twitter – Featured Bitcoin News

Former Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey and Elon Musk, Tesla’s CEO and the new owner of Twitter, have addressed suggestions that the social media platform should have less anonymity. Clinical psychologist Dr. Jordan B. Peterson is among the users who want less anonymity on the platform, while Dorsey believes it would be a big mistake to introduce a policy that allows less anonymity.

Elon Musk and Jack Dorsey discuss Twitter’s anonymity

The topic of how much anonymity Twitter should allow users to have has been widely discussed on the social media platform. Clinical psychologist Dr. Jordan B. Peterson is among the Twitter users who want less anonymity on the platform. On Friday, he tweeted at Elon Musk, who recently bought Twitter for $44 billion:

Don’t let the anonymous troll demons post with the real verified people.

Peterson added: “Put them in their own hell, with others like them: LOL LULZ BRO BRUH hyper users are narcissistic, Machiavellian, psychopathic and sadistic.”

In a follow-up tweet, the psychologist wrote: “And they drive polarization and destabilize the entire domain of public discourse.” He went on to tell Musk: “Virtualization enables psychopathy.”

At the time of writing, Peterson’s original tweet has received nearly 6K comments and has been liked 12.6K times. Among those who agreed with him was Twitter user Lucid Fitzpatrick who tweeted that he completely agreed that less anonymity is needed on Twitter.

See also  Residents are not happy with new Bitcoin mining operations in Texas

Elon Musk, Jack Dorsey address proposal to allow less anonymity on Twitter

However, former Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey was quick to warn that less anonymity would be a mistake for the social media platform. Musk then clarified: “Verification through the payment system plus phones, but allowing pseudonyms is the least bad solution I can think of.”

Many agreed with Dorsey that less anonymity would be a big mistake for the social media platform. Several bitcoin supporters have emphasized the importance of voicing opinions anonymously. One Twitter user described: “The reason we’re anonymous on Twitter is the same reason as Satoshi [Nakamoto] was anonymous.”

Another Twitter user said: “Taking away anonymity will kill Twitter. Anonymity is absolutely mandatory to allow freedom of speech and freedom of existence. Discovery, problem solving and learning, and investigative activities flourish only under the anonymity of the Internet. Otherwise they would be dead.” A third user emphasized:

Without the anonymity, Twitter will surely die.

In response to Peterson, Dorsey and Musk, the pro-bitcoin head of Microstrategy, Michael Saylor, detailed: “The problem is not the anonymity, it’s the lack of meaningful consequences in case of malicious behavior. If Twitter requires verified accounts to post a deposit and lose those funds for malicious/bot/spam behavior, we can have civil discourse and respect privacy.”

Tags in this story

Anonymous, anonymous users, anonymous users twitter, Dr. Jordan Peterson, Elon Musk, Former Twitter CEO, Jack Dorsey, satoshi naka moto, Twitter anonymous, Twitter CEO, Twitter less anonymity

Do you think Twitter should be less anonymous? Let us know in the comments section below.

Kevin Helms

A student of Austrian economics, Kevin found Bitcoin in 2011 and has been an evangelist ever since. His interests lie in Bitcoin security, open source systems, network effects and the intersection of economics and cryptography.

Image credit: Shutterstock, Pixabay, Wiki Commons

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only. It is not a direct offer or solicitation of an offer to buy or sell, or an endorsement or recommendation of products, services or companies. Bitcoin.com does not provide investment, tax, legal or accounting advice. Neither the company nor the author is responsible, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with the use of or reliance on content, goods or services mentioned in this article.

You may also like...

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *