5 ms·

This is from 2019. The author says fake content is going to be too hard to identify so there is only one effective way to stop it, and that is to verify that e

This is from 2019. The author says fake content is going to be too hard to identify so there is only one effective way to stop it, and that is to verify that everyone who posts content is in fact human. And that least to the end of anonymity. " Ultimately, one possibility is that online platforms will begin requiring a verified government ID in order to register. We could even end up living in a world where a kind of “e-passport”, crypto-signed government ID is attached to your every internet connection, and tracked everywhere online."

baremetal 5y ago
not sure how that would stop misuse and abuse on the internet. not like the bad guys are suddenly going to respect the law.
- JauntyHatAngle 5y ago
  That's a rather handwavey statement. The hypothetical presented is essentially a highly regulated walled garden. "Bad guys" would be blocked or cited. If all content is tied to an ID, yes it would work. China has shown that for the most part you can regulate the majority of discourse in an online space if you wall it off to the bit you control. Not sure how this is different. Not that I agree with it. Not a fan of the suggestion myself.
  - mtgx 5y ago
    you're assuming that those IDs can't be forged. Pretty big assumprion. When in history has existed an id or authentication method that couldn't be forged or broken?
  - yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago
    And Facebook has demonstrated that requiring real identities doesn't stop misinformation at all.
    - JauntyHatAngle 5y ago
      The question was bots and controlling discourse, not misinformation.
  - TigeriusKirk 5y ago
    If it's too hard to identify fake content, how do you identify bad guys, even if you know their IDs? What difference does it make what ID is attached to information if you can't identify it as fake? If you can identify it as fake, the whole premise evaporates.
    - piptastic 5y ago
      I don't think the premise evaporates. There's a solvable difference between checking an ID against a database of IDs you control, vs identifying the fakeness of any other piece of random information.
logicalmonster 5y ago
> The author says fake content is going to be too hard to identify so there is only one effective way to stop it I strongly disagree with the author that there's only one effective way to stop misinformation. Remember, the real problem isn't the existence or proliferation of misinformation, which is both incredibly subjective and impossible to prevent without a central source of truth which is fraught with ethical problems. The problem is that many people uncritically believe anything they read, see, or hear. You could solve the actual problem of misinformation tomorrow if there was a concerted societal messaging that said something like the following: "Everything you read online, from any source, may be inaccurate. People with money and power try and manipulate you for even more money and power. Verify everything with multiple sources, consider all possibilities and peoples' motives, and use your brain." This will never happen because powerful people want to have their cake and eat it too: politicians want you to believe all of the words that come out of their mouth, but not trust the naughty "conspiracy theories" about them being insider traders, for instance.
- yissp 5y ago
  I think everybody already knows that you shouldn't trust anonymous, un-sourced information you read online, and I doubt simply reminding them of this would do much good. It's just really hard to constantly be vigilant. Even on this site, I've caught myself casually reading an article or comment and taking the claims at face-value, and then reading a response that actually does cite reputable sources showing it was complete bull-shit.
  - logicalmonster 5y ago
    > everybody already knows that you shouldn't trust anonymous, un-sourced information you read online * Your comment makes no sense in light of the establishment freaking out about "misinformation" online. If everybody already knew what not to trust, then why are they freaking out about misinformation spreading wildly on social media? * You yourself claim that you find yourself believing unsourced claims at face value, so there's a contradiction there too. I thought you already knew what you shouldn't trust. * There is no definitive source of truth that exists. Even if something is sourced by a "verified source", it can be false information, if even just by lying by omission. CNN, Fox News, Snopes, all politicians, and Facebook's fact checkers get things wrong or tell falsehoods. Trusting an "official source" is not a prescription to avoiding misinformation.

baremetal 5y ago

not sure how that would stop misuse and abuse on the internet. not like the bad guys are suddenly going to respect the law.

JauntyHatAngle 5y ago
That's a rather handwavey statement. The hypothetical presented is essentially a highly regulated walled garden. "Bad guys" would be blocked or cited. If all content is tied to an ID, yes it would work. China has shown that for the most part you can regulate the majority of discourse in an online space if you wall it off to the bit you control. Not sure how this is different. Not that I agree with it. Not a fan of the suggestion myself.
- mtgx 5y ago
  you're assuming that those IDs can't be forged. Pretty big assumprion. When in history has existed an id or authentication method that couldn't be forged or broken?
- yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago
  And Facebook has demonstrated that requiring real identities doesn't stop misinformation at all.
  - JauntyHatAngle 5y ago
    The question was bots and controlling discourse, not misinformation.
- TigeriusKirk 5y ago
  If it's too hard to identify fake content, how do you identify bad guys, even if you know their IDs? What difference does it make what ID is attached to information if you can't identify it as fake? If you can identify it as fake, the whole premise evaporates.
  - piptastic 5y ago
    I don't think the premise evaporates. There's a solvable difference between checking an ID against a database of IDs you control, vs identifying the fakeness of any other piece of random information.

logicalmonster 5y ago

> The author says fake content is going to be too hard to identify so there is only one effective way to stop it I strongly disagree with the author that there's only one effective way to stop misinformation. Remember, the real problem isn't the existence or proliferation of misinformation, which is both incredibly subjective and impossible to prevent without a central source of truth which is fraught with ethical problems. The problem is that many people uncritically believe anything they read, see, or hear. You could solve the actual problem of misinformation tomorrow if there was a concerted societal messaging that said something like the following: "Everything you read online, from any source, may be inaccurate. People with money and power try and manipulate you for even more money and power. Verify everything with multiple sources, consider all possibilities and peoples' motives, and use your brain." This will never happen because powerful people want to have their cake and eat it too: politicians want you to believe all of the words that come out of their mouth, but not trust the naughty "conspiracy theories" about them being insider traders, for instance.

yissp 5y ago
I think everybody already knows that you shouldn't trust anonymous, un-sourced information you read online, and I doubt simply reminding them of this would do much good. It's just really hard to constantly be vigilant. Even on this site, I've caught myself casually reading an article or comment and taking the claims at face-value, and then reading a response that actually does cite reputable sources showing it was complete bull-shit.
- logicalmonster 5y ago
  > everybody already knows that you shouldn't trust anonymous, un-sourced information you read online * Your comment makes no sense in light of the establishment freaking out about "misinformation" online. If everybody already knew what not to trust, then why are they freaking out about misinformation spreading wildly on social media? * You yourself claim that you find yourself believing unsourced claims at face value, so there's a contradiction there too. I thought you already knew what you shouldn't trust. * There is no definitive source of truth that exists. Even if something is sourced by a "verified source", it can be false information, if even just by lying by omission. CNN, Fox News, Snopes, all politicians, and Facebook's fact checkers get things wrong or tell falsehoods. Trusting an "official source" is not a prescription to avoiding misinformation.