Ok, I know I'm shouting into the wind on this one, but I really dislike 2FA. Like the CCV code on the back of your credit card, it only exists to give the provi

Ok, I know I'm shouting into the wind on this one, but I really dislike 2FA. Like the CCV code on the back of your credit card, it only exists to give the provider a 'get out of jail' free card if your access is comprised. As long as I have a nice strong password, why do I need 2FA? Also, normal people share accounts. This is a known fact. By enforcing 2FA, the provider is preventing the other users of the account access if they don't have the registered phone or yubikey type device with them. Of course this is what they WANT. They absolutely want to force a one person, one account system, so that the data collection for advertising isn't muddled by multiple people using the account. What I would like to see is a separation between the 'logon' and the 'service'. This would be a system where there can be multiple users accessing, say, a shared mailbox. In this way 2FA would not create a barrier for access. Another good example would be a shared Amazon account that is used by a couple. The account is set up to pull payments from a joint bank account, if 2FA was enforced (and I'm sure it's coming to Amazon), then only one of the couple would be able to use it. Generationally, older people are used to joint finances, and they are not all dead yet, but are being forced into a usage model dreamt up by someone who has no appreciation that the one person, one account system is not something that fits everyone. I know my view on this is not in line with the group think on Hacker News, but it's something I feel very strongly about. Providers need to fix the multiple account user problem first, before enforcing 2FA. Before you just think "Disagree!" and vote me down, why not reply with your viewpoint?