4 ms·

Or just a lack of advertising of explicit social need. Like, Aunt Betty who's 56 and lives with her cats doesn't need to be on the same network as half the plan

Or just a lack of advertising of explicit social need. Like, Aunt Betty who's 56 and lives with her cats doesn't need to be on the same network as half the planet and posting daily. Facebook did try to do a "True Names" policy, but it was too little too late. I think a gov't issued id for a permanent login would have (will?) be great. Ya want to be anonymous? Sure. Here's a pseudononimous id that only courts can track back to your real id. Want another one? Sure, that'll be 100$ a year (taxes that go directly to server costs). Want another one? Sure, every additional id costs 10x as much as the last.

giantg2 6y ago
I think anytime you're getting the government involved to that degree you run the risk of it getting messed up even further, especially if the politicians realize they now have the keys to give themselves political advantage through information censorship, fraudulent accounts, etc.
- kleer001 6y ago
  I'm thinking more like a library card or a driver's license. AFAIK those don't tend to be abused by any level of gov't.
  - giantg2 6y ago
    Oh yeah? Haven't there been complaints about immigration enforcement pertaining to drivers licenses? Not to mention that driving infractions are basically a racket - it costs more to defend your innocence than to just pay the fine. In some states the magistrates hearing the cases aren't even members of the bar and lack basic understanding of legal principles. They've used library records to see if people have checked out books containing specific information when doing investigations, I think without a warrant. I think I've heard of people accumulating massive late fees multiple times the cost of a replacement book without adequate notification. In both examples, you are paying for a privilege. Should people need to pay to exercise their rights, like freedom of speech? We do tax some rights already, so I guess we could tax people to express their ideas online too. I also think the control of people's speech is more politically valuable than controlling access to libraries or drivers licenses.
    - kleer001 6y ago
      more like, not "exactly like" Familiar with the story of The Ring of Gyges? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_of_Gyges https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_of_Gyges This is the danger of anonymity that we're seeing blossom online. Sure there's no immediate property damage on the line, but it's a small cumulative effect, giving people anonymous voices. What's the balance? I don't know, but laisez faire isn't cutting it.
    - kleer001 6y ago
      ... yes, any system can be corrupted. We have to look at good faith use of a system to properly evaluate it in a cost benefit analysis. Then, harden it against attack. Also, it's "freedom of speech", not "freedom of anonymous speech". The essential part of the "My freedom to swing my fist ends at your nose." is that the fist and the nose are connected to actual people. Feel free to punch away at twitter bot farms. They're not people.

giantg2 6y ago

I think anytime you're getting the government involved to that degree you run the risk of it getting messed up even further, especially if the politicians realize they now have the keys to give themselves political advantage through information censorship, fraudulent accounts, etc.

kleer001 6y ago
I'm thinking more like a library card or a driver's license. AFAIK those don't tend to be abused by any level of gov't.
- giantg2 6y ago
  Oh yeah? Haven't there been complaints about immigration enforcement pertaining to drivers licenses? Not to mention that driving infractions are basically a racket - it costs more to defend your innocence than to just pay the fine. In some states the magistrates hearing the cases aren't even members of the bar and lack basic understanding of legal principles. They've used library records to see if people have checked out books containing specific information when doing investigations, I think without a warrant. I think I've heard of people accumulating massive late fees multiple times the cost of a replacement book without adequate notification. In both examples, you are paying for a privilege. Should people need to pay to exercise their rights, like freedom of speech? We do tax some rights already, so I guess we could tax people to express their ideas online too. I also think the control of people's speech is more politically valuable than controlling access to libraries or drivers licenses.
  - kleer001 6y ago
    more like, not "exactly like" Familiar with the story of The Ring of Gyges? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_of_Gyges https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_of_Gyges This is the danger of anonymity that we're seeing blossom online. Sure there's no immediate property damage on the line, but it's a small cumulative effect, giving people anonymous voices. What's the balance? I don't know, but laisez faire isn't cutting it.
  - kleer001 6y ago
    ... yes, any system can be corrupted. We have to look at good faith use of a system to properly evaluate it in a cost benefit analysis. Then, harden it against attack. Also, it's "freedom of speech", not "freedom of anonymous speech". The essential part of the "My freedom to swing my fist ends at your nose." is that the fist and the nose are connected to actual people. Feel free to punch away at twitter bot farms. They're not people.