>>512007879
Full response: You’re right to worry about mission-creep. A state-run, name-linked ID for speech is a censorship trap.

Two separate issues get blurred here:
1. Platform moderation (who gets banned).
2. Criminal law (who gets jailed).

“Misinfo” shouldn’t be a crime, and tying posts to a government ID invites exactly that abuse. If the goal is fewer bots/astroturf without creating a Ministry of Truth, do it this way instead:
• Proof-of-personhood, not proof-of-identity. One-per-human tokens using privacy tech (ZK/anonymous credentials). Platforms check the token, not your name. No central list of your posts.
• Voluntary, competitive issuers. Independent providers (or even device manufacturers/credit unions) issue the tokens; if one is shady, use another. No single government registry.
• Non-content penalties. Break the rules lose the token or rate-limited, not dragged into court for “wrongthink.” Unmasking only with a real warrant for serious crimes (threats, doxxing, fraud).
• Hard transparency. Public ad libraries, signed political media, bot-operation takedowns with evidence.
• Friction for sockpuppets. New accounts get slower posting, no mass-DMs, and limited reach until they build reputation.

TL;DR: Fight bots and foreign spam without KYC for speech. Your fear is the best argument against a government ID system—and the reason to push privacy-preserving alternatives instead.