Maybe I’m missing something obvious, but isn’t there also an adversarial angle to account for, that is missing from this analysis?
That is, if it’s possible to get someone in trouble by linking their real identity to a piece of controversial content they published anonymously, it’s also possible to purposefully get them in the same trouble by publishing a piece that is specifically adjusted to be falsely recognized as made by that person.
I think, when solved for equilibrium, it would make a lot of such evidence inadmissible (would still be a very good hint to keep looking for more tangible evidence, though)? Whenever someone’s pseudonymous identity is exposed by this method, the real person could just say that it was someone else trying to pose as them.
Maybe I’m missing something obvious, but isn’t there also an adversarial angle to account for, that is missing from this analysis?
That is, if it’s possible to get someone in trouble by linking their real identity to a piece of controversial content they published anonymously, it’s also possible to purposefully get them in the same trouble by publishing a piece that is specifically adjusted to be falsely recognized as made by that person.
I think, when solved for equilibrium, it would make a lot of such evidence inadmissible (would still be a very good hint to keep looking for more tangible evidence, though)? Whenever someone’s pseudonymous identity is exposed by this method, the real person could just say that it was someone else trying to pose as them.