Social media platforms should verify every user's identity
Verification is proposed as the cure for abuse and fake news. It also ends anonymity for whistleblowers, survivors and anyone with an unpopular but legal opinion.
An advanced-level session of about 10 minutes. You join 3 other speakers already in the discussion. You get 75 seconds to prepare before it starts.
The cure is usually proposed by people picturing one kind of user and objected to by people picturing another, and unless someone names that, the two halves of the room never actually meet. Verification is a serious answer to abuse and coordinated falsehood, and it is also the end of anonymity for a whistleblower, a survivor, or someone with a legal opinion that is dangerous where they live. Both of those are true at once. The technical layer gives you somewhere concrete to stand: verified to the platform is not the same as displayed publicly, and a group that separates identity from pseudonymity has a real design question to argue about instead of trading absolutes.
Angles worth taking
- Verified to the platform and displayed to the public are different designs. Separate them early.
- Name the specific users each side is picturing; the room is arguing about different people.
- A verification database is a target. Who holds it, and what happens when it leaks?
- Ask what abuse actually falls if this is implemented, since the causal claim is rarely examined.
- India-specific: linking to a government ID raises questions this topic cannot dodge. Raise it.
Ready to speak?
Free to start. You need a TalkDrill account to speak — reading this page does not.
Browse all group discussion topicsThe format
Speakers in the room
You plus 3 other speakers
Preparation time
75 seconds
Modes
Learn (guided) · Mock (exam-real)
How a group discussion session works
Read the situation
You get the topic and the real disagreement behind it — who wants what, and why the obvious answer is not obvious. No hunting for context.
Take your prep time
A short prep clock, the same as a real round. Enough to pick a position and one example. Not enough to write a speech, which is the point.
Get into the discussion
The AI participants open with their own positions and keep going. You enter when you find the gap, name what you are adding, and hold your turn.
Read the report
How much of the discussion was yours, whether you built on others or restarted, your fluency and clarity, and the two things to fix next time.
What you're scored on
A GD panel is not scoring the topic. Across every discussion below, the same four things decide the result, and they are what the report measures.
Contribute real points, build on what others say, and hold your share of the discussion without dominating it.
Content
Whether your points are real — an example, a number, a consequence — or a restatement of the topic in longer words.
Entry and airtime
Whether you got in at all, how often, and whether you held your share without running the whole room.
Listening
Whether you answered what was actually said. Building on someone, or disagreeing with their point specifically, scores far above a prepared line.
Delivery
Pace, clarity and steadiness under interruption — the part that decides whether a good point survives being made.
More group discussion topics
All group discussion topics · Current Affairs topics · All speaking practice