How many times have we seen people create throwaway accounts on these types of platforms? People often want to share something valuable yet intimate without having it be tied to their online identity for privacy reasons. Some folks create new accounts for this reason. Others decide to remain silent.

Why doesn’t Lemmy offer a simple checkbox when creating a post to indicate whether the OP wants their username to be publicly displayed or simply show up as anonymous? Furthermore, any comment that the OP makes on their anonymous post should be anonymous as well.

Benefits

  • fewer throwaway accounts in the Lemmy database
  • user will have ability to track their anonymous post(s) from their primary Lemmy account
  • potentially less bot activity because anonymous posts will be originating from established Lemmy accounts instead of new accounts with no history.
    • Matthew@lemmy.piperservers.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      That is exactly what I thought of when I read this. Why would Lemmy implement such a seemingly obvious bad feature and become 4chan?

      Also, the claim that this would prevent bot accounts is way off. Bot accounts still need an instance to register on anyways. The thing is, anyone can spin up an instance at any time All this “feature” would do is let them hide…

      Great post to demonstrate how some ideas might sound good to you, but are actually just bad, lol.

      • aCosmicWave@lemm.eeOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I can now see that my post comes off quite naive/arrogant and I will try to be better. But I did want to say that there are gentler ways of correcting others without belittling them.

        Also, this proposed feature would still tie the anonymous posts to the underlying “true” user account. It would simply not make that information public outside of the instance owner. I imagine it would be technically possible for a community moderator to issue a ban on the anonymous account (and thus the underlying Lemmy account) without the true username or email being exposed to the moderator? But I understand that I’m making a lot of assumptions here.

        • Matthew@lemmy.piperservers.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          You’re right, but as you said, the reason I reacted this way is because of the way you posted it. I’m also taking out some frustration about everyone and their mother having some “great feature” or idea they want to suggest even if they haven’t thought it through. For that, I apologize.

          Maybe it could be done, but I’m quite sure that doing it correctly wouldn’t be as simple as you think. I won’t pretend to know how all of the software works, but I think it’s safe to assume there are a lot of technical things to consider, especially when federating (and other fediverse software) comes into play. Realistically, I would see this as a waste of effort and a very low priority.

    • Rich Aten@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      What are you on about? People can already be anonymous on Lemmy. This wouldn’t change that.

      • NightOwl@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes they can, but idea is that actions can be more easily tied to usernames. Sure people can make a bunch of throwaways. But integrating anonymous posts would make that process not even needed with it turning into a feature.