I wonder if making platforms liable for providing the identity of content producers is a fair balance between providing the platform immunity and allowing those potentially harmed by content to pursue the content creator if needed.
I think it's an interesting idea to explore. I think if a platform makes a good faith effort to know their users that it would be able to defer liability onto them. Ideally this would be coupled with a privacy aware proof of identity system but perhaps that's asking for too much.
Sites could still allow anonymous communication, but it would need to vet it first and assume liability.
You can't go out in public in a mask and say "John Smith eats worms" (when he doesn't) and not have any repercussions.
One of the first challenges was the Zeran v. American Online case where a business owner was harmed but was never able to compel AOL to provide the identity of the person creating the harmful content. Forcing platforms to provide identity information in pursuit of legal action would allow action against the formally anonymous poster. As it stands today, an anonymous person (or botnet) can post whatever they want with no fear they will be exposed.
> As it stands today, an anonymous person (or botnet) can post whatever they want with no fear they will be exposed.
This is also how is has stood throughout American history. The foundation of the US was built on anonymous/pseudonymous pamphlets and secret communications between the "Founding Fathers."
