It wouldn't affect me per se, because I've never used the net to do anything illegal nor socially suicidal (everyone I work with or who knows me in person already know I'm an alien who's fundamental objective is the education and sane-izing of humankind before the species destroys its only planet... which means, I'm hated by all the right people), but the problem would be... I have a very common name.

I've been in medical clinics where doctors mixed up my file with those of others, and I've been accidentally confused with everyone from a local radical who organizes protests for the homeless to a mercenary televangelist...

So... for me... the principal value of a nickname is to maintain a degree of identity.

However, to be fair it should be noted that I live in a part of the world where it's okay to be honest and to speak freely.

If I was living within an oppressive, tyrannical jurisdiction ruled by stupid-greedies who know that they're not bright and that they are under-qualified for the positions of authority that they hold and therefore will always try to make sure that their hired help are stupider than themselves and will follow orders to always be on constant lookout for people who are smarter and could therefore overthrow them (as if somebody smarter would want their job), then yeah, I'd probably feel a need to be more anonymous...

But... I'm living in one of those places where guys in their teens got shot in wars to defend an individual's right to communicate freely, and so, bloody hell, I'm *using* that right thank you very much!!! (I always get like this close to Armistice Day).

In terms of how would it change the Internet?

Well... it would force internet users back to the condition of when people in some parts of the world could be broadcasters, and people in other parts of the world would be listeners, and you wouldn't have things like Iranian young adults organizing protests with Twitter, but because it would only be those with the right to communicate freely doing all the talking, they would be setting the tone of the global dialog, to the extent that eventually everyone not allowed to join in would get ticked off and would protest and overthrow their governments so they can start talking with others on the net with their real names...

Also, if everyone used their real identity on the net, and took advantage of the net to say what they really think because they can't get punched through a wire, then maybe people would get used to that fact that different people have different attitudes that are not necessarily toxic, so that eventually they'll stop judging each other about things that don't matter, like sexual orientation or whether you're into Asian women or whatever, and start working together to achieve stuff that *does* matter, like growing food and building shelter in a sustainable ecology, without everyone feeling like they have to hide their true selves in a state of conformism in to achieve social order...

In other words... if people will stop judging each other about stuff that doesn't matter, then their individual peccadilloes can't be used against them by evil forces.

How many times has someone had something good or important to say, but they got shut up by evil forces because they were gay? If we all just say, "I don't care if he's gay... I want to hear what he's found out", then that takes power away from evil.

So, whereas most people are almost sure to think that de-anonymization of the net would constitute too much of invasion of privacy, ironically, it might be that in the long run de-anonymization could lead to an accelerated rate of people demanding a right to speak freely without retribution from their governments, and demands for their neighbors and friends and employers to stop judging individuals on the basis of stuff that doesn't matter so we can focus on the stuff that *does* matter.

The only reason people hide behind nicknames and aliases is because evil forces look for ways to fool friends and strangers into thinking that there's something wrong with you being who you are.

It's reminding me of a situation a friend of mine faced when she was working as a groom at a race-track. She and the other grooms had to be up at 4:00 in morning, seven days a week during race season to get the horses ready, and track announced that they were going to start a drug-testing policy.

The grooms banded together and said to management, "Go ahead, but we all take uppers, and we all smoke joints to relate to the beasts, and we all do lines if that's what will keep us going all day every day seven days a week, so what are you going to do about it?"

Management backed off, and figured out a different way to maintain the tracks insurance.

The notion of being forced to de-anonymize might sound horrible at first, but maybe, just maybe, it would force people to stop judging each other about personal characteristics that don't matter, and to focus instead on the things that do.

What matters more? A politician's personal sex life, or his legislations? Maybe forced de-anonymization would force people to stop thinking that the politician's personal sex life is what matters, so they can focus on what *does* matter, which is his policies.

In any case, for me and my common name, nicknames are handy for maintaining some identity.

Since I really don't go anywhere that I would be uncomfortable to be seen or recognized as having visited, I wouldn't change anything.