The need for "Identity Confirmation" with a phone number is aburd.

Claim 1: How does a populace form consensus in your world? I simply cannot imagine debate not being included, except among maybe a completely homogeneous population. We are not ants, opinions differ even with the same dataset, debate is required. I pointed this out to show how important debate itself is, and its relevance to human and civil liberties. It may not appear immediately relevant to you but given the flavor of your wholly anticipated responses, the relevance will soon become apparent. Claim 2: A heavy hand is only "needed" if we agree on the purpose of voting, and if no viable alternatives exist. We do not, and there are viable alternatives. I don't care how many ballot slips a person can fit in the box. As noted above debate is part any valid democratic process. Voter anonymity is paramount with regard to accuracy. Claim 3: Explain to me the purpose of confidential sources. This is so basic its hard for me to demonstrate. It's almost axiomatic. Whistle blowers. You act as if fear of reprisal is a non-issue. I agree that should be the case, but sadly it is not. In a world where kids get set on fire over World of Warcraft, and the defense of our personal information is attacked by both government power madness and corporate greed, anonymity is the only real defense left. Claim 4: As above, the ethic is related to freeness of speech. Already you've proven my point by trying to muddy the issue with the appeal to the people coupled with some attempt to personally humiliate me into silence. If you care so little for anonymity I would like you to post your name, address, and phone numbers for us. No? Thought not. You confuse political debates with public debate. I'm not talking about rhetoric, I'm talking about logic. A point is valid or invalid regardless of who it comes from. Claim 5: It manipulates the general demographic of voters by insuring that only those with cell phones get a say. And that's in addition to the general consequences of stripping away anonymity. Soon the site will degenerate into a parade of "experts" and life experience comparisons. Identity control is data control, as Silence Dogood could readily explain. You act as if people need to be told when a vote has been altered. I have more faith in them, despite the Bush fiasco which is more a symptom of apathy in my view than ignorance. Besides, the vote doesn't matter to an informed reader. These votes accomplish nothing, its merely a popularity issue. Claim 6: Just because people waive that right commonly, does not mean it does not exist. Many people don't leave their homes at all, and I am perfectly within my rights if I choose to leave the house in full disguise and use an alias. Most certainly people passing me on the street don't get my cell phone number. Claim 7: My first amendment rights are centered on freedom of "speech" which has time and again been legally defined as a form of expression, from t-shirts to blog posts. As explained above, forcing me to present identification before I am allowed to speak, is an infringement on that right. Only in the most extreme cases is this countermanded, such as inciting other to commit violent crime or threats of violence. Claim 8: My rights end when they begin to infringe on another's. Show me where the first amendment says freedom of speech except words arbitrarily defined as profane. This behavior while common is not on the most stable of ethical ground. We are still struggling with our puritanical roots. Further, they, nor anyone but me own my words. To bring up the EULA expresses a defacto defense of my point. What you are saying is that this behavior is justified, and in order to do that you therefor admit this behavior of speech infringement exists. Thanks for the help. Claim 9: and what happens when the discussion begins to affect other? What happens when the administration of this farce deem me a rabble rouser? The moment they perceive me as a threat to their profit margin, is the moment the jack boots slip on. I've had my debates deleted by these people before, Rest assured, the only thing you'll see here is toothless meaningless intellectual "self abuse". (that's self abuse in the Victorian sense, to avoid using a word which may be construed as "profane." Claim 10: One, the only reason they have even a tenuous right to demand such invasive measures is because as you already stated they own this site, domain, and under current property law, which I choose not to honor where appropriate, my very words. Two, the innovation that is being destroyed is nothing less than the open development of a system which could foster general peer reviewed debate amongst the populations of the earth. Are you really unable to envision the power of global, affordable, and accessible, communication? Trust me, its chief use is not to fill "WebCorp's" pockets. Claim 11: If its so "irrelevant" then don't respond. But since you did... Paid who? What gives them the right? I suppose the white settles who traded a hand full of beads for the east coast were perfectly in their rights as well. This may come as a shock to my fellow westerner, but not all things can or should be bought and sold. Final words: The voting system was broken not because of a lack of Orwellian identification measures, but because people were harshly limited in what they were voting for. The new choice system shows great promise, but so long as it sits behind a wall of personal invasion, it is fundamentally useless. As an old hat at tech support once said... "Don't shotgun fix it." Which means don't try multiple solutions at the same time to a single problem, as often times one will solve the problem and the other will create a new one. Such is the case here. I leave you with a quote that expresses my general feeling quite well. "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." - Max Planck I already know I can't convince anyone. These debates amount to polls. At best I'll get rated on my form.