User authentication = user takes responsibility

The argument

User authentication would occur at state-level (via for instance an eletronic ID mechanism). User would still be allowed to use a nickname on the social network to guarantee his/her privacy; however in case of misconduct, illegal behaviour or report of an abuse the authority can easily trace back his/her identity

Premises

Counter-arguments

An identity mechanism has some legal hurdles to his/her implementation. Social network are multi-national entities, for a state it might impossible to impose a restriction o a company which outside its jurisdiction The mechanism might impose an unnecessary over-head. Alternative methods such as ISP tracking allows a law enforcement agency to trace back the originating computer or user. The mechanism might expose the victim of an abuse. Leaks or hacking may cause victin's identity known to the attacker.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The link between anonymity and abuse is weaker than assumed. A great deal of harassment happens under real names on platforms that require them, and studies of comment systems that removed anonymity have found mixed effects on incivility. [Rejecting P2] The premise treats the separation of public pseudonym from state-held identity as secure. What it creates is a register linking speech to legal identity — a target for breach and a lever for any government wishing to identify its critics. The same mechanism that unmasks a troll unmasks a whistleblower, a domestic abuse survivor or a dissident. [Rejecting C] Feasibility is left unaddressed. Platforms are multinational and largely beyond any single state's jurisdiction, existing routes such as service-provider records already allow tracing in criminal cases, and determined bad actors have ready workarounds — leaving the overhead on ordinary users.