> Tackle the real problem instead of removing the most fundamental of rights so you can suppress speech and dissent you dislike, which is all this is.

But the real problem is oppressive government. My government is not oppressive - my government is here to help me and help the society to maintain civil rights.

The view that it is the government that is against civil rights is anarchistic and... wrong. In reality it is the opposite: the only way to maintain civil rights is to have the rule of law and the government that protects them.

What's more: anonymity itself has to be guarded by... the government (and that's what you require). So your logic is twisted: you trust your government to protect anonymity while at the same time you don't trust it to protect freedom of speech.

> In any case, if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about, dude. Isn't that the line?

I have nothing to worry about from my government - that's the important difference.

I’m sure you know the difference between publication of your personal data and making it accessible for trusted government officials.

I don’t know about any deaths (or imprisonment) of government dissenters in Poland (where I come from). Do you know any?

Maybe oppressive government and lack of freedom of speech is a problem in your country, I don’t know that and I’m sorry for you. My suggestion would be though, that you try to fix your government instead of anonymously requiring online anonymity because you’re afraid of your own government.

I guess here in Poland trying to protect people from theft and violence is more pressing issue than freedom of speech.

> This is a cliche "think of the children" argument. Stripping away anonymity is a gargantuan problem, and enables authoritarian regimes to punish dissent.

So we agree: authoritarian regimes are a gargantuan problem, not stripping away anonymity.

> Trolls are a very minor problem comparatively.

Online predator almost killed my child - this is not a "very minor problem". At least not for me.

> This is essentially saying "freedom needs to come with punishments and restrictions when you do things I don't like". It's an oxymoron.

It is not bout things _I_ don't like but things that _we (society)_ don't like. In my country nazi symbols are forbidden in public space and I think it is a good thing. So yes - "freedom needs to come with punishments and restrictions".

> The responsibilities a free populace have are moral and civil, they aren't about giving away anonymity to governments.

Why not? There are countries which governments are elected by citizens and are _trusted_ by citizens. Why would I want to be anonymous if I _trust_ people I elected?