I never argued for tightly controlling information. Let 4chan and EFnet do their thing. But at least allow for people to build platforms that are non-anonymous. There is a cost to anonymity and it is never paid for by the person who is expressing themselves.
Also, a water filtration plant could introduce psychotropic chemicals to placate a populace, so don’t let your guard down!
No one is preventing companies from building platforms that are non-anonymous.
What you argue for is that the government requires them and that society marginalises those who don't use them. And that sounds a lot like your core belief is that a big brother knows best and should control the other kids.
And no, this is not about the government making digital auth easier. I am from europa, i have en eID card with a government issued private key. No one cares, unless there is regulation enforcing it. The demand to link social media to government issued identity is pretty much only coming from the siloviki, the law-and-order types, who talk accountability but want control.
Private companies cannot reliably verify personhood. This is a fundamental role of liberal democratic government.
My core belief is that our concept of individuality resides on a shared framework.
We already require many forms of identification in modern society. It is what allows for trusting interactions with strangers at a distance.
We are currently suffering immensely from unknowable and untrustworthy interactions with strangers at a distance. This is the only way we can currently interact on the internet.
As I point out in the latter of my articles, try to social engineer an employee at the DMV and see how far that gets you! Private companies can be socially engineered because they need to be kind and helpful to their customers. The person behind the counter at the DMV is only trying to move you along as quick as possible because they are in service to the state. In this case, this is a good thing!
It is not only possible for companies, but required for many businesses that actually need that level of trust.
And we would suffer even more if people would shy away from discussing, for example, unions, or politics, because everything they say will be added to their government issued permanent record.
oh and you can hack the DMV with a fax machine, i've seen that on Mr Robot. If it's on TV it can't be fiction, because tv companies verify the identity of people whose stuff they broadcast.
I have never argued for a ban on anonymity. People would still be able to organize for political purposes and in an anonymous manner. It is up to them to pay the price for such an approach to politics.
Others should have the opportunity to not be subjected to your personal political opinions about eschewing any form of non-anonymous communication due to amorphous fears of totalitarianism.
And those businesses that require ID? They require state issued ID. You cannot sell a million dollar company with just your 4chan handle. Due diligence requires a full background check.
We already require state-issued ID for almost everything in a functioning modern society. Yet there is endless fear-mongering about even an optional system that puts the cost of communication on the sender and not solely on the recipient.
People can get extended validation certificates that are strongly authenticated and use that to sign their messages online. As you say: no one is signing b2b contracts using 4chan, they are using DocuSign. The free market already provides this service, no one is preventing it. But you are moving the goal post. Million dollar deals? We started with your demand that people should sign their social media posts and pictures with government PKI and your hope that any content not signed that way is considered an ai fake and trolling and dismissed as irrelevant noise. So don't give me this shit about optionality.
You argue that people should, no that they must, trade the tyranny of anonymity against the tyranny of accountability, for the betterment of humanity. And that is what I argue against. It is the scare of moral degeneracy bred by actual freedom, which you call tyranny, that i argue against. This wish to mold the citizens by fear of social repercussion, this law and order ideology that dwells in the depth of your demand for accountability. You keep repeating the word optional, and i call you out on it, as you made it clear you wish to marginalise those who won't partake. You ask for nationalist governments to provide a single identity throughout social communication, then pretend the obvious issue is an amorphous fear, while we all know who wanted book authors to be authenticated and certified in the age of the printing press. I hope your fascist fantasy fails, that people fight it because they prefer pseudonymity, prefer to have different identities in different contexts, prefer actual choice and opportunity, over being peer pressured into regurgitating acceptable opinions, over being scored on their government issued identity for being in line with party ideology.
Oh and that paddling back and generously allowing some fringes of society where anonymity could still be tolerated, while namedropping the worst hive of scum and villainy? I can do that as well, your utopia is my dystopia, ruled by the ministry of state security, the secret police and home owner associations.
> Others should have the opportunity to not be subjected to your personal political opinions
Also, a water filtration plant could introduce psychotropic chemicals to placate a populace, so don’t let your guard down!
reply