There's a lot of confusion about identity and anonymity, even in cypherpunk circles. So this is a thread about good uses of anonymity versus bad.

First of all, anonymity is essential online. People experiment with and explore all kinds of topics online. They should be able to do this without risking their hard-earned reputation.

Many people, especially in the boomer generation that did not grow up with the internet, want to prohibit this. We hear ideas as dumb as "drivers licenses for the internet." These are terrible ideas and we need privacy technologies to enable people to have online anonymity.

But there are good and bad uses of anonymity. The core technology that enables one also enables the other. So we need social measures to push back on bad uses.

One good use of anonymity is a high school student or young adult, exploring a topic, like STDs. They should be able to do this without repercussions from family and teachers. Their ISP shouldn't out their interests by showing them or their family members targeted ads.

Another good use of anonymity is exemplified by Satoshi. He gave a gift to the world, and committed the ultimate selfless act: he kept himself out of the picture.

This enables us to consider the tech independent of its creator. And he paid the ultimate price for this: he gets no credit for what was, at the time, a big invention. Yes, he was anonymous, and **he used that anonymity for a constructive purpose**, not to escape scrutiny.

In contrast, a bad use of anonymity is when people create cheap, throwaway identities to launch attacks on others without repercussions. Far from paying a price, they are using anonymity to shield themselves and make others pay costs for refuting their attacks.

I'm sure people on Twitter, where new accounts with fake names spring up daily, appreciate the differences between the two kinds of anon. The key differentiator is "is this person anon for a societally good aim, or are they using anonymity as a shield while they attack others?"